Low, Ball & Lynch’s
WEEKLY
LAW RESUME
Damages
- Evidence of Total Amount of Medical Bills
Greer
v. Buzgheia
(
Court of Appeal, Third
District
Under the cases of 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, a plaintiff in a tort
action cannot recover more than the amount of medical expenses actually paid or
incurred, even if the billable or market value of the medical expenses is a
greater sum. Defendants have relied on these cases to exclude evidence of the
amount of plaintiff’s medical bills exceeding the amount paid.
In this case, the
question was whether a jury should receive evidence of the total amount of
medical bills charged to plaintiff, not just the amount of medical bills
actually paid. Plaintiff Robert Greer was injured when Defendant Hossam Ali Buzgheia’ vehicle
collided with Greer’s vehicle. Greer filed suit against Buzgheia and claimed a low back injury, necessitating spinal
fusion surgery. Greer incurred medical bills of $216,000. Prior to trial,
Greer’s employer reached a compromise agreement with Greer’s medical providers
to satisfy his entire medical tab for the sum of $132,984.92.
Defendant brought a
motion in limine to exclude Greer from submitting
evidence of medical bills exceeding the amount of money which the medical
providers agreed to accept as payment in full. Defendant argued that the jury
should not be permitted to hear evidence that the reasonable value of the
medical services exceeded the amount paid, because no one was obligated to pay
the difference. The trial court denied the motion.
At trial, the jury heard
evidence of the amount of medical expenses billed and that the amount was
reasonable. The special verdict form lumped medical expenses together with wage
loss and other economic damage. Plaintiff prevailed and was awarded the total
sum of $321,500. Defendant appealed. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed
the judgment.
On appeal, Defendant
contended that the trial court erred by denying his motion in limine to limit the evidence of the amount of Greer’s
medical bills to what was actually paid. The Third District held that the trial
court correctly denied Defendant’s motion in limine
and that a jury should receive evidence of the total amount of medical expenses
charged to a plaintiff in addition to evidence of the amount actually paid. The
Court of Appeal further held that a trial court may reduce the amount of medical
expenses awarded to a plaintiff as economic damages in a post-trial motion
pursuant to Hanif
and Nishihama.
Interestingly, Defendant
Buzgheia filed a post trial motion to reduce the
amount of Greer’s economic damages. The post-trial motion was denied by the
trial court because the verdict form presented to the jury did not separate an
award of medical expenses from an award of lost earnings when awarding past
economic loss to Greer. The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court properly
denied the post-trial motion because it was not possible to determine the amount
of past medical expenses which the jury awarded to Greer. The judgment in favor
of Greer was therefore affirmed.
COMMENT
This decision allows
plaintiffs to introduce evidence of the billed or market amount of medical bills
at trial, even though a plaintiff may not recover more than the actual amount
paid. Defendants must now file a post-trial motion to reduce excessive awards of
medical specials. We anticipate that this issue will eventually be addressed by
the California Supreme Court.
____
To order
a printed version of this analysis, or change
your subscription information, reply to this transmission Information regarding
this and other WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM articles is available
from Raymond Coates at (650) 366-4000, [email protected] or at
WWW.LOWBALL.COM. The WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM is published fifty-two
times a year, and is a complimentary publication of LOW, BALL & LYNCH, Attorneys at Law, a Professional Corporation, with offices in