Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)
INTRODUCTION
On March 7, 2011, Plaintiffs Motion in Limine regarding collateral source payments was discussed. It is plaintiffs understanding that the issue was taken under submission, and on March 8, 2011, the court tentatively indicated that the court may entertain a motion post trial to reduce any finding of medical specials, based on amounts paid. However, the amount of medical billings would be admissible at trial.
In this case, when Dr. Lee was deposed on August 28, 2010, he was asked, “Have you reviewed those medical bills relating to Robyn Anderson’s treatment in this case?”
Answer: I have reviewed some of them and commented on some.
Question: Okay. In preparation for today’s deposition, did you go through and do a line-item-by-line-item commentary on her bills to date?
Answer: No. I did not.
Question: But if I understand you correctly, you haven’t been provided by defense counsel with a packet of the billing with the intention of you going through and commenting on that billing; is that correct?
Answer: Right. I have not been provided a packet of just the billing and provided a comment on those specific bills. That’s correct.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Question: And further, defense counsel, in retaining you, did not specifically in writing instruct you to go through any billing and comment on those bills in preparation for today’s deposition, or further – and further, in preparation for trial; is that correct?
Answer: I don’t think there is anything in writing as to that effect.
In prior testimony, in Davis v. XYZ Insurance Co., Inc., on August 2010, Dr. Lee offered opinions on what he believed to be the reasonable cost of plaintiffs medical care. However, Dr. Lee admitted he was unfamiliar with the Health and Safety Code sections and other statutes and codes describing the obligations on considerations and limitations involved with contractual health care plans and network providers.
Dr. Lee further acknowledged his opinion was based on what he would expect Medicare to pay, times two, or, what he would expect as insurance “reimbursement.”
Therefore, plaintiff seeks a hearing pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 402 to determine the basis, if any, for Dr. Lee’s opinion and, to determine whether Dr. Lee has in fact seen plaintiffs medical bills and done an analysis of same. (See Part 3 of 7.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.