May Massachusetts Worker Tell Jury He Will Have to Repay Employer's Workers' Compensation Outlay?
Here's What Happened
Having fallen and sustained injuries during an oil delivery, McNally sued the owner of the oil tank for negligence and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. At trial, McNally sought to introduce evidence that he had received workers' compensation benefits as a result of the accident and that he would have to repay the amounts to the employer or carrier.
The defendant objected to the introduction of this evidence. After a bench conference, the trial judge ruled that the fact that the plaintiff would have to repay the workers' compensation and health insurance benefits would be admitted for the sole purpose of informing the jury that the plaintiff would not receive double recovery, but that in light of defense counsel's concerns about the correctness of the actual dollar amount of the benefits and the effect of this information on the jury, the dollar amount of these benefits would not be admissible. After a jury verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $ 1,025,000, the defendant appealed, claiming evidentiary errors.
Here's What The Court Decided:
The court added that even if the issue were properly before the appellate court, the defendant still would not prevail. The court observed that the "collateral-source rule" was based, at least in part, on the concern that jurors might be led by the irrelevancy of insurance coverage to consider plaintiffs' claims unimportant or trivial or to refuse plaintiffs' verdicts or reduce them, believing that otherwise there would be unjust double recovery. The appellate court indicated that the trial judge had acted with this concern in mind and, by limiting the evidence to be admitted, avoided possible prejudicial effect. (workersxzcompxzkit)
The appellate court concluded that the jury heard evidence that the McNally sustained serious injuries, underwent several surgeries and continued to experience pain, and that his functioning was limited and he would be unable to resume his job as an oil delivery driver. Moreover, the evidence suggested that at the time of trial, McNally's medical bills were $ 111,326 and his lost wages were $ 286,836.74, that he was fifty years old and if he were able to work at his job for another fifteen years, he would have earned more than $ 1,215,000. The appellate court indicated that based on this evidence, the verdict of $ 1,025,000 was fair and reasonable.
See generally Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, § 110.01, 110.02.
Tom Robinson, J.D. is the primary upkeep writer for Larson's Workers' Compensation Law (LexisNexis) and Larson's Workers' Compensation, Desk Edition (LexisNexis). He is a contributing writer for California Compensation Cases (LexisNexis) and Benefits Review Board – Longshore Reporter(LexisNexis), and is a contributing author to New York Workers' Compensation Handbook(LexisNexis). Robinson is an authority in the area of workers' compensation and we are happy to have him as a Guest Contributor to Workers' Comp Kit Blog. Tom can be reached at: [email protected]. http://law.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/Workers-Compensation
Podcast/Webcast: How To Prevent Fraudulent Workers' Compensation Claims Click Here: http://www.workerscompkit.com/gallagher/podcast/Fraudulent_Workers_Compensation_Claims/index.php
FREE WC IQ Test: http://www.workerscompkit.com/intro/
WC Calculator: http://www.reduceyourworkerscomp.com/calculator.php
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers' comp issues.
©2009 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact [email protected]
