Previously, the Nevada Law Blogs wondered why a Plaintiff had been allowed to have his cake and eat it too. That Earlier Post told the story of a Plaintiff whose medical providers treated him on liens. However, before the trial, those same medical providers sold their liens to litigation lenders at a discount. When the defense tried to introduce the amount that the litigation lender paid the medical provider in exchange for the liens, the judge refused, indicating that the amount accepted … [Read more...]
Trial Judge Let’s Plaintiff Have Cake And Eat It Too.
Setting: A courtroom somewhere in Las Vegas Cast of Characters: Treating Doctor Plaintiff’s Attorney (P.A.) Defendant’s Attorney (D.A.) Judge Doctor: I performed surgery on Plaintiff and my charges are reasonable. D.A.: But wait! Doctor’s opinions regarding reasonableness are not believable. He is biased. He performed the surgery on a lien and the lien is admissible to prove bias. If you don't believe me, take a look at the case of Craigmiles v. … [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...]
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...]