Howard Berman: “Mr. Chairman, if the Gekas amendment were to deal specifically with the problem of double-dipping as the California law…”

“Mr. Chairman, if the Gekas amendment were to deal specifically with the problem of double-dipping as the California law is focused on, I would support this amendment. I think in a tort action for negligence, the plaintiff is entitled to be made whole. He is not entitled to be paid twice for the same occurrence. If his medical bills are being paid by one source, he is not entitled to pocket those payments again from another source. But the Gekas amendment goes far beyond the California Micra law and it goes far beyond medical malpractice. It deals with two issues I am very concerned with. It is written in a fashion that guarantees that the health care provider... will not get subrogated, in fact it seems to prohibit that very act, that the malpractice insurer rather than the health insurance provider will get the protection, and more importantly by doing it as a matter of evidentiary question, it would be somewhat equivalent to my offering an amendment that said in the course of a trial, it is quite appropriate for the plaintiff's counsel to point out that the defendant is insured...”