HomeMy WebLinkAbout91-3819 Civil EDGAR A. FREED, JR., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:
MERLE D. SAGER, SR., :
Defendant : NO. 3819 CIVIL 1991
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
BEFORE OLER, J.
ORDER OF COURT
Oler, J.
For disposition at this time is a motion made by Defendant at
a pretrial conference on June 1, 1994, to preclude Plaintiff from
introducing evidence of his first $5,000 in medical bills. For the
reasons stated in this Opinion, the motion will be granted.
This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident occurring in
October of 1990, when Defendant allegedly made a left turn in front
of Plaintiff. Defendant concedes negligence, and does not argue
that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Damages, if any,
resulting from the accident are in dispute.
Plaintiff's vehicle, which he owned, was uninsured, and his
medical bills remain unpaid. Defendant's motion to preclude
evidence of Plaintiff's first $5,000 in medical bills is based on
the following provision of the Motor Vehicle Responsibility Law:
In any action for damages against a
tortfeasor, or in any uninsured or
underinsured motorist proceeding, arising out
of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle,
a person who is eligible to receive benefits
under the coverages set forth in this
subchapter, or workers' compensation, or any
program, group contract or other arrangement
for payment of benefits as defined in section
1719 (relating to coordination of benefits)
shall be precluded from recovering the amount
EDGAR A. FREED, JR., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:
MERLE D. SAGER, SR., :
Defendant : NO. 3819 CIVIL 1991
IN RE: DEFENDANT,S MOTION IN LIMINE
BEFORE OL~R, j.
QRDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~ day of June, 1994, Defendant,s motion in
limine to preclude Plaintiff from introducing evidence of his first
$5,000 in medical bills is GRANTED. Nothing in this ruling is
intended to constrain the trial judge with respect to any
instruction to the jury on the subject of medical expenses.
BY THE COURT,
~We~ley 01~ Jr~, ,
David W. Knauer, Esq.
41lA East Main Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Attorney for Plaintiff
John A. Statler, Esq.
320-E Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Attorney for Defendant
: re
EDGAR A. FREED, JR.,
Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MERLE D. SAGER, SR.,
Defendant :
: NO. 3819 CIVIL 1991
IN RE: DEFENDANT,S MOTION IN LIMINE
B~EFORE OLER, j.
QRDER OF COURT
Oler, j.
For disposition at this time is a motion made by Defendant at
a pretrial conference on June 1, 1994, to preclude Plaintiff from
introducing evidence of his first $5,000 in medical bills. For the
reasons stated in this Opinion, the motion will be granted.
This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident occurring in
October of 1990, when Defendant allegedly made a left turn in front
of Plaintiff. Defendant concedes negligence, and does not argue
that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Damages, if any,
resulting from the accident are in dispute.
Plaintiff,s vehicle, which he owned, was uninsured, and his
medical bills remain unpaid. Defendant,s motion to preclude
evidence of Plaintiff,s first $5,000 in medical bills is based on
the following provision of the Motor Vehicle Responsibility Law:
In any action for damages against a
tortfeasor, or in any uninsured or
underinsured motorist proceeding, arising out
of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle,
a person who is eligible to receive benefits
under the coverages set forth in this
subchapter, or workers, compensation, or any
program, group contract or other arrangement
for payment of benefits as defined in section
1719 (relating to coordination of benefits)
shall be precluded from recovering the amount
No. 3819 Civil 1991
of benefits paid or payable under this
subchapter, or workers, compensation, or any
program, group contract or other arrangement
for payment of benefits as defined in section
1719.
Act of February 7, 1990, P.L. 11, S3, 75 Pa. C.S. S1722 (1994
Supp.) (emphasis added).
Plaintiff,s argument against the motion points out that the
above-quoted provision represents a change from prior law, which
provided as follows:
In any action for damages against a
tortfeasor arising out of the maintenance or
~_~{ a motor vehicle, a hereon
required benefits, .. 1711 (relating
forth in section 17~%,~..tge coverage set
~;{~.l) (relating to
availability of adequate limits) shall be
precluded from pleading, introducing into
evidence or recovering th~ amount of benefits
~ald or ~ayable under s ''
amount of benefit_ ~ ~ ~p±les only to
~u~ seu ~or<~ in sections
1711 and 1715(a)(1.1).
See Act of February 12, 1984, P.L. 26, ~3, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S.
1722 (1994 Supp.) (historical note), (emphasis added), repealed,
Act of February 7, 1990, P.L. 11, ~1. It is suggested by
Plaintiff that the deletion of the words pleading [or i ·
into evidence.. ~ .... ] ntroduclng -~-, une scope of the present legislative
proscription suggests an intent of the General Assembly to permit
such pleading and introduction.
The Superior Court, however, has recently held that in the
context of medical expenses the statutory revision did not signal
2
No. 3819 Civil 1991
a major change. In affirming a lower court's exclusion of medical
bills from trial pursuant to the new version of the statute, the
Court noted that "the fact that a particular amount of money was
expended to treat an injury bears no logical correlation to the
degree of pain and suffering which accompanied the injury to the
plaintiff .... . Carlson v. Bubash, ----_ Pa. Super. ----_, ----, 639
A.2d 458, 462, (1994) quoting Martin v. Soblotney, 502 Pa. 418,
423, 466 A.2d 1022, 1025 (1983).
For this reason, the following Order will be entered:
QRDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~day of June, 1994, Defendant,s motion in
limine to preclude Plaintiff from introducing evidence of his first
$5,000 in medical bills is GRANTED. Nothing in this ruling is
intended to constrain the trial judge with respect to any
instruction to the jury on the subject of medical expenses.
BY THE COURT,
David W. Knauer, Esq. Wesley Oler, Jr., j.
41lA East Main Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Attorney for Plaintiff
John A. Statler, Esq.
320-E Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Attorney for Defendant