Ganley v. U.S., 88-3719
| Decision Date | 03 August 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-3719,88-3719 |
| Parties | Michael GANLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant. Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Walter J. Postula, Asst. U.S. Atty., Orlando, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before FAY, ANDERSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
The issue in this appeal involves the operation of Florida's motor vehicle collateral source rule. The district court held that the rule operates to reduce only that portion of a damage award that was intended to be compensated by the collateral benefits. We agree and affirm.
On October 9, 1984, Michael Ganley (Ganley) filed an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sustained in an accident with a postal employee who was operating a personally-owned automobile. 1 Following a bench trial, the district court determined that both Ganley and the postal employee were fifty percent responsible for Ganley's injuries. 2
The district court found that Ganley had suffered injury in the following amounts:
Past Medical Expenses $124,265.43
Lost Wages 25,000.00
Pain and Suffering 150,000.00
----------------------------------
Total $299,265.43
Order, December 7, 1987 at 11. At the court's instruction, the parties submitted memoranda regarding the applicability of Florida's motor vehicle collateral source rule to the award. 3 The court held the collateral source rule applied in this case and found that Ganley had received $133,913.76 from his insurers for past medical expenses. The court initially determined that Ganley's proper measure of recovery equaled $15,718.96 (Table 1).
TABLE 1
Total Damages $299,265.43
Less: 50% Comparative
Negligence (149,632.71 )
Less: Collateral Source
Benefits (133,913.76 )
----------------------------------------
Adjusted Award $ 15,718.96
Shortly after the court filed a final judgment in this amount on March 18, 1988, Ganley filed a motion to correct the judgment. The court reconsidered its methodology for adjusting damages and held that Ganley's collateral medical benefits could only be used to reduce the amount of past medical expenses. Thus, the court reduced Ganley's recovery for medical expenses (adjusted for his comparative negligence) by the amount of collateral benefits he received. Because Ganley received more collateral benefits than he proved, the court held his net recovery for medical expenses was zero. (Table 2).
TABLE 2
Damages Damages (Less 50%) Collateral Net Recovery
Source
--------------------------------------------------------------
Medical $124,265.43 $62,132.76 $133,913.76 -
Expenses
Lost Wages 25,000.00 12,500.00 - 12,500
Pain & 150,000.00 75,000.00 - 75,000
Suffering
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Award $87,500
The court therefore entered an amended judgment for $87,500 in Ganley's favor. Order, July 8, 1988 at 4. The government filed a timely appeal.
Traditionally, the collateral source rule prevented tortfeasors from deducting from damages any compensation an injured person received from independent sources for his injuries. The rule's underlying goal was to prevent a defendant from benefitting from insurance and other benefits a plaintiff received as a consequence of the defendant's wrongful act. The effect of the rule was that a plaintiff could recover from a tortfeasor and independent sources a sum that exceeded his or her actual damages.
A number of states have revised the rule to prevent plaintiffs from receiving excess damages resulting from collateral source benefits. Florida's motor vehicle collateral source rule provides that:
In any action for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of the ownership, operation, use, or maintenance of a motor vehicle, the court shall admit into evidence the total amount of all collateral sources paid to the claimant, and the court shall instruct the jury to deduct from its verdict the value of all benefits received by the claimant from any collateral source.
Id. Sec. 627.7372 (1984). Collateral sources means any payments made to a claimant, or on his behalf, by or pursuant to:
(a) The United States Social Security Act; any federal, state, or local income disability act; or any other public programs providing medical expenses, disability payments, or other similar benefits.
(b) Any health, sickness, or income disability insurance; automobile accident insurance that provides health benefits or income disability coverage; and any other similar insurance benefits except life insurance benefits payable to the claimant, whether purchased by him or provided by others.
(c) Any contract or agreement of any group, organization, partnership, or corporation to provide, pay for, or reimburse the costs of hospital, medical, dental, or other health care services.
(d) Any contractual or voluntary wage continuation plan provided by employers or any other system intended to provide wages during a period of disability.
Id. Sec. 627.7372(2) (1984). Certain benefits, such as workers' compensation, Medicaid, and medical services administered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, are not collateral sources. Id. Sec. 627.7372(3).
In Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. v. Matthews, 498 So.2d 421 (Fla.1986), the Florida Supreme Court stated that the statute's purpose:
is to prevent double recovery by plaintiffs of collateral source payments in personal injury suits arising from motor vehicle accidents. Under its terms, the plaintiff continues to claim full damages but the jury is instructed to subtract any collateral source payments from its damages verdict.
Id. at 422. The statute "merely limits the plaintiff's recovery to monies to which he is equitably entitled." Id. at 422-23.
The issue presented is whether Florida's motor vehicle collateral source rule requires a court or jury to set off collateral benefits for an item of damages against the total verdict or only against that portion of a verdict representing the same item of damages. The government argues that the statute's clear language requires that all collateral benefits must be subtracted from the amount of all of the damages. The government therefore claims that it owes Ganley $15,718.96 as computed in Table 1. Ganley argues that the district court correctly deducted collateral benefits received for past medical expenses only against past medical expenses awarded. He asserts that he has not received duplicate recovery for any category of damages.
Although the Florida courts have yet to address this issue, a few other jurisdictions have. These jurisdictions generally support Ganley's position. Tuenge v. Konetski, 320 N.W.2d 420, 422-23 (Minn.1982) (); Davis v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co., 406 So.2d 287, 290 (La.Ct.App.1981) (); McIntire v. Gray, 39 Or.App. 861, 593 P.2d 1273, 1275-76 (Ct.App.1979) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
...same item of damages.’ " Griffin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. , 730 F. App'x 848, 851 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Ganley v. United States , 878 F.2d 1351, 1353-54 (11th Cir. 1989) ). Thus, for example, payments made by a health insurance provider may be offset against the portion of the verdict......
-
Scruggs v. U.S., 94-14274-CIV-MOORE.
...is limited to the proportion of the damages that were proximately caused by the defendant's negligence. Id. (citing Ganley v. United States, 878 F.2d 1351 (11th Cir.1989)). 78. However, under Florida law, the comparative negligence should not be construed so as to entitle a person to recove......
-
Sikes v. Township of Rockaway
...of N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(e) is consistent with the interpretation of similar statutes in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Ganley v. United States, 878 F.2d 1351 (11th Cir.1989); City of Wilkes-Barre v. Zaledonis, 125 Pa.Cmwlth. 392, 557 A.2d 836, 838 (1989); see also Tuenge v. Konetski, 320 N.W.2d......
-
Shessel v. Murphy
...for damages awarded for the same expenses, defendant's argument has no merit and was rejected by this Court in Ganley v. United States, 878 F.2d 1351, 1355 & n. 6 (11th Cir.1989). As long as the plaintiffs do not seek to recover for expenses already covered by collateral source payments, ev......
-
Sequencing in Damages.
...626 P.2d 726, 727 (Colo. App. 1981); Weite v. Momohara, 240 P.3d 899, 922-25 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010); see also Ganley v. United States, 878 F.2d 1351, 1354 n.5 (11th Cir. 1989) (applying Florida law prior to Norman); Rivera v. Cincinnati Inc., No. 92-CV-04345, 1998 WL 898128, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y.......