For referring counsel
Texas limits recoverable medical expenses to amounts actually paid or incurred, not the amount billed. On a file where a hospital bills $180,000 and accepts $42,000, the recoverable figure is the smaller one — and the jury never sees the larger.
Counsel referring a Texas case from another jurisdiction usually adjusts quickly to the two-year limitations period and to proportionate responsibility. The rule that catches people is section 41.0105, and it moves case values more than either.
Recovery of medical or health care expenses is limited to the amount actually paid or incurred by or on behalf of the claimant.
The Texas Supreme Court settled the meaning in Haygood v. de Escabedo: only expenses the provider has a legal right to be paid are recoverable. Amounts written off under an insurer’s negotiated rate are not, and evidence of them is inadmissible.
So the collateral source rule survives in Texas only in a narrowed form. The existence of insurance stays out. The adjustment the insurance produced comes in — as a ceiling.
A hospital bills $180,000. The health plan’s contracted rate is $42,000, which the hospital accepts as payment in full. The recoverable medical damages are $42,000, and the jury will never hear the larger number.
Where non-economic damages are argued by reference to medical specials — as adjusters routinely value them — that adjustment compounds through the whole valuation.
Where a plaintiff treats on a letter of protection, the full billed charge is arguably incurred, because the provider retains a legal right to be paid it.
That produces a substantially larger specials figure, and it is why LOP treatment is common in Texas practice. It also invites the defense to attack the reasonableness of the charges, to probe the referral relationship between counsel and provider, and to argue the treatment was litigation-driven.
In re K & L Auto Crushers and the cases following it have made provider reimbursement rates and contractual arrangements discoverable in that situation. Counsel should expect that discovery rather than be surprised by it.
None of this makes Texas an unattractive venue. It makes early, accurate valuation harder, and it rewards counsel who ask about the billing before quoting a number to a client.
Recoverable medical expenses are limited to amounts the provider has a legal right to be paid. Insurer write-offs are neither recoverable nor admissible.
In a narrowed form. The existence of insurance stays out; the adjustment it produced comes in as a ceiling on recoverable medical damages.
Full billed charges are arguably incurred where the provider retains a legal right to be paid, which raises specials — and invites discovery into provider rates and referral relationships.
Haygood v. de Escabedo, 356 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2011), construing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.0105.
Refer it, co-counsel it, or keep it and use us behind the scenes. Every arrangement is in writing under Texas Disciplinary Rule 1.04(f).
Why refer to Cukjati Law?Co-Counsel and FeesSubmit a CaseAutomated intake assistant. It does not give legal advice and using it does not create an attorney–client relationship.