Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this automobile accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL BRIEF REGARDING INTRODUCTION OF HIS MEDICAL BILLS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
SUMMARY OF FACTS AND ARGUMENT
This is an admitted liability case.
Plaintiff Billy White’s vehicle was rear-ended at high speed by defendant Thomas Smith’s vehicle as Mr. White was stopped at a lighted intersection in Sacramento. Plaintiff’ suffered a serious low back disc herniation at L5-S1, which eventually required a fusion surgery. He may need future revision procedures. Plaintiff’s medical bills exceed $278,000. His loss of earnings exceeds $600,000-$750,000.
Defendants want to restrict evidence of Plaintiff’s medical specials at trial to the contract rate the healthcare providers accepted from Plaintiff’s health insurance carrier pursuant to Hanif v. Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635 and Nishihama v. City and County of San Francisco (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 298.
The motion should be denied for the following reasons:
First, recent judicial decisions affirmed the right of a plaintiff to introduce the full amount of her medical bills notwithstanding that they exceeded the amount paid by insurers to plaintiff’s medical providers. In Olsen v. Reid, 2008 WL 2486789, the court of appeal “squarely rejected” defendant’s argument that the jury should be barred from hearing evidence of the full measure of plaintiff’s medical damages. Similarly, in Greer v. Buzgheia (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1157, the court permitted Plaintiff to present the full amount that was billed to him, subject only to a possible post-verdict reduction.
See also Katiuzhinsky v. Perry (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1295 (holding that in personal injury action, evidence of all plaintiffs’ medical expenses incurred, including those above the discounted amounts a collection company paid to plaintiffs’ health care providers to purchase their bills, was admissible, even if the amount of plaintiffs’ recovery was limited to discounted amount). (See Part 2 of 8.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.