Wright v. Walmart, Inc.

WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
TINA WRIGHT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
WALMART, INC., )
) No. 3:18-cv-0295-HRH
Defendant. )
_______________________________________)
O R D E R
Motion for Ruling of Law
Defendant moves for a ruling of law that plaintiff may not recover the differential
between the medical providers’ rack rates and the Medicare and Medicaid rates accepted as
full payment for medical services rendered.1 This motion is opposed.2 Oral argument was
not requested and is not deemed necessary.
Plaintiff Tina Wright brings a state-law negligence claim against defendant Walmart,
Inc., alleging that she was injured in an incident at defendant’s store. Defendant contends
that plaintiff is claiming $54,505 in past medical expenses, even though her medical
providers have accepted $17,000 as payment in full from Medicare/Medicaid. Defendant
moves for a ruling of law that plaintiff may recover only the $17,000 which was actually
1Docket No. 16.
2Docket No. 17.
-1-
Case 3:18-cv-00295-HRH Document 20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 2

paid, and not the $54,505 that was billed. Defendant argues that the $17,000 is all plaintiff
should be allowed to recover for past medical expenses because this amount represents her
actual loss and that the differential is not a collateral source to be offset post-trial.
Until very recently, the Alaska Supreme Court had not addressed this issue. However,
in a decision issued on August 2, 2019, the Alaska Supreme Court
conclude[d] that the amounts billed by the providers are relevant
evidence of the medical services’ reasonable value. We further
conclude that the difference between the amounts billed and the
amounts paid is a benefit to the injured party that is subject to
the collateral source rule; as such evidence of the amounts paid
is excluded from the jury’s consideration but is subject to post-
trial proceedings under AS 09.17.070 for possible reduction of
the damages award.
Weston v. AkHappytime, LLC d/b/a Alex Hotel & Suites, — P.3d —, 2019 WL 3519685,
at *1 (Alaska 2019). AS § 09.17.070 would apply in a diversity case such as this. Grove v.
Unocal Corp., Case No. 3:04-CV-00096-TMB-DMS, 2008 WL 11429728, at *2 (D. Alaska
Feb. 12, 2008). While application of the collateral source rule in this case may mean that
plaintiff, if she were to prevail on her negligence claim, would be entitled to recover
something less than the amount her medical providers billed, the court cannot say, as a matter
of law, that plaintiff would be limited to recovering the $17,000 that was actually paid.
Defendant’s motion for a ruling of law is denied.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 7th day of August, 2019.
/s/ H. Russel Holland
United States District Judge
-2-
Case 3:18-cv-00295-HRH Document 20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 2