Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Damages in product liability personal injury cases inevitably involve medical expenses. Depending on the nature and extent of the injury, those medical expenses can generate extraordinarily high numbers, especially when examining the amount billed without insurance discounts. When it comes to recovering medical expenses, the question in determining the amount of damages often turns on what number can be presented to the jury: Do we recover the amount billed by the medical providers? Or the out-of-pocket amount actually paid by the plaintiff? The differential between the amount billed versus paid can be substantial, and understanding the admissibility of the figures can have a large impact on the potential damages in your case.
Since the California Supreme Court's decision in Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc ., (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, California law has been clear that plaintiffs cannot recover medical damages in excess of those they have paid. The Howell court indirectly opined that evidence of the full amount of an injured plaintiff's medical billings is inadmissible with respect to damages for past medical expenses. The decision, however, left the door open for plaintiffs to seek the admissibility of the full medical billings with respect to the calculation of potential future medical expenses and noneconomic damages. The recent decision in Corenbaum v. Lampkin, (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1308, closed that door.
An analysis of the new Corenbaum decision in California necessitates a brief discussion of the main points of its predecessor, Howell.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
As businesses across various industries increasingly adopt blockchain, it will become a critical source of discoverable electronically stored information. The potential benefits of blockchain for e-discovery and data preservation are substantial, making it an area of growing interest and importance.