Davis v. St. Francis Hospital, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Date Submitted: December 5, 2001 Date Decided: March 8, 2002 Dennis D. Ferri, Esquire Morris, James, Hitchens & Williams 222 Delaware Avenue P.O. Box 2306 Wilmington, DE 19899 John P. Kopesky, Esquire Sheller, Ludwig & Badey 1528 Walnut Street, 3rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Christian J. Singewald, Esquire White and Williams, LLP 824 North Market Street, #1000 P.O. Box 1680 Wilmington, DE 19899-1680 L. Vincent Ramunno, Esquire Ramunno & Ramunno, P.A. 903 North French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Re: Davis v. St. Francis Hospital, et. al. C.A. No. 00C-06-045-JRJ On Plaintiffs Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Annuity Payments Made Pursuant to a Military Pension - GRANTED. Dear Counsel: It has been some time since counsel argued plaintiffs motion in limine regarding the admissibility of the annuity payments received by Mrs. Davis upon Mr. Davis death. I apologize for the delay in issuing my opinion. I have reviewed the transcript of the December 5, 2001 hearing and the case law cited by the parties. As counsel pointed out, there is not much guidance afforded by the case law on the issue of whether annuity payments stemming from a military pension constitute a Davis v. S tate Fran cis Hosp ital, et. al. C.A. No. 00C-06-045-JRJ Page 2 public collateral source under 18 Del. C. § 6862.1 As plaintiffs point out, Mr. Davis exercised his option to voluntarily reduce the amount of his monthly military pension payments to provide annuity payments for Mrs. Davis upon his death. For the reasons set forth below, I find that the annuity payments received by Ms. Davis are not a public collateral source under 18 Del. C. § 6862. If Mr. Davis had been employed by a private employer, as opposed to the United States Army, and had he exercised the same option, that is, voluntarily reducing the amount of his pension payments in order to provide financial security for his spouse upon his death, there would be no question that the annuity payments received by Mrs. Davis are not a public collateral source. The plaintiffs should not be penalized under 18 Del. C. § 6862 because Mr. Davis chose to work for the United States Army as opposed to a non-governmental, private employer. That result would be contrary to public policy, and the Court does not believe that this is a result intended by the Legislature in enacting 18 Del. C. § 6862. Mr. Davis military pension and the annuity that stems from it are not public collateral sources, like Social Security or Medicaid.2 Social Security and Medicaid are needs-based, and persons who collect these benefits receive, in essence, socially 1 18 Del. C. § 6862 provides, in pertinent part: In any medical negligence action... there may be introduced, and if introduced, the trier of facts shall consider evidence of... [a]ny and all facts available as to any public collateral source of compensation.... The purpose of this statute is to prevent the collection of a loss from a collateral public source and then the collection for the same loss from the party being sued. Nanticoke Memorial Hosp., Inc. v. Uhde, 498 A.2d 1071, 1075 (Del. 1985). 2 See Nanticoke Memorial Hosp., Inc. v. Uhde, 498 A.2d 1071, 1075 (Del. 1985) (Holding Social Security is a collateral public source ); Monroe v. Bose, 1999 WL 33117217 at *3 ( It is clear that Medicaid is a public source of benefits. ). Davis v. S tate Fran cis Hosp ital, et. al. C.A. No. 00C-06-045-JRJ Page 3 provided insurance. 3 Mr. Davis military pension and the resulting annuity are not socially provided insurance. Mr. Davis worked to earn his pension. Mrs. Davis is only entitled to the annuity payments because her husband worked a sufficient number of years so that his pension would vest. Moreover, Ms. Davis is only entitled to the annuity payments because her husband voluntarily reduced the amount of his monthly pension payments. The fact that his employer was the Untied States Army and not a private employer does not bring his pension or the resulting annuity within the ambit of a public collateral source as defined in 18 Del. C. § 6862. Unlike with Medicaid or Social Security, members of the general public are not entitled to apply for, or receive, the military pension benefit Mr. Davis received or the annuity payments his widow receives as a result of that pension. Consequently, plaintiffs motion to exclude reference to the annuity payments received by Mrs. Davis as a result of her husband s 28 plus years in the service of the United States Army is GRANTED. IT SO ORDERED. __________________________________________ Jan R. Jurden, Judge 3 Developments in the Law - Toxic Waste Litigation, 99 Harv. L. Rev. 1631, 1649 (1986).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
