Dubina v. Boyd

Norfolk County Circuit Court

Dubina v. Boyd

47 Va. Cir. 537, 1999 Va. Cir. LEXIS 5

CourtNorfolk County Circuit Court

DecidedJanuary 13, 1999

DocketCase No. (Law) L97-2659

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 47 Va. Cir. 537 (Dubina v. Boyd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Norfolk County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dubina v. Boyd, 47 Va. Cir. 537, 1999 Va. Cir. LEXIS 5 (Va. Super. Ct. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

By Judge Jerome James

This matter came before the court on defendant, Victoria A. Burke’s, by counsel, Motion in Limine to exclude the introduction at trial of any portion of die plaintiffs medical bills or expenses, which were, are, or will be “written off,” “discounted,” or “adjusted” and on plaintiff, Mary E. Dubina’s, by counsel, objection to this motion. Both counsel submitted extensive memorandum and documents in support of their respective arguments and agreed to allow the court to make its ruling based on their submittals.

After having carefully and thoroughly reviewed the submittals of counsel and the applicable statutory and case law, I have determined that the resolution of the issues presented in this motion is governed by the collateral source rule, which provides that a tortfeasor (defendant) should not be permitted to benefit directly or indirectly from the injured person’s (plaintiffs) collateral benefits, i.e., insurance. Obviously, this language is broad enough in scope and application to include any benefits derived from an agreement or arrangement made between the plaintiffs insurance company and her health care provider. Therefore, any portion of the plaintiffs medical bills or expenses which were, are, or will be “written off,” “discounted,” or “adjusted” pursuant to the aforesaid agreement or arrangement are subject to the collateral source rule.

For the reasons stated in this letter, Defendant’s Motion in Limine is overruled and her exception is duly noted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By Judge Jerome James

This matter came before the court on defendant, Victoria A. Burke’s, by counsel, Motion in Limine to exclude the introduction at trial of any portion of die plaintiffs medical bills or expenses, which were, are, or will be “written off,” “discounted,” or “adjusted” and on plaintiff, Mary E. Dubina’s, by counsel, objection to this motion. Both counsel submitted extensive memorandum and documents in support of their respective arguments and agreed to allow the court to make its ruling based on their submittals.

After having carefully and thoroughly reviewed the submittals of counsel and the applicable statutory and case law, I have determined that the resolution of the issues presented in this motion is governed by the collateral source rule, which provides that a tortfeasor (defendant) should not be permitted to benefit directly or indirectly from the injured person’s (plaintiffs) collateral benefits, i.e., insurance. Obviously, this language is broad enough in scope and application to include any benefits derived from an agreement or arrangement made between the plaintiffs insurance company and her health care provider. Therefore, any portion of the plaintiffs medical bills or expenses which were, are, or will be “written off,” “discounted,” or “adjusted” pursuant to the aforesaid agreement or arrangement are subject to the collateral source rule.

For the reasons stated in this letter, Defendant’s Motion in Limine is overruled and her exception is duly noted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 Va. Cir. 537, 1999 Va. Cir. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dubina-v-boyd-vaccnorfolk-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack