In its first precedential Opinion, the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Farese v. Robinson, 2019 Pa. Super. 336 (Nov. 8, 2019) addressed the issue of whether a claim for future medical expenses in an automobile accident case must be reduced in accordance with the cost containment provisions under Act VI (75 Pa.C.S.A. Section 1797) of Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL).
In the underlying motor vehicle accident case, the jury entered a verdict in excess of $2.5 million dollars, of which $900,000 was awarded for future medical expenses. On appeal, Defendants argued to the Superior Court that the Trial Court erroneously failed to reduce the amounts of the allege future medical bills as required by the cost containment provision of the MVFRL, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1797.
Finding that there were no precedential decisions on the issue, the Superior Court referred to multiple non-precedential decisions:
DeOrio v. Juliano, No. 530 EDA 2006, unpublished memorandum at 18 (Pa. Super. filed October 5, 2007) (holding that the trial court did not err in permitting expert testimony on estimated future medical expenses in a personal injury case without reduction for the cost containment provision set forth in Section 1797);
Walters v. Zumstein, Inc., No. 4:07-CV-0358, 2008 WL 11370033 (M.D. Pa. filed September 10, 2008) (holding that plaintiff should not be precluded from recovering future medical bills in the future as the payment of future medical benefits are purely speculative and do not fall within the scope of . . . § 1797), and
Kansky v. Showman, No. 3:09-CV-1863, 2011 WL 1362245, at *5 (M.D. Pa. filed April 11, 2011) (finding that because “insurance benefits are not necessarily due and owing at this time and nothing could compel the insurer to pay a lump sum for future expenses, plaintiffs future medical bills are not “payable” under Section 1797”).
Based upon the Court’s review of the non-precedential decisions in DeOrio, Walters, and Kansky the Superior Court in Farese concluded that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the Plaintiff to present and recover damages awarded for future medical expenses that were not reduced pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1797 (Act VI).
Questions can be directed to David R. Friedman
