Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Practice Tip: Medical Expenses In CA
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.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?