Strategies, Challenges, and Answers

Accident Reconstructionist Not Required for Low Impact Defense at Trial

The Nevada Supreme Court held in a minor rear end accident case that Accident Reconstruction experts are not necessary for mounting low impact defenses.Mr. Simao and his wife filed a claim against Ms. Rish claiming bodily injuries following an unremarkable rear end accident in stop and go traffic where no one was transported from the scene.  Prior to trial, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ pretrial motion to forbid Rish, her medical expert and her witnesses from testifying, arguing or … [Read more...]

Collateral Source Is Still Good Law Despite Tri-County Equipment Decision

Following the California case of Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 52 Cal. 4th 541, 257 P.3d 81, 128 CalRptr. 3d 658 (2011), the Nevada Law Blogs began wondering if Nevada would follow California’s lead and prohibit Plaintiff’s attorneys from introducing evidence of any medical bills that had been partially or totally forgiven by Plaintiff’s medical provider.  Then came the Nevada case of Tri–County Equip. & Leasing, LLC v. Klinke, 128 Nev. Adv. Op. 33, 286 P.3d 593 (2012). We … [Read more...]

The Accident Report Favors Our Driver. Liability’s A Lock! Or Is It?

A taxi cab hits the back of a small pickup truck.  Witnesses place blame on the cab.  The officer tickets the cabbie.  The officer prepares a traffic accident report.  The report says the cab driver is at-fault.When trial comes around, the judge admits the traffic report into evidence.  In the case of Frias v. Valle, 101 Nev. 219, 698 P.2d 875 (1985), the Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and sent the case back to be tried again.  But why?The Court explained the traffic accident … [Read more...]

California Court Clarifies Confusion Post-Howell

Ever since the California Supreme Court decided Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 52 Cal 4th 541 (2013), California’s lower courts have been dealing with the billed vs. paid issue.  The opinion of Corenbaum v. Lampkin, 214 Cal.App.4th 1308 (2013) is an example.An intoxicated Lampkin drove his car and hit the taxi in which Corenbaum was a passenger.  Cornebaum’s medical insurance paid his bills but at a discounted rate.  In other words, the medical providers accepted the … [Read more...]

Nevada Kicks The Can Down The Road On The “Billed Vs. Paid” Issue

Plaintiffs often hope to recover a medical provider’s higher “billed” rate, even though the same medical provider accepts in full satisfaction a lesser “paid” amount from an insurance company.  We noted HERE that some states have either refused to allow evidence of the higher “billed” amount or have allowed rebuttal evidence that the doctor accepted the lower “paid” amount in satisfaction of the bill.As reported HERE, the Nevada Supreme Court case of Tri-County Equip. & Leasing, LLC., v. … [Read more...]