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

By Julia M. Beckley
December 31, 2013

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

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

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.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

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.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?