*1 address the wisdom of the legislative tions. We do not the statute scheme, but its Since only constitutionality. interest, viz., state related to substantially legitimate claims, it is of stale or fraudulent not prevention paternity infirm under a Fourteenth Amendment constitutionally even the statute as it has though may operate, challenge make case, an child of its illegitimate right deprive limit. a claim for the six support beyond year case, decision in this determined that our Having previous the instant support the statute of limitations holding barring constitutional, is consistent with the recent action to be decision of the United Supreme States Pickett, this Court’s order is reinstated. original
Order reinstated. Martin, George
LaVerne R. MARTIN and her husband, Appellees, v. SOBLOTNEY, Larry Appellant.
Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued Sept. 1983. Decided Oct. *2 Winikoff, S. Asher Kirshner, & Rosenberg, Kaleugher Winikoff, for Pittsburgh, appellant. Finarelli,
Thomas J. Basil A. for Disipio, Philadelphia, curiae, amicus the Ins. Federation of Pa. Becker,
John F. Love, Sikov & for Pittsburgh, appellees. Ronca, James R. amicus, for Pa. Trial Law- Harrisburg, yers. ROBERTS, C.J., NIX, FLAHERTY,
Before LARSEN, jj. McDermott, zappala, hutchinson OPINION NIX, Justice. is whether in this presented appeal
The sole issue an collision automobile injured incurred aby plaintiff bills suffering as to measure admissible evidence are non-economic to recover for exclusively brought an action No- Pennsylvania to section 301 of pursuant detriment Act”).1 (“No-fault Insurance Act fault Motor Vehicle Pleas of of Common Court, the Court reversing such evidence was admissible. held that County, Allegheny that medical we conclude Having question, considered to the determination are irrelevant clearly expenditures for that purpose. and thus inadmissible suffering of the order we reverse the portion Accordingly, reinstate the the trial court and reversing Superior Court *3 trial court’s order.2
I. in a two-car to this were involved parties appeal The Alle- Borough, 51 in Elizabeth collision on State Highway R. LaVerne on 1977. gheny County, January Appellees in the colli- personal injuries and Martin sustained George the vehicle sion, operated by appellant which occurred when of the onto the Martins’ side crossed over Larry Soblotney action filed a subsequently trespass road. The Martins of the No-fault 301(a)(5) under section against Soblotney for non-eco- Act, seeking recovery 1009.301(a)(5), P.S. § the Martins trial, counsel for nomic detriment. During bills incurred by to introduce into evidence medical sought The trial court Martin as a result of the accident. George the bills, counsel’s At con- exception. excluded the noting a verdict in favor trial, of the the trial court directed clusion seq. et 19, 1974, July No. 40 P.S. 1009.101 1. Act of P.L. § (Supp.1983-84). Superior the trial the Court’s order affirmed The remainder of appellee new Martin’s motions for a trial court’s denial LaVerne challenged judgment been on and n.o.v. That affirmance not appeal. awarded Martin on the issue of liability. George of Five Thousand ($5,000) him in the amount damages Dollars, to LaVerne Martin. but made no award motions, Martins of their both post-trial denial
Following Court. That court affirmed appealed to the Superior as to LaVerne Martin. Martin v. judgment Soblotney, Martin, 145, 442 As to George A.2d Court, that the excluded medical concluding reversed bills were admissible to prove pain suffering, the order of the his motion for a new trial court denying trial, vacated the in his favor and remanded for judgment further Id. This Court proceedings. granted Soblotney’s from that petition for allowance of appeal portion Superior Court’s determination.
II. An the No-fault understanding wrought by changes Act action upon trespass traditional automobile-related is crucial to our matter. Prior to the decision Act, enactment of in an the No-fault an individual injured automobile accident could maintain an action to recover both such as general damages, suffering, special such as medical loss of or services damages, expenses, wages Medical bills were impairment earning capacity. admissible at trial to an prove special damages, element namely expense of treating injury, provided plaintiff established that the were reasonable and charges the services and related to the for which necessary injuries *4 Iannacone, was Piwoz v. 406 Pa. recovery sought. See insurance No-fault Act for provided compulsory system under which motor vehicle accident victims are com- for economic losses on a basis pensated first-party irrespec- tive of fault. That Act abolished tort for economic liability losses from a motor vehicle accident to the extent arising that such were the No-fault insur- damages compensated by er. The cause of 1009.301(a) See 40 (Supp.1983-84). P.S. § action for non-economic from a motor vehi- damages arising
cle accident was one where of four conditions preserved only was Here, satisfied.3 the cause action for non-economic was to a damages limited for recovery suffering; the been medical bills had under the loss paid provi- basic sions of the Act. decided, No-fault The issue to be there- fore, is whether the medical bills Mar- proffered George on tin’s behalf were in any way relevant to the assess- jury’s ment of Mr. Martin’s non-economic damages.
It is well established that the fundamental considera tion in determining the is admissibility evidence whether the is proffered evidence to the sought relevant fact to be proved. Evidence is relevant if tends to it make a fact at issue more or less Fisher, v. Gregg See probable. Pa. McCormick, J. (1954); 185, at Evidence § 437 (2d 1972); ed. In Fed.R.Evid. 401. case instant Mr. Martin’s medical were to bills offered establish total amount of he on medical money expended treatment for his injuries on the that such theory would aid in figure amount him for award and suffer- 301(a)(5) provides: 3. Section (5) person damages A remains liable for for non-economic detri- ment if the accident results in: (A) permanent injury; death or serious or (B) necessary the reasonable value of reasonable and services, including prosthetic and dental necessary devices ambulance, hospital professional nursing expenses in incurred diagnosis, recovery victim, diag- care and exclusive of x-ray nostic costs and rehabilitation costs excess of one hundred ($100) dollars fifty ($750). is excess of seven hundred dollars purposes subclause, For hospital the reasonable value by room ment Health Depart- and board shall be the amount determined daily average charged semi-pri- be rate for a hospital computed charges vate room and board from such all Commonwealth; hospitals in the or (C) medically physical impairment determinable or mental prevents performing which substantially the victim from all or all of the material acts and duties which his constitute usual and customary daily sixty activities and which continues for more than days; consecutive or (D) injury part disfig- which in whole or in consists of cosmetic permanent, irreparable which urement and severe. 7009.301(a)(5) 1983-84). (Supp. § 40 P.S. *5 therefore, Our focus on the evidentiary must ing.4 inquiry, medical as to whether dollar amount of the question services is and extent provided probative degree Mr. Martin’s pain suffering.
It is that there is no or apparent logical immediately between the value of experiential correlation monetary medical services to treat a given injury and required endured as a result of that quantum suffering First, mere dollar amount to medical injury. assigned services in various masks the difference between severity untreatable, A types be injuries. very painful injury may or, hand, on the other and less may require simpler costly treatment than a less one. The same painful disparity treatment exist between different but may painful equally Second, injuries. identical the method or given injuries, extent treatment or sought by patient prescribed by the physician from and from may vary patient patient Third, even physician where and treat physician. injury identical, ment are the reasonable that value of treatment may vary depending upon considerably facility in which care is and the rates community provided and other health physicians care involved. Final personnel ly, even identical given injuries, cost, treatment and the fact remains that and varies from individual to subjective individual.
Thus the fact that a amount of was particular money expended to treat an no injury bears correlation to logical the degree of which pain and suffering accompanied to the injury plaintiff forces the conclusion that question, such evidence no in a possesses probative value determina- tion as to the to be appropriate monetary compensation awarded. Evidence of the cost of medical services is there- fore and, irrelevant held inad- must be to be consequently missible for that purpose. pro-
4. The record demonstrates
the fact that medical services were
injuries
vided and the
nature
extent of the
and treatment were
fully
The bills were not offered for
established
other
evidence.
purpose.
III.
*6
conclusion,
a
Court,
contrary
in reaching
The Superior
In
of relevance.
the question
failed to
address
squarely
with legislative
the void in its analysis
stead that court filled
correctly
it
Although
statutory interpretation.
history
Act did not
of
No-fault
language
that
recognized
bills, the
of medical
of evidence
admissibility
for the
provide
legisla
to examine the
proceeded
Court nonetheless
that
conclusion
debates on the Act.5 Its
tive floor
to be admis
of economic loss
“intended” evidence
legislature
non
detriment
is a
recover non-economic
sible in actions to
the statute does
determined that
Once it had been
sequitur.
evidence, further
of such
admissibility
not
for the
provide
war
were
not
obviously
at statutory interpretation
attempts
us to
or
legislate
by interpretation
ranted.
is not for
“[I]t
fit not
saw
matters which the legislature
add to legislation,
419
Corp.,
v. Rieck Investment
to include.” Commonwealth
v.
52, 61,
277,
(1965),
Hochgertel
Pa.
213 A.2d
282
quoting
see
610, 614, 187
(1963);
Pa.
Canada
409
Dry Corp.,
479,
(1950);
fault
which abolished tort
liability
only
members of the House
indicate
that certain
5. The cited debates
admissibility
economic
Representatives
of evidence of
of
favored the
losses, and believed
detriment in an action to recover non-economic
that,
explicitly precluding
provision
proposed
if
No-fault Act
a
deleted,
pleading
proof
that evidence
such evidence were
Pa.Legis.J.-House
existing law. See 1974
would be admissible under
expressed by
consistently held that views
4747-4764. This
has
legislation may
of the House and Senate in consideration
members
legislative
upon
ascertaining
of the enact-
relied
intent
not be
See,
Proper-
finally
e.g.,
passed.
v. Alcoa
ment as
Commonwealth
ties,
42,
(1970); Philadelphia Depuy, 431
v.
Inc. 440 Pa.
269 A.2d
Estate,
(1968);
365 Pa.
Pa.
244 A.2d
Martin
where the
injured party
tort
injuries,
liability
preserves
Dollars)
Hundred
(Seven
in excess of
Fifty
expended
$750
that
threshold reflects “an
services,
for medical
monetary
the value of such
determination
express legislative
v.
Martin
severity
injuries.”
services is probative
at
the claims and argument adjusters since attorneys, in trial have the cost of medical judges employed expenses cases, and since courts settling personal injury appellate in appro- have considered medical expenses information cases, of verdicts in such the same priateness should be to a with the function of charged available an award for and This making pain suffering. argument, too, is The fact a factor been untenable. that frequently used in a rule of thumb does not establish its necessarily To the mathematical formulas which legitimacy. contrary, on a of medical costs in settlements rely multiple computing and do not purport gauge are fact actual arbitrary pain suffering. justified Such was practice by expedience rather than its inherent With the legitimacy.6 progress support argument appellate In decisions cited to it is of significance recovery general the claim for included both Pavetti, special damages. e.g., Pa.Super. 422 See Fretts v. 282 Co., (1980); Murphy A.2d 881 v. Penn Fruit
modern medical science there is reason to every believe that a factor, even as subjective can be suffering, as determined without resort to such crude reasonably approxi- mations. Court theorized that
Finally, Superior evidence of be expenses must admitted in order for the trial court to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction aof suit in which satisfaction of the threshold monetary requirement This issue placed dispute. is not presented the case before by us, and, in event any has no on bearing the question of the admissibility evidence to show pain and suffering. Moreover, in the hypothetical posit- situation ed Superior Court, the question is not one of jurisdic- tion, i.e., the court’s power adjudicate, but of the plain- tiff’s to maintain an right action for See, In damages. e.g., re Jones & Laughlin Steel 488 Pa. Corp.,
IV. For all of reasons, we foregoing conclude that medical bills are inadmissible in a No-fault action to establish non- economic loss for suffering.7 Accordingly, Order of the Court vacating Order of the Court of Common Pleas is reversed and the Order of the Common Pleas is reinstated.
LARSEN, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
LARSEN, Justice, dissenting.
I
disagree
evidence of medical expenses is inadmissi-
ble to measure
for
damages
suffering. According-
I
ly, dissent.
Holst,
(1980);
221,
Defulvio v.
Pa.Super.
272
7. This rulings intended to to trial (cid:127) Opinion. made on or after the date of this
427 this case, As the Court noted in Superior aptly are considered both expenses routinely attorneys settlements. Martin v. insurance companies negotiating 700, 442 In 145, (1982). 296 A.2d 708 Pa.Super. Soblotney, courts look medical addition, expenses at appellate routinely portion as a factor in whether the non-economic See, v. e.g., of a award is damage appropriate. Murphy 480 (1980); Penn Fruit A.2d Company, Pa.Super. Pavetti, Fretts v. therefore, to the sense,
It makes no this evidence deny which to use its common sense and collective duty for damages to arrive at a measure of judgment insurance companies which suffering—damages attorneys, evaluate, in terms of part, courts at least appellate actual medical expenses.
I for the trial court to refuse would hold that it was error non-economic detriment admit this evidence as proof Act, under I the order of the the No-Fault and would affirm Court.
466 A.2d THOMAS, In re ESTATE OF Janet D. Deceased.
Appeal of Claire T. LAXSON.
Supreme Pennsylvania.
Argued Oct. 31, 1983.
Decided Oct. Seiwell, Media, T. for appellant. Robert Messick, Media, J. for Twombly, appellee. Robert Guy