Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)
ARGUMENT
Dr. Lee’s opinions about the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s medical bills must be excluded, California Evidence Code § 803, because they are not based on special knowledge, skill, experience, training, education, or matters perceived by, or personally known or made known to him, that are if a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming such opinions, California Evidence Code § 801(b).
In his deposition, Dr. Lee admitted that he had no access or exposure to Plaintiff’s medical bills or any other relevant information, Naples Restaurant, Inc. v Coberly Ford (1968) 259 Cal App 2d 881, 66 Cal Rptr 835, that his opinions are based solely on irrelevant, conjectural and speculative data, Roscoe Moss Co. v. Jenkins (1942) 55 Cal. App.2d 369, 130 P.2d 477; Hyatt v Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal App 3d 325, 145 Cal Rptr 47, Stephen v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 134 Cal App 4th 1363, 37 Cal Rptr 3d 9, and that he has no experience or expertise in the relevant subject matter, Maatuk v. Guttman (2009) 173 Cal App 4th 1191, 93 Cal Rptr 3d 381.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Moreover, any attempts to insinuate that collateral source payments of any kind constitute the reasonable value of Plaintiffs bills will result in reversible error, Hrnjak v. Graymar. Inc. (1971) 4 Cal 3d 725, 94 Cal Rptr 623, 484 P2d 599; Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit Dist. (1970) 2 Cal 3d 1, 84 Cal Rptr 173, 465 P2d 61; Acosta v. Southern California Rapid Transit Dist. (1970) 2 Cal 3d 19, 84 Cal Rptr 184, 465 P2d 72; Olsen v. Reid, (2008) 164 Cal.App. 4th 200; Greer v. Hossam Ali Buzgheia, (2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 1150; 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 780; Katiuzhinsky v. Perry (2007) 152 Cal App 4th 128.
It is the actual amount billed by the health care providers which represents the reasonable value of the services provided, reflects the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries, and helps jurors assess overall general damages, Hanif v. Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635; Nishihama v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 93 Cal.App.4th 298; Katiuzhinsky v. Perry (2007) 152 Cal App 4th 1288.
CONCLUSION
In sum, it is imperative that Dr. Lee not be permitted to speculate about what he believes Plaintiff should have spent on her medical care and treatment.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.