title: Examining Tennessee's collateral source rule.
abstract: The common law collateral source rule was established to prevent the defendant from benefiting from their wrongful actions. Despite a trend in the United States to limit the effects of the collateral source rule, the rule remains in force in courts of the State of Tennessee. However, to assist with the malpractice crisis, the legislature prohibited this rule by statute in regards to the Medical Malpractice Act. Although this statutory prohibition of the collateral source rule worked to lessen verdicts in malpractice cases after passage, the availability of consortium damages resulting from Jordan v. Baptist Three Rivers Hospital in 1999 has worked to drive verdicts substantially higher. Regardless the Medical Malpractice Act has been held as constitutional and has been clarified through several recent Tennessee court decisions.
authors.affiliation: Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, USA.
authors.forename: Judith
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Regan
authors.forename: Edward
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Hadley
authors.forename: William M
authors.initials: WM
authors.lastname: Regan
mesh_terms: D035881:Compensation and Redress / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D007349:Insurance, Health, Reimbursement / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D008318:Malpractice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D013714:Tennessee