It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Limit the Admissibility of Evidence That Plaintiff May be Entitled to Receive Benefits from Governmental Agencies and Programs
Plaintiff Ellen Choo herewith submits the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities regarding the Inadmissibility of Evidence that plaintiff may be entitled to receive benefits from governmental agencies and/or programs.
In summary, it is anticipated that the defendant physician, in an effort to offset his obligation for the damages wrought upon the minor plaintiff, will attempt to introduce evidence that the minor plaintiff may be entitled to receive services, such as therapy or vocational training, from certain governmental agencies and/or programs.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Plaintiff opposes the admissibility of such evidence for the following reasons:
(1) The collateral source rule precludes such evidence;
(2) Civil Code Section 3333.1., which abrogates only part of the collateral source rule in medical negligence actions, does not permit the introduction of such evidence, and
(3) Despite any entitlement, there is no certainty that the minor plaintiff will actually be able to receive, now or in the near or distant future, any such services or benefits in these troubling economic times with ever-increasing public budget cuts. Defendants’ proffered evidence is speculative. (See Part 2 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.