In an earlier post HERE we reported that in Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., the California Supreme Court faced the question of what was the appropriate amount of an injured plaintiff’s recovery. Should plaintiff recover the amount billed for the medical treatment? Or should the Plaintiff recover the reduced amount that the health care insurance company had paid to satisfy the doctor’s bill? In Howell, the California Supreme Court found that an injured plaintiff could recover … [Read more...]
Responding To The Anticipated Fallout Of The Haygood And Howell Decisions
December 6, 2011 by
No one is surprised when people who are hurt in accidents go to the doctor’s office for care. In the past, many went to doctors who provided them care through their group health insurance programs. These group healthcare providers usually have pre-negotiated reimbursement agreements with the group health insurance carriers. Those insurance carriers pay the providers a sum certain for each service provided. The pre-negotiated reimbursement agreements normally prevent the doctors from charging … [Read more...]
Worker’s Compensation Insurance Protects Contractors From Lawsuits Brought By Its Employees Injured On The Job And That Same Immunity May Extend To Homeowners Who Hire Those Contractors
May 21, 2009 by
When a boss buys worker’s compensation insurance, he gets two very important benefits. First, worker’s compensation insurance will pay the medical bills of employees who are hurt on the job. Second, the boss is buying for itself immunity from lawsuits brought by the employees who are injured at work. See, Tucker v. Action Equipment and Scaffold Co., 113 Nev. 1349, 951 P.2d 1027 (1997). But what happens when the employee is doing work for the boss on someone else’s property? Does the boss’s … [Read more...]
