July 14, 2025
When a personal injury verdict involves millions in future medical expenses, every detail matters—especially when it comes to offsetting those costs. In Liciaga v. New York City Transit Authority (231 AD3d 250 [2d Dept 2024]), the Appellate Division, Second Department issued a groundbreaking ruling on how the Affordable Care Act (ACA) can factor into collateral source hearings. This case not only set new precedent but also showed the value of having appellate counsel involved during trial. Here’s what you need to know.
Robert Liciaga was catastrophically injured when a railroad tie fell from an elevated subway track and struck him. A jury awarded him over $100 million, including $40 million for future medical expenses. After post-trial reductions, the award still included substantial future care costs.
The NYC Transit Authority appealed, arguing that some of those medical expenses could be offset by insurance available under the ACA. The Appellate Division agreed, remanding the case for a collateral source hearing and opening the door to a new line of argument for defense attorneys.
Under CPLR 4545, a defendant can ask the court to reduce a jury’s damages award by amounts the plaintiff will receive from “collateral sources” such as insurance. In Liciaga, the court made a critical finding:
“By showing that the uninsured plaintiff could have reduced his future medical expenses by procuring an insurance policy under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Transit Authority satisfied its burden of demonstrating that expenses may be paid by a collateral source.”
This ruling marked the first time a New York appellate court accepted the argument that potential access to ACA insurance could trigger a collateral source reduction.
The decision in Liciaga has far-reaching implications. It means future medical expense awards could be reduced not just based on current insurance coverage, but also on available coverage that the plaintiff has not yet obtained.
As the court put it:
“The standard of proof… is that of reasonable certainty, which is more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
For plaintiffs, this creates new risks. For defendants, it creates a new avenue for reducing damages. And for appellate attorneys, it adds another layer of strategy—especially during trial.
Appellate counsel play a vital role in preserving and framing issues that could affect post-trial motions and appeals. In a case like Liciaga, appellate strategy starts long before the appeal is filed.
Here’s how appellate counsel can help:
The Liciaga case reshapes how New York courts look at collateral source hearings. It also reinforces the need for trial teams to think one step ahead—with appellate counsel ready to secure or challenge high-stakes awards.
Contact our firm for a consultation if you have questions about preserving appellate issues or responding to collateral source claims.
Disclaimer: This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For personalized legal guidance, please contact our office.