Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Weston v. AKHappytime, LLC

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided August 2, 2019No. Supreme Court No. S-16529Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBolger, Justice

I agree with the court's opinion that an injured party should be allowed to introduce medical bills as evidence of the value of medical services, even when the party is covered by Medicare. But I also agree with the dissenting opinion that a tort defendant should be able to introduce the actual payments accepted for those services.

My opinion is influenced by the Indiana Supreme Court's decision allowing the admission of similar payments made by the *1029Indiana Health Insurance Program.1 Like the Indiana program, Medicare is a voluntary program: healthcare providers need not participate, and they…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Aaron Glenn Haygood v. Margarita Garza De EscabedoTexas Supreme Court · 2011
  2. Tomal v. AndersonAlaska Supreme Court · 2018
  3. Lucier v. Steiner Corp.Alaska Supreme Court · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API