 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Clark v. Wal-Mart Stores3/25/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
SUMMARY
This appeal raises the question whether an injured party may recover as compensation from the tortfeasor the full amount billed for past medical expenses, or whether her recovery is confined to the actual amount she or her insurers paid, or for which she incurred liability. Consistent with the rule stated in Hanif v. Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635, we conclude that an injured party may not recover, as compensation for past medical services, any amount in excess of the actual amounts expended or incurred.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Rosemary Clark sued Wal-Mart after she slipped and fell in a Wal-Mart store in Paramount in July 1997. She suffered a severe fracture of her left femur. Among other items of damages, Clark sought compensation for medical expenses incurred for treatment of the fracture, as well as for treatment of a left leg infection that developed almost two years later, in June 1999. Both courses of treatment involved extended hospitalization. Clark also sought damages for future medical expenses, past and future household expenses and pain and suffering.
The trial of Clark's action proceeded in two stages. In the first stage, the jury determined that Wal-Mart was negligent in its use, maintenance or management of the premises. In the second stage, the jury found by a special verdict that Wal-Mart's negligence was a legal cause of the injury to Clark, and that the accident caused economic damages of $155,000 and non-economic damages of $50,000.
Both parties moved for a new trial. The motions were denied, except that the economic damages awarded to Clark were reduced by $36,662.23. The order was based on the rule in Hanif v. Housing Authority, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d 635, that an injured plaintiff may not recover from a tortfeasor more than the actual amount he paid, or for which he incurred liability, for past medical care and services. While Clark and Wal-Mart filed notices of appeal, Wal-Mart later abandoned its appeal.
DISCUSSION
Clark argues her motion for a new trial on damages should have been granted. She asserts the jury award was "woefully inadequate," and the trial court improperly applied the rule in Hanif when the award of economic damages was reduced to reflect, as past medical expenses, only amounts actually paid to, and accepted as payment in full by, her medical providers. We conclude the trial court did not err in reducing the award, and Clark's other claims of error likewise have no merit.
The Hanif rule.
The issue in Hanif v. Housing Authority involved the proper application of the principle that a person injured by another's tortious conduct is entitled to recover the reasonable value of medical care and services attributable to the conduct. The plaintiff in Hanif argued the reasonable value of medical services was the amount the providers billed to Medi-Cal. The defendant argued plaintiff's recovery must be limited to the amount Medi-Cal actually paid, where there was no evidence plaintiff was or would become liable for the balance, which providers had written off. (200 Cal.App.3d at p. 639.) The court concluded plaintiff's recovery was limited to the amount actually paid, based on " undamental principles underlying recovery of compensatory damages in tort actions ...." (Id. at
Page 1 2 3 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|