On March 21, 2019 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Mahaffey, Ashley,
Mahaffey, Brian,
and
Colorama Wholesale Nursery,
Medina, Jose,
Wilson, Richard,
for Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
w
SUPERIOR cds Ee Pvrcomnan
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
BERNARDINO DISTRICT
Robert Weinstein, Esq. [Bar No. 140412]
ROBERT S. WEINSTEIN & ASSOC. AUG 08 2023
12401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200
we
Los Angeles, California 90025
—_ T: (310) 277-7762
1039 S. Palm Canyon Drive GREG TREIHART. DEPUTY
Palm Springs, California 92264
T: (760) 797-5502
Weinsteinlaw100@aol.com
Jan Herzog, Esq. [Bar No. 41396]
HERZOG, YUHAS, EHRLICH & ARDELL
A Professional Corporation
11400 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1150
Los Angeles, California 90064
Telephone: (310) 458-6660
10 Facsimile (310) 458-9065
11 herzo, @ix.netcom.com
12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BRIAN MAHAFFEY & ASHLEY MAHAFFEY
13
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
14
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO - CENTRAL
15
16 BRIAN MAHAFFEY and ASHLEY CASE NO. CIVDS1908657
MAHAFFEY,
17
[Assigned to Hon. Corey G. Lee, Dept. S15]
Plaintiffs,
18
PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO
19 vs. DEENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12
TO LIMIT EVIDENCE OF PAST MEDICAL
20 RICHARD WILSON; JOSE MEDINA; EXPENSES
COLORAMA WHOLESALE NURSERY dba
21 COLORAMA,; and DOES | through 100, DATE: April 6, 2023
22 Inclusive. TIME : 9:00 a.m.
PLACE: Dept S15
23 Defendants.
DATE FILED March 21, 2019
24 TRIAL DATE —teprit 10, 2023 a
Ausost
25
26
27
7 1 =
28
PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12
TO LIMIT EVIDENCE OF PAST MEDICAL EXPENSES
4864-9396-2075, v. 1
1 UNPAID PAST MEDICAL EXPENSES ARE ADMISSIBLE BOTH BECAUSE
THE PATIENT MAY BE LIABLE FOR SUCH AMOUNTS AND BECAUSE
THEY MAY BE PROBATIVE OF REASONABLE FUTURE EXPENSES
Defendants suggest that past amounts billed for medical care are not recoverable under Howell
v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, if they have not been actually paid
pursuant to a health insurance plan and request evidence of such amounts should be excluded. That,
however, is not the holding of Howell and not the law.
The premise of Howell is that actual payments are most often made by health care insurers
under negotiated rate agreements, and that bill does not reflect actual obligations or payments. That
10 premise is inapplicable here, since Mahaffey has not paid any bills and does not have the benefit of
11 health insurance. His treatment was provided and billed for, and his bills thus reflect his actual
12 obligation.
13 It is true that the recovery of past medical damages by people who carry health insurance is
14 not necessarily based on the billed amounts, but limited to the negotiated cash payments made by
1S plaintiff's health plan, plus any copayments or deductibles and amounts still owing. But defendants
16 improperly seek to parlay a limitation on recoverable past damages to exclude evidence that is
17 relevant and admissible as to plaintiffs general damages and future medical damages. Nothing in
18 Howell so holds. To the contrary, the Supreme Court stated that it was not ruling on the admissibility
19 of such evidence as relevant to future medical care:
20 Where the provider has, by prior agreement, accepted less than a billed
21 amount as full payment, evidence of the full billed amount is not itself
relevant on the issue of past medical expenses. We express no opinion as to
22
its relevance or admissibility on other issues, such as noneconomic damages
23
or future medical expenses.
24
(Howell, 52 Cal.4th at 559 (emphasis added.)]
25
26 While Howell held that a tort plaintiff whose health insurance indemnifies plaintiffs medical
27 costs at contractually negotiated discounted rates can only “recover the amounts actually paid [by] the
7 25
28
PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12
TO LIMIT EVIDENCE OF PAST MEDICAL EXPENSES
4864-9396-2075, v. 1
Document Filed Date
August 08, 2023
Case Filing Date
March 21, 2019
Category
Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
w SUPERIOR cds Ee Pvrcomnan COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO BERNARDINO DISTRICT Robert Weinstein, Esq. [Bar No. 140412] ROBERT S. WEINSTEIN & ASSOC. AUG 08 2023 12401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 we Los Angeles, California 90025 —_ T: (310) 277-7762 1039 S. Palm Canyon Drive GREG TREIHART. DEPUTY Palm Springs, California 92264 T: (760) 797-5502 Weinsteinlaw100@aol.com Jan Herzog, Esq. [Bar No. 41396] HERZOG, YUHAS, EHRLICH & ARDELL A Professional Corporation 11400 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1150 Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: (310) 458-6660 10 Facsimile (310) 458-9065 11 herzo, @ix.netcom.com 12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs BRIAN MAHAFFEY & ASHLEY MAHAFFEY 13 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 14 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO - CENTRAL 15 16 BRIAN MAHAFFEY and ASHLEY CASE NO. CIVDS1908657 MAHAFFEY, 17 [Assigned to Hon. Corey G. Lee, Dept. S15] Plaintiffs, 18 PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO 19 vs. DEENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO LIMIT EVIDENCE OF PAST MEDICAL 20 RICHARD WILSON; JOSE MEDINA; EXPENSES COLORAMA WHOLESALE NURSERY dba 21 COLORAMA,; and DOES | through 100, DATE: April 6, 2023 22 Inclusive. TIME : 9:00 a.m. PLACE: Dept S15 23 Defendants. DATE FILED March 21, 2019 24 TRIAL DATE —teprit 10, 2023 a Ausost 25 26 27 7 1 = 28 PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO LIMIT EVIDENCE OF PAST MEDICAL EXPENSES 4864-9396-2075, v. 1 1 UNPAID PAST MEDICAL EXPENSES ARE ADMISSIBLE BOTH BECAUSE THE PATIENT MAY BE LIABLE FOR SUCH AMOUNTS AND BECAUSE THEY MAY BE PROBATIVE OF REASONABLE FUTURE EXPENSES Defendants suggest that past amounts billed for medical care are not recoverable under Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, if they have not been actually paid pursuant to a health insurance plan and request evidence of such amounts should be excluded. That, however, is not the holding of Howell and not the law. The premise of Howell is that actual payments are most often made by health care insurers under negotiated rate agreements, and that bill does not reflect actual obligations or payments. That 10 premise is inapplicable here, since Mahaffey has not paid any bills and does not have the benefit of 11 health insurance. His treatment was provided and billed for, and his bills thus reflect his actual 12 obligation. 13 It is true that the recovery of past medical damages by people who carry health insurance is 14 not necessarily based on the billed amounts, but limited to the negotiated cash payments made by 1S plaintiff's health plan, plus any copayments or deductibles and amounts still owing. But defendants 16 improperly seek to parlay a limitation on recoverable past damages to exclude evidence that is 17 relevant and admissible as to plaintiffs general damages and future medical damages. Nothing in 18 Howell so holds. To the contrary, the Supreme Court stated that it was not ruling on the admissibility 19 of such evidence as relevant to future medical care: 20 Where the provider has, by prior agreement, accepted less than a billed 21 amount as full payment, evidence of the full billed amount is not itself relevant on the issue of past medical expenses. We express no opinion as to 22 its relevance or admissibility on other issues, such as noneconomic damages 23 or future medical expenses. 24 (Howell, 52 Cal.4th at 559 (emphasis added.)] 25 26 While Howell held that a tort plaintiff whose health insurance indemnifies plaintiffs medical 27 costs at contractually negotiated discounted rates can only “recover the amounts actually paid [by] the 7 25 28 PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO LIMIT EVIDENCE OF PAST MEDICAL EXPENSES 4864-9396-2075, v. 1