Preview:

Narayen v. Bailey No. 5394, September Term, 1998 Headnote Damages - Medical Malpractice - Collateral Source Rule Subrogation Rights - Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, Section 3-2A-06(f) permits a medical malpractice defendant to request that damages be reduced by the sum of plaintiff's collateral source benefits. Section 3-2A-06(f) creates an exception to the collateral source rule in medical malpractice post-verdict proceedings by permitting evidence of such benefits. It is within the discretion of the judge or jury to determine whether the damages are excessive. If there is a reduction pursuant to this statute, subrogation rights of the collateral source are eliminated and the collateral source is unable to seek reimbursement from the plaintiff or defendant.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 5394 September Term, 1998

VIJAY NARAYEN, et al. v. ANN H. BAILEY

Murphy, C.J., Wenner, Alpert, Paul E., (Retired, specially assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Wenner, J.

Filed: March 2, 2000

This is an appeal by Vijay Narayen, M.D., from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in favor of appellee, Ann. H. Bailey. with two 1. questions: Did the trial court err in denying the Appellant's Motion for Remittitur, or in the Alternative, for New Trial, by failing to make specific findings whether the jury's verdict for "past medical expenses - bills" was "excessive" within the parameters set forth in Section 3-2A-05(h) and 32A-06 (f), Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, Maryland Code? Did the trial court err in denying the Motion for Remittitur, or in the Alternative, for New Trial, on the ground that the Appellee's health insurance payments were not "indemnification" because her health insurance policy provided for subrogation in the event of a judgment against a tortfeasor for damages covering the amounts originally paid by the health insurer? On appeal Doctor Narayen presents us

2.

We shall answer the second question in the affirmative, and remand the case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Facts1 The genesis of this appeal is a medical malpractice claim entered by appellee with Maryland's Health Claims Arbitration Office in accordance with Md. Code (1974, 1998 Repl. Vol.),

Download Narayen v. Bailey.pdf

Maryland Law