noting that while the amount actually paid for medical services is relevant to determining the reasonable value of those services, it is still the value of the services, and not the cost, on which recovery of compensatory damages for said services depends
How later courts described this case
- noting that while the amount actually paid for medical services is relevant to determining the reasonable value of those services, it is still the value of the services, and not the cost, on which recovery of compensatory damages for said services depends
- discussing plaintiff's right to recover reasonable value of medical services made necessary by tortfeasor's wrongdoing and noting that trier of fact must look to a variety of factors in determining the reasonable value of the medical service provided
- holding that a clinic was entitled to a setoff where it voluntarily forgave medical expenses pursuant to a charity program
- “It is well-settled that a plaintiff in a personal injury action seeking damages for the cost of medical services provided to him as a result of a tortfeasor’s wrongdoing is entitled to recover the reasonable value of those medical services.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Moorhead v. Crozer Chester Medical Center, 34 Pa. D. & C.4th 330 (1997)
Kashner is distinguishable because Geisinger Clinic, as a separate corporate entity found liable to plaintiff, was not allowed a credit for the GMC’s “forgiveness” of a portion of its bill.
The opinion
DEL SOLE, J.,
concurring.
I join the Majority Opinión authored by Judge Hoffman. I only wish to point out that where a tortfeasor makes a pre *371 judgment payment to reduce liability, the reduction occurs after the extent of the liability is determined. It is not used to limit that determination.