Fitzgerald v. Expressway Sewerage Constraction, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reaching the same conclusion with respect to Massachusetts’s collateral source rule
• allowing collateral source evidence if the plaintiff opens the door, its relevance is plain, its probative value not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and an immediate prophylactic instruction is given as to the limited use for which it was admitted
• \Implementation of the [collateral source rule] gives rise to an evidentiary analogue. This analogue customarily bars the introduction of proof of collateral source payments made to a plaintiff\
• state law, including regarding availability of damages, provides the substantive rules of decision in diversity cases
• “[A] jury, informed, say, that a plaintiff has recourse to first-party insurance proceeds, may be unduly inclined to return either a defendant’s verdict or an artificially low damage award.”
• “Evidence that a third party (the health-care insurer) defrayed most of those costs cast doubt upon (and, thus, tended to undermine) the claim, that the burgeoning medical bills produced financial strain.” (Emphasis added.)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).