Sacramento Car Accident Lawyer Blog

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the pre-trial stage of civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)

LEGAL ARGUMENT

A plaintiff in a personal injury action is entitled to recover from the defendant tortfeasor the "reasonable value" of medical services rendered to the plaintiff, including the amount paid by a collateral source, such as an insurer. Nishihama v. City & County of San Francisco (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 298. As medical expenses fall into the category of economic damages, they represent actual pecuniary loss caused by the defendants' wrong. (Civil Code Section 1431.2(b)(1); Hanif v Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635, 641.) Thus, when the evidence shows a sum certain to have been paid or incurred for past medical care and services, whether by the plaintiff or by an independent source, that sum certain is the most the plaintiff may recover for that care despite the fact that it may have been less than the prevailing market rate. (Hanif v. Housing Authority, supra, 200 Cal.App. at 641.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In this case, the set amount of plaintiff's reasonable medical services is that which was actually paid by Aetna Blue Cross in facilitating CMSP under which plaintiff was covered. These actual payment figures are attached as Exhibit A as Amount Paid. By virtue of this resolved amount, and pursuant to Hanif and Nishihama, these amounts paid reflect the objectively verifiable monetary losses for the plaintiff's treatment. (Civil Code § 1431.2(b)(1)

Continue reading "Amount Of Medical Insurance Coverage At Issue In Sacramento Car Accident Claim, Part 3 of 3" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the pre-trial stage of civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case involves an automobile accident that occurred on August 9, 2008, on northbound Watt Avenue south of Marconi in the city of Sacramento, county of Sacramento, state of California. Plaintiff Randall Brown claims that defendant Brenda White was negligent in the operation of her motor vehicle that day. Plaintiff claims physical injury as a result. Defendant disputes liability as well as the nature and extent of plaintiff's overall claims.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff Brown did not seek medical attention on the date of the accident, and continued to Lake Tahoe on the date of the accident. Two days later he was seen at Memorial Hospital upon his return trip home from Lake Tahoe and was diagnosed with a closed head injury, cervical sprain, rotator cuff sprain, and a lumbar sprain. Plaintiff was discharged with instructions to follow up with his primary care provider.

After the accident, plaintiff stopped working at Blockbuster, and lost his health insurance benefits. He then sought and received benefits through CMSP, which provides health insurance for low-income indigent adults in thirty four rural counties in California. This program is facilitated by Aetna Blue Cross. Brown continued to treat with a number of different facilities, and the records attached as Exhibit A show the various medical providers he has sought.

Continue reading "Sacramento Man Involved In Two-Car Collision, Part 2 of 3" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the pre-trial stage of civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO SET REASONABLE VALUE OF MEDICAL SERVICES

SUBJECT EVIDENCE: REASONABLE VALUE OF MEDICAL SERVICES AS THAT AMOUNT REDUCED OR ADJUSTED BY MEDICAL PROVIDERS PRIOR TO PAYMENT BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.

Basis For Set Value: Hanif v. Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635, 641; Nishihama v. City & County of San Francisco (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 298, 306-309; Civil Code Section 1431.2(b)(1).

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

INTRODUCTION

Under California Law, the most a personal injury plaintiff can recover for medical services is the amount that has been paid or incurred for those services, even if that amount is less than the market rate. Hanif v. Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635, 641; Nishihama v. City & County of San Francisco (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 298, 306-309. Defendants Brenda White and Donna White hereby move this Court for an order setting the reasonable value of medical services for plaintiff's medical providers to that which National Insur. Co. paid the providers on behalf of plaintiff Randall Brown due to his coverage through County Medical Services Program (CMSP), which coverage is facilitated by National Insur. Co. CMSP provides low-income indigent adults with health insurance in thirty-four rural counties in California.

Continue reading "Sacramento Man's Medical Expenses Challenged After Car Accident, Part 1 of 3" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the post-trial stage of civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)

CONCLUSION

It is respectfully submitted that the plaintiff in this matter did carry her burden of proof in establishing that she suffered both economic and non-economic harm as a direct result of the automobile accident in question.

The testimony of the plaintiff was that she sought medical care and treatment immediately after this accident and was admitted to Kaiser Hospital's emergency room where she was examined, found to have suffered a physical injury, and was administered powerful narcotics as a result of her pain and suffering. Additionally, she testified that as a result of this accident she became nauseated and was vomiting which further required medical care and treatment for a condition which was not present prior to this accident occurring. The plaintiff's testimony as to her loss of income as a result of the off work notice given by physicians at Kaiser also demonstrated economic damage.

The court, by allowing counsel for the defendant to use exhibits over and over and over again after objections were made to their introduction constituted irregularities in the proceeding and attorney misconduct. To have allowed defendant's counsel over objection to question witnesses concerning medical records that the witness did not author, and which the witness did not rely on in reaching opinions and conclusions for the purpose of attempting to impeach the plaintiff's claim of certain injuries is sufficient to grant this motion for new trial. What counsel for the defendant attempted to do was to show by an absence of record, without establishing a foundation that the record even inquired or dealt with the subject matter of the personal injuries prejudiced this plaintiff and apparently influenced the jury to disregard the law with regard to causation.

Continue reading "Compensation For Medical Treatment At Issue In Sacramento Automobile Collision Case, Part 9 of 9" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the post-trial stage of civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)

Based on the fact that there was no evidence to show that the plaintiff was under any medical care and treatment for either her back or her neck prior to this automobile accident, and given the fact that the plaintiff did seek immediate medical care and treatment which was rendered at Kaiser, the evidence must be given weight to support a finding that the plaintiff was harmed as a result of the defendant's imminent liability.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The question is not whether or not the plaintiff recovered from her injuries over time, but instead is a question of whether or not she was injured or harmed as a result of this negligent conduct and as such incurred both economic and non-economic losses. The testimony in this case was not refuted by any evidence presented by the defendant that the plaintiff following this accident was admitted to the emergency room at Kaiser, received medical care and treatment, was administered powerful narcotics, that the plaintiff followed up her injuries with her primary care physician within two (2) days of the date of this accident, that the plaintiff was off work for a period of time as a result of her injuries, and that the plaintiff suffered pain and suffering as a result of this accident.

Continue reading "Amount Awarded For Car Accident Injuries At Issue In Sacramento Trial, Part 8 of 9" »