Bill limits future medical evidence in auto cases

Summary#

S-4847 would amend New Jersey’s Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act, P.L.1972, c.70. It would narrow when medical expenses count as “collectible” personal injury protection (PIP) benefits that generally cannot be shown as evidence in a bodily injury lawsuit. Its stated goal is to keep future medical expenses from being excluded just because PIP coverage might pay for them later.

  • A medical expense would count as collectible only if the treatment or service has been provided, has been billed or can be billed under the policy and applicable fee schedule, and is payable or has been paid under the injured person’s PIP coverage.
  • Future medical expenses could not be excluded from evidence solely because PIP limits remain available or the treatment might be covered if provided in the future. This does not guarantee the evidence will be admitted under other rules.
  • A PIP insurer could seek a credit against a later PIP claim only to the extent it proves the injured person already recovered, in the lawsuit, money for that same future expense.
  • The bill says it would apply immediately to pending and future cases, but not to cases with a final judgment before its effective date. It is introduced and is not law.

What it means for you#

  • People seeking damages after an auto injury: Future treatment costs could not be kept out of evidence solely because PIP might cover them later. The bill does not create a right to recover every claimed future expense or guarantee a jury will accept the evidence.
  • PIP insurers: An insurer could seek a credit against a later PIP application for the same future expense, but only if it establishes that the injured person actually recovered compensation for that expense in the lawsuit.
  • Other parties in injury cases: The bill changes the rule about when PIP-covered expenses are treated as collectible evidence. It does not otherwise change who may bring a bodily injury case.
  • Courts and juries: The bill supplies a test for whether an expense is collectible under PIP. It does not set a process for proving or valuing future treatment.

The bill’s statement describes current law as generally barring evidence of amounts paid or collectible under PIP while preserving recovery of certain uncompensated economic losses. The full current statute was not supplied, so that description could not be independently checked against current law.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

  • The bill does not state an appropriation, fee, fine, or government staffing requirement.
  • It keeps medical expenses subject to the current automobile medical fee schedules. The bill gives no estimate of how the evidence rule might affect payments or lawsuit awards.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not explain how parties or courts would establish the amount or likelihood of future treatment costs.
  • It does not define how to decide whether compensation recovered in a lawsuit is for the “same” future expense later claimed from PIP.
  • It does not explain how this rule would interact with other evidence rules or existing case procedures.
  • The full current statute was not supplied, so the precise change from current law could not be independently verified.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that treatment not yet provided may not yet be payable under PIP. Excluding its cost only because coverage might be available later could leave a person unable to present evidence about future losses.
  • The bill sets concrete conditions for when an expense counts as collectible, rather than treating remaining policy limits alone as enough.
  • The insurer credit rule addresses duplicate recovery when the insurer proves the person already recovered for the same future expense.

Case against#

  • One concern is that evidence of future costs could be considered in a lawsuit even when PIP may later pay for treatment, creating disputes about overlap between lawsuit recovery and PIP benefits.
  • The bill does not explain how future costs should be proved or valued, or how a court should determine whether two claims concern the same expense.
  • The bill applies to pending cases as well as new ones, which could change the evidence rules in lawsuits already underway.