Roberts v. BJC Health System, 2013 Mo. LEXIS 11

Plaintiffs allege they were victims in a fraudulent surgical billing scheme by Dr. Richard Coin and Reconstructive Microsurgery Associates (RMA).
The alleged overcharges were billed to Plaintiffs’ insurers, not directly to Plaintiffs, though Plaintiffs signed contracts to be personally liable for uninsured costs.
RMA and Coin pled guilty to related federal charges involving improper coding and overcharges.
The circuit court granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding no damages or injury-in-fact to Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs appealed arguing they had standing and damages, and that collateral source and subrogation principles could affect damages.
The court affirmed, concluding Plaintiffs failed to show ascertainable damages, and discussing standing, collateral source, and subrogation principles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiffs have standing to sue.	Roberts/Hales claim threatened injury from overcharges.	Defendants argue lack of injury-in-fact damages.	Standing exists, but damages fail.
Whether Plaintiffs proved damages to support claims.	Plaintiffs have potential liability for costs not covered by insurers.	Injury is speculative since insurers paid and Plaintiffs did not pay.	Summary judgment proper; no damages shown.
Whether collateral source rule affects damages analysis.	Collateral source rule should bar consideration of insurer payments in damages.	No damages existed to trigger rule; rule cannot create damages.	Collateral source rule inapplicable here.
Whether subrogation/assignment affects who owns the claims.	Insurers are derivative; Plaintiffs retain claims unless assigned.	Insurers own the claims through assignment; plaintiffs lack title.	Insurers own the claims; subrogation/assignment not applicable.

State ex rel. Williams v. Mauer, 722 S.W.2d 296 (Mo. banc 1986) (standing and injury, personal stake in litigation)
E. Mo. Laborers Dist. Council v. St. Louis Cnty., 781 S.W.2d 43 (Mo. banc 1989) (standing, injury necessity)
Ste. Genevieve Sch. Dist. v. Bd. of Aldermen of Ste. Genevieve, 66 S.W.3d 6 (Mo. banc 2002) (standing and protectable interest)
Turner v. Sch. Dist. of Clayton, 318 S.W.3d 660 (Mo. banc 2010) (summary-judgment standards of review)
Hoffman v. Union Elec. Co., 176 S.W.3d 706 (Mo. banc 2005) (damages element in proof of claims)
ITТ Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (de novo review of summary judgment; standards)
Freeman Health System v. Wass, 124 S.W.3d 504 (Mo. App. 2004) (ascertainable loss of money or property)
Smith v. Shaw, 159 S.W.3d 830 (Mo. banc 2005) (collateral source rule context)
Keisker v. Farmer, 90 S.W.3d 71 (Mo. banc 2002) (subrogation/assignment distinctions)
Huch v. Charter Communications, Inc., 290 S.W.3d 721 (Mo. banc 2009) (voluntary payment doctrine discussion (dissent))