Spain Mexico
Philadelphia, PA Cherry Hill, NJ New York, NY State College, PA 1-866-LOCKSLAW
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Locks Law Firm
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Get Started
  • No win, no fee
  • Free consultation
  • Home
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ
  • Practice Areas
  • Practice Areas
    • All Practice Areas
    • Medical Malpractice and Nursing Home Abuse
    • Environmental and Toxic Torts
    • Catastrophic Personal Injuries
    • Dangerous Drugs & Devices
  • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Get Started
  • Spain Mexico   Spanish
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ

    One of the most prominent personal injury law firms in the tri-state region, the Locks Law Firm is steadfastly committed to protecting the rights of seriously injured victims.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Medical Malpractice and Nursing Home Abuse
    • Nursing Home Abuse and Neglect
    • Hospital Acquired Infections
    • Medication Errors
    • Misdiagnosis / Failure to Diagnose
    • Surgical Errors
    • Needle Stick - CRPS

    Medical malpractice is any act by a health care provider that deviates from accepted standards of medical care and results in the personal injury, disability, or wrongful death of a patient. Nursing home abuse or negligence can take many forms. It can include physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, neglect, negligent care, and even financial exploitation.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Environmental and Toxic Torts
    • Asbestos and Mesothelioma
    • Benzene
    • Chemical Exposure
    • Manganese Exposure
    • Natural Resource Damages
    • Toxic Injuries
    • Workplace Exposure
    • Dacthal Herbicide Ban
    • PERC Exposure
    • Paraquat

    Exposure to toxic chemicals in the workplace or environment can cause serious, sometimes fatal health problems, including cancer.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Catastrophic Personal Injuries
    • Premises Liability
    • Burns and Chemical Burns
    • Traumatic Brain Injuries
    • Spinal Cord Injuries
    • Wrongful Death

    Catastrophic personal injuries include brain and spinal cord injuries, severe burns, carbon monoxide poisoning and, most seriously, death.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Dangerous Drugs & Devices
    • Allergan Breast Implant Recall
    • Hernia Mesh
    • IVC Filters
    • NEC Baby Formula

    At the Locks Law Firm, our pharmaceutical litigation and defective drug lawyers are committed to serving personal injury victims and are well versed in the product liability laws that protect consumers.

    Free Case Evaluation

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

(215) 893-0100

Cherry Hill, NJ

(856) 663-8200

New York, NY

(212) 838-3333

State College, PA

844-777-2529

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

The Curtis Center
Suite 720 East
601 Walnut Street

Cherry Hill, NJ

801 North Kings Highway

New York, NY

675 Third Avenue | 8th Floor

State College, PA

1376 Haymaker Road

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

[email protected]

Cherry Hill, NJ

[email protected]

New York, NY

[email protected]

State College, PA

[email protected]

Blog

Affordable Care Act and Future Medical Expenses

I recently participated in a Continuing Legal Education program organized by the New York State Trial Lawyers Institute entitled “Affordable Care Act and Future Medicals”.  From its adoption, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), also known as Obamacare, has been and continues to be politically controversial, particularly so in the run up to the 2016 Presidential Election, with most Republican candidates vowing to dismantle it if elected, Hilary Clinton promising to expand on the programs put into place under Obamacare, and Bernie Sanders looking to create universal healthcare coverage by expanding the Medicare program.  The ACA is no stranger to the legal system, being the subject of a landmark 2012 Supreme Court decision in which the constitutionality of the individual mandate and its corresponding tax was upheld.

Not surprisingly, Obamacare has found its way into the legal arena again, but this time as it relates to personal injury cases and Plaintiffs’ rights to recover for the cost of future medical care.  Defendants around the country are beginning to present arguments to courts that they should not be held accountable for future medical damages, as Plaintiffs are entitled to purchase a policy of insurance under the ACA that pays for such care.  Aside from the argument that a negligent party should not be excused from its responsibility by reliance on the subsidized coverage of the ACA, there are several other reasons why courts should reject Defendants’ efforts to limit their liability for future medical expenses by relying on the ACA.

The future of Obamacare is uncertain, and it is likely following the next presidential election that Obamacare may not exist at all, or may exist in a very different format.  Plans that are available for purchase on the exchange currently may not be available in the future.  Plans may not cover certain elements of care that a Plaintiff may require, and even if plans currently do cover certain care, there is no guarantee that they will in the future.  Although the ACA includes an annual out-of-pocket limit, this limit relates only to essential services provided by in-network providers in a participant’s own plan and is not a guarantee that the cost of future care required will be capped at that out-of-pocket limit.  The essential benefits mandated to be covered by the ACA are vague and it is left to the states to complete the details.  If a plaintiff switches plans or moves to a different state, his or her coverage might be affected.  In addition, although Obamacare provided health care coverage to millions of individuals not previously insured, certain categories of individuals are not required to purchase a plan under the ACA.  Many have chosen to opt out of purchasing health care coverage because the option of paying an annual tax is less expensive than the option of purchasing a plan.  Additionally burdening a jury with complicated evidence regarding the ACA, the plaintiff’s right (or obligation) to purchase a plan, the types and cost of available plans, what elements of the Plaintiff’s future care each plan would cover, etc., will lead to lengthier and more expensive trials and will ultimately prejudice the Plaintiff.

Courts around the country have begun to grapple with this argument.  In New York, my partner, Andrew Dupont and I recently addressed this issue in a case involving significant future medical expenses where the Plaintiff was a Medicare recipient. Defendants notified us of their intent to call an expert witness to present evidence to the jury that our client should not obtain damages for future medical treatment because he could purchase a health insurance plan under the ACA, an argument which was incorrect on its face since our client, as a Medicare recipient, was not entitled to purchase an ACA plan.  We filed a motion to preclude such evidence and the trial judge barred the expert from testifying on the basis that evidence of insurance coverage under New York law is prejudicial and should not be introduced to a jury.

However, in the future, we should be expecting that Defendants will be looking to rely on testimony in post-trial collateral source hearings to reduce their obligation to pay those portions of jury verdicts that compensate for future medical expenses.  Although the common law dictates that juries should not take into account payments from collateral sources to cover damages, such as health insurance payments, the New York legislature enacted CPLR 4545, an exception to the common law collateral source rule, which allows Defendants to obtain a reduction in damages for future medical expenses in personal injury cases “where a future cost or expense will…, with reasonable certainty, be replaced or indemnified…from any collateral source, except for those payments…for which there is a statutory right of reimbursement.”  As discussed above, it is impossible to say “with reasonable certainty” that a Plaintiff will be entitled to have all of the cost of his or her future medical care covered by a policy of insurance under the ACA.  Further, the ACA is currently silent as it relates to subrogation rights, and there is a possibility in the future that health insurance companies who issue ACA policies may be entitled to seek reimbursement for its expenditure, similar to Medicare and Medicaid.

Defendants have long sought ways to shift their responsibility for paying for damages for their culpable conduct, including through lobbying efforts for caps on damages, etc.  This is one more potential weapon in their arsenal that we as attorneys representing the rights of injured victims need to be aware of and need to be prepared to fight.

Janet Walsh

Guest Author
February 11, 2016 Janet Walsh

Tell Us About Your Case

If you can read this, please avoid filling the following input field or your submission may be marked as spam.
Thank you for contacting us! We will be in touch with you shortly.
Uh oh. There was a problem processing your request. Please try again!
Previous Entry

Locks Law Attorneys Mentor GAMP Students

Next Entry

Locks Law Firm Apponted to Yapstone Data Breach Plaintiff’s Executive Committee

Recent Entries

  • IARC’s Latest Evaluation: Automotive Gasoline Causes Cancer
  • How Personal Technology Can Help You Navigate Legal Matters
  • Seeking Justice: Locks Law Firm Represents Victims of Northeast Philadelphia Plane Crash
  • "Judicial Hellhole"
  • Dacthal Pesticide Ban: EPA Falls Short Again, Inaction Fails to Protect the Unborn 

Archive

  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • December 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • January 2023
  • August 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • February 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • September 2011
  • January 2011
  • November 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
1-866-LOCKSLAW
[email protected]
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn YouTube
2021 Best Lawyers
Martindale-Hubble Award Ten Leaders

Copyright © 2025 Locks Law Firm. Made by Mindlark.

Locks Law Firm only provides legal advice after having entered into an attorney client relationship, which our website specifically does not create. Conversations that originate from website messaging, chat or other two way web based engagement  do not create an attorney client relationship. It is imperative that any action taken be done on the advice of counsel. Because every case is different, the description of awards and cases previously handled do not guarantee a similar outcome in current or future cases. The firm practices law in Pennsylvania, New Jersey & New York as Locks Law Firm. Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America and other organizations that rate attorneys are not designations that have been approved by the State Supreme Courts or the American Bar Association.