 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pemberton v. Theis9/16/2003
l expenses and for loss of future earning capacity without discussing the applicability of a tort threshold. See Ferguson, 348 N.W.2d at 733; Simpson, 603 N.W.2d at 863. We recognize that allowing claims for future medical expenses without requiring satisfaction of one of the tort-threshold requirements may well lead to increased litigation, but the legislature has not acted to bar these types of claims, and it is not this court's province to do so.
We therefore conclude that, pursuant to the plain language of the Minnesota No-Fault Act, future medical expenses are economic losses and therefore, are not subject to the tort-threshold requirements of Minn. Stat. §á65B.51, subd. 3. Accordingly, Pemberton was not required to demonstrate a tort threshold before suing in negligence to recover her uncompensated future medical expenses.
III.
Theis claims that the district court erred in not deducting the full amount of the $5,000 future medical-expense award from the jury's verdict because the expenses were "otherwise available" to the plaintiff as a collateral source under Minn. Stat. § 548.36, subd.á1(2) (2002), when Pemberton settled with her no-fault insurer. Minn. Stat. § 65B.51, subd. 1 (2002), provides that, in a negligence action: "The court shall deduct from any recovery the value of basic or optional economic loss benefits paid or payable, or which would be payable but for any applicable deductible." In this case, because of the settlement, recovery of the full amount of the $5,000 in future medical expenses is not "otherwise available" to the plaintiff. Therefore, the district court did not err in failing to deduct the full amount of the $5,000 from the recovery.
Pemberton also filed a notice of review, claiming that the district court improperly deducted the full $2,331 settlement with the no-fault insurer from the future medical-expense verdict, rather than a pro-rated amount. Pemberton argues that, absent evidence that the entire settlement amount was to be attributable to the category of medical expenses, the trial court should not have used the entire amount of the settlement to offset the future medical expense verdict. But the record was not fully developed on this issue, and it is difficult to determine how the trial court apportioned the settlement amount within the different categories of no-fault benefits. Based on the limited record before us, therefore, we cannot conclude that the district court erred in deducting the $2,331 settlement from the verdict for future medical expenses.
DECISION
A plaintiff releasing a no-fault insurance company for claims arising out of a motor vehicle accident does not give up the right to a negligence action against the tortfeasor when neither the tortfeasor nor the tortfeasor's insurance company were named in the release. Because future medical expenses constitute economic loss within the purview of Minn. Stat. §á65B.51, subd.á2 (2002), the plaintiff's future medical expenses were not subject to the tort threshold of Minn. Stat. §á65B.51, subd.á3 (2002). Finally, the trial court did not err by deducting the amount of the no-fault settlement received by the plaintiff from the future medical-expense verdict.
Affirmed.
|