Origin of the Collateral Source Rule in Maryland
In City Pass v. Baer, 90 Md. 97 (1899), Plaintiff in a suit for injuries sustained in attempting to board a trolley car. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland found that any sick benefits received by the injured plaintiff from any source other than the defendant were not to be considered by the jury in arriving at their verdict.
In recent years, the collateral source rule has come under attack by critics who argue that the collateral source rule gives plaintiffs a double recovery because the plaintiff is often not responsible for paying back all or sometimes even any of the medical bills. This analysis has some merit. But juries are not informed that a plaintiff's attorney will receive typically 40% of the award under most contingent fee agreement case that go to trial. Accordingly, plaintiffs rarely receive full compensation for injuries.
For a complete history of the collateral source rule, review Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit District, 2 Cal. 3d 1(1970). The court in Helfend, further explains that the collateral source rule is "partially serves to compensate for the attorney's share and does not actually render a `double recovery' for the plaintiff."
Back to Collateral Source Rule
Back to Maryland Personal Injury Lawyer Help Center
Back to Maryland Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
