The Honorable Gerald A. McHugh of the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania recently held in Morris v. Sutton, No. CV 23-2806, 2025 WL 564933 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2025) that 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1722 of Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”) did not apply to future medical expenses as a matter of law.
In Morris, Defendants filed a motion in limine to limit Plaintiff’s recovery of damages arising out of motor vehicle accident by seeking to preclude her from introducing evidence of past and future medical expenses absent proof of a lack of insurance pursuant to 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1722. Section 1722 of the MVFRL provides that in any action for damages against a tortfeasor or in uninsured/underinsured motorist proceeding arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, those persons eligible for benefits (as defined in section 1719 of the Act) are precluded from recovering the amount of benefits “paid or payable” pursuant to the Act or any “program, group contract or other arrangement for payment of benefits” as defined in section 1719. See 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1722.
At the outset, Judge McHugh acknowledged that while the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has yet to address the issue, every court that has previously considered such arguments has ultimately concluded that Section 1722 is inapplicable to medical expenses not yet incurred. Indeed, Judge McHugh concluded that neither the language of the statute, the case law, nor commonsense support a finding that Section 1722 of the MVFRL applies to future medical expenses. Turning first to the operative language of the statute— “paid or payable”— Judge McHugh reasoned that a medical bill not yet incurred does not fit within the definition of “payable.” Given that future medical bills are simply bills that have not yet been incurred, Judge McHugh reasoned that it would be speculative to assume that coverage exists for those medical bills. To that end, not only would it speculative to assume the existence of coverage for future medical expenses, but Judge McHugh explained that from a practical perspective it would likewise be impossible to know the terms of coverage and application thereof due to the ever-changing terms of eligibility, deductibles, and co-pays.
Finally, given the dearth of Pennsylvania case law addressing whether Section 1722 applies to future medical expenses, Judge McHugh cited Farese v. Robinson, 222 A.3d 1173, 1189 (Pa. Super. 2019) for support. In Farese, the Pennsylvania Superior Court concluded that the cost containment provisions under Act 6 (75 Pa. C.S.A. §1797) of the MVFRL did not apply to future medical expenses. In doing so, the court relied on prior federal court decisions interpretation of the word “payable” in 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1797 to mean only those medical expenses “owed, to be paid, due” and because future medical expenses are not presently due or outstanding, such damages may not be limited by the Act’s cost containment provisions. As such, Judge McHugh concluded that the Farese Court’s interpretation of the word “payable” under Section 1797 was equally applicable to Section 1722.
The Morris v. Sutton, No. CV 23-2806, 2025 WL 564933 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2025) decision can be found here.
For additional questions, please contact Kylie A. Griffith, Esq. and/or Glen Shikunov, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.