On August 28, 2014, defendant filed a request for clarification regarding the presentation of evidence as to future medical expenses. Specifically, it plaintiff’s asserted Roughan had relied on billed amounts in calculating the cost of “inflated” future medical care, rather than the lower amounts providers actually accept as plaintiff’s full payment. Defendant questioned whether the trial court had intended to allow the introduction of such evidence when it made its earlier rulings on motions in plaintiff’s limine. Defendant suggested the evidence should instead be limited to the amounts health care providers will accept in the future as full payment. Defendant noted life care plan did not reflect the substantially lower Roughan’s amounts that would be accepted as full payment under Medi-Cal or private insurance. It relied heavily on (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541 Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (Howell) and (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1308 (Corenbaum) in Corenbaum v. Lampkin arguing that recovery should be limited to the amount he proves is likely to be plaintiff’s paid to providers for his future medical care, not the amount his providers are likely to bill. It contended that the billed rates reflected in plan were therefore Roughan’s inadmissible. Defendant also asked whether it would be allowed to introduce evidence concerning the range of amounts healthcare providers accept as full payment, without making reference to the actual sources (i.e., Medi-Cal or private insurance) of those payments. Defendant asserted that introducing these reduced amounts the “would assist jury in evaluating the reasonable value of future medical care, without plaintiff’s violating the collateral source rule by disclosing the third party source of It payment.” that Medi-Cal does not fall within the exception to the collateral reasoned “[t]he fact source rule of MICRA is completely separate from the issue of whether the County may introduce evidence regarding the amounts Medi-Cal will pay for a service, without referencing the source of payment. In the former scenario, the County would be seeking to be completely relieved from paying for a service that Medi-Cal will cover, while in the
On August 28, 2014, defendant filed a request for clarification regarding the presentation of evidence as to plaintiff’s future medical expenses. Specifically, it asserted Roughan had relied on “inflated” billed amounts in calculating the cost of plaintiff’s future medical care, rather than the lower amounts providers actually accept as full payment. Defendant questioned whether the trial court had intended to allow the introduction of such evidence when it made its earlier rulings on plaintiff’s motions in limine. Defendant suggested the evidence should instead be limited to the amounts health care providers will accept in the future as full payment. Defendant noted Roughan’s life care plan did not reflect the substantially lower amounts that would be accepted as full payment under Medi-Cal or private insurance. It relied heavily on Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541 (Howell) and Corenbaum v. Lampkin (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1308 (Corenbaum) in arguing that plaintiff’s recovery should be limited to the amount he proves is likely to be paid to providers for his future medical care, not the amount his providers are likely to bill. It contended that the billed rates reflected in Roughan’s plan were therefore inadmissible. Defendant also asked whether it would be allowed to introduce evidence concerning the range of amounts healthcare providers accept as full payment, without making reference to the actual sources (i.e., Medi-Cal or private insurance) of those payments. Defendant asserted that introducing these reduced amounts “would assist the jury in evaluating the reasonable value of plaintiff’s future medical care, without violating the collateral source rule by disclosing the third party source of payment.” It reasoned “[t]he fact that Medi-Cal does not fall within the exception to the collateral source rule of MICRA is completely separate from the issue of whether the County may introduce evidence regarding the amounts Medi-Cal will pay for a service, without referencing the source of payment. In the former scenario, the County would be seeking to be completely relieved from paying for a service that Medi-Cal will cover, while in the