In the case of Morris v. Sutton, No. 2:23-CV-02806-GAM (E.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2025 McHugh, J.), an Eastern Federal District Court judge ruled that 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1722 did not bar the recovery of future medical expenses under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.
Judge Gerald A. McHugh noted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not yet addressed this particular issue. However, the judge noted that other court decisions that he had reviewed that considered similar arguments has concluded that §1722 does not apply to future medical expenses that have not yet been incurred. As such, the judge held that §1722 has no applicability to future medical expenses.
Judge McHugh noted that §1722 provides that individuals injured in a motor vehicle accident, who have other sources of insurance to cover their medical expenses, are barred from recovering certain benefits that are “paid or payable.”
The Plaintiff argued in this case that given that the future medical bills have not yet been incurred, it was speculative as to whether or not such future medical bills will be “payable” under any applicable insurance.
The judge agreed with this speculation argument. The court noted that “[f]rom a practicable perspective, it is not just the existence of coverage for future medical expenses that is speculative, but also the terms of any such coverage and how it would apply, as changes in eligibility and changes in the terms of coverage such as deductible sand co-pays are impossible to predict.”
In rendering his decision, Judge McHugh referred to the Pennsylvania Superior Court decision in the case of
Farese v. Robinson, 222 A.3d 1173, 1189 (Pa. Super. 2019). In that case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court concluded that damages for future medical care were not limited by the MVFRL’s containment provisions under a different provision of the law.
In the end, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion to Preclude the Plaintiff from introducing evidence of future medical expenses by finding that §1722 does not apply to future medical expenses as a matter of law.
As an aside here, it is noted that the court in Morris apparently was not provided by counsel, and did not find on its own, the decision of
Orzel v. Morgan, No. 03-CV-4929 (C.P. Lacka. Co. 2003 Nealon, J.), by Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas. In that decision, Judge Nealon addressed, in part, a defense argument that §1722 precludes the Plaintiff from recovering damages for future medical bills since those costs were payable by her then existing private health insurance. Judge Nealon noted that, instead, the Plaintiff’s future medical expenses award would only be molded to the extent that Plaintiff had first party medical benefits coverage remaining under her own automobile insurance policy.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of
Morris decision may click this
LINK.
Anyone wishing to review other similar decisions on this issue of whether a motor vehicle accident Plaintiff can recover future medical expenses may click this
LINK to get to other Tort Talk blog posts on other such cases. Those Tort Talk blog posts should have links to those other decisions.
Source: Article: “Cost Containment Provision Doesn’t Bar Recovery For Future Medical Expense, Pa. Fed. Judge Rules” by Riley Brennan of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Feb. 20, 2025).
Source of image: Photo by Jennifer Uppendahl on www.unsplash.com.
