FORTIER v. A.O. SMITH CORP., No. FBT-BA-06-50005849 S (May 21, 2009)

DAVID R. TOBIN, J.

On March 10, 2009, the jury returned a plaintiff's verdict against defendant, Allis Chalmers Product Liability Trust (the "Defendant" or "Allis Chalmers"). The jury found that the plaintiff's decedent, David Fortier, had contracted mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos while on his active duty with the U.S. Navy on board U.S.S. Forrestal and that asbestos emanating from equipment supplied to the Navy by Allis Chalmers was a contributing factor to the disease.

The verdict included past economic damages in the amount of $820,000. Evidence was submitted to the jury that the plaintiff had included bills or hospitalization and medical treatment in the amount of $353,000. The parties agreed that the jury interrogatories would not require the jury to detail any particular medical bills included in an award of economic damages. Such interrogatories would have otherwise been a prerequisite to a claim for a reduction in award of past economic damages included in the jury's verdict. Jones v. Kramer, 267 Conn. 336, 349-50 (2004).

On March 24, 2009, Allis Chalmers filed a motion pursuant to General Statutes § 52-225a for reduction of the award of economic damages by the amount of collateral source payments made toward the plaintiff's decedent's hospital and medical bills, On April 23 and 24, 2009, the court heard arguments from counsel defendant's motion. At that hearing the defendant pointed out that the hospital and medical bills incurred by plaintiff's decedent which were in evidence reflected that substantial sums where paid by health insurance providers toward those bills. (Ex. 361.) Those bills also reflected reductions labeled "insurance adjustments." The plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to present evidence of the premiums paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff's decedent for the health care insurance coverage he enjoyed. However, the plaintiff declined to present any such evidence. The court requested the defendant to prepare a schedule reflecting its claim of collateral sources and file it with the court no later than April 30, 2009. The plaintiff was allowed CT Page 8569 an additional week to respond to the defendant's schedule.

On April 30, 2009, the defendant submitted a schedule claiming that the verdict must be reduced by $293,820.26, claiming that such amount represented collateral sources under pursuant to General Statutes § 52-225b. The schedule included $221,108.83 in health insurance payments to service providers and $72,711.43 in "insurance adjustments." In an objection dated May 7, 2009, the plaintiff claimed that the parties now agreed that payments totaling $214,236.93 had been made toward hospital and medical bills and that "insurance adjustments" totaled $54,188.15. The plaintiff pointed out that the parties were in disagreement as to whether the "insurance adjustments" should be considered a collateral source. In a reply to the plaintiff's objection, the defendant confirmed that it was now seeking a collateral source reduction of $268,425.08 consisting of $214,236.93 in payments and $54,188.15 in "insurance adjustments."

The issue of whether reductions in bills by a health care provider are a collateral source has been addressed by our Appellate Court in the case of Hassett v. City of New Haven, 91 Conn.App. 245 (2005). In that case the court affirmed and adopted the decision of a superior court (49 Conn.Sup. 7 (2004)) holding that debts of medical bills voluntarily forgiven by a health care provider were not collateral sources under the statute. The court also noted that medical bills reduced or forgiven under a contract between the medical care provider and a health care insurer would be considered a collateral source, 91 Conn.App. at 247.

The court agrees with the defendant that the credits reflected on the medical bills in question in each instance refer to insurance adjustments. There was no evidence presented to show that any of the credits resulted from voluntary or gratuitous forgiveness of the bills by any health care providers. The court finds that the defendant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that these adjustments must be considered collateral sources.

The court concludes that the defendant is entitled to a collateral source reduction in the amount of $268,425.08. The court has already addressed on the record, and denied, other post-trial motions filed by the defendants. Judgment may enter in favor of plaintiff, Gail M. Fortier as administrator of the estate of David Fortier as follows:

TBTABLE Economic damages: $ 551,574.92 Past non-economic damages: $ 750,000.00 Future non-economic damages: $ 500,000.00 Total damages $1,801,574.92 TB/TABLE

CT Page 8570 Judgment may also enter in favor of plaintiff, Gail M. Fortier, individually, on her loss of consortium claim in the amount of $525,000. Costs are also awarded to the plaintiff.

CT Page 8571