E.R. v. Sutter Davis Hospital et al

Filing 138

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 3/28/2017 GRANTING IN PART 88 Plaintiff's MOTION IN LIMINE No. 2. Any evidence regarding E.R.'s future benefits under Medi-Cal is hereby excluded. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

E.R., a minor, by and through
his Guardian ad Litem,
CAROLYN YOUNG,

CIV. NO. 2:14-2053 WBS CKD
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
SUTTER DAVIS HOSPITAL; SUTTER
WEST WOMEN’S HEALTH; SUSAN
MAAYAH, M.D.;
Defendants.

19
20
21

AND RELATED THIRD-PARTY
CLAIMS.
----oo0oo----

22
23

Before the court is plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2:

24

to Exclude Testimony about Collateral Sources to Reduce Future

25

Medical Expenses.

26

“collateral source” rule, “if an injured party received some

27

compensation for his injuries from a source wholly independent of

28

the tortfeasor, such payment should not be deducted from the

(Docket No. 88.)

1

Under California’s

1

damages which the plaintiff would otherwise collect from the

2

tortfeasor.”

3

498, 504-05 (2d Dist. 2000).

4

Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975, commonly known as

5

“MICRA,” modifies the collateral source rule with regard to

6

medical malpractice cases.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Hernandez v. Cal. Hosp. Med. Ctr., 78 Cal. App. 4th
However, California’s Medical

This section provides:

(a) In the event the defendant so elects, in an action
for personal injury against a health care provider
based upon professional negligence, he may introduce
evidence of any amount payable as a benefit to the
plaintiff as a result of the personal injury pursuant
to the United States Social Security Act, any state or
federal income disability or worker's compensation
act, any health, sickness or income-disability
insurance, accident insurance that provides health
benefits or income-disability coverage, and any
contract or agreement of any group, organization,
partnership, or corporation to provide, pay for, or
reimburse the cost of medical, hospital, dental, or
other health care services. Where the defendant elects
to introduce such evidence, the plaintiff may
introduce evidence of any amount which the plaintiff
has paid or contributed to secure his right to any
insurance benefits concerning which the defendant has
introduced evidence.
(b) No source of collateral benefits introduced
pursuant to subdivision (a) shall recover any amount
against the plaintiff nor shall it be subrogated to
the rights of the plaintiff against a defendant.
Cal. Gov’t Code § 3333.1.
As explained by the California Court of Appeal in
Hernandez, section 3333.1 was intended to reduce the cost of
medical malpractice insurance by allowing evidence of collateral
sources including health insurance, under the assumption that the
jury would take in account such benefits and reduce any damages
award.

78 Cal. App. 4th at 505-06 (quoting Barme v. Wood, 37

Cal. 3d 174, 179 (1984)).

“[S]ection 3333.1 does not preclude

recovery of such damages; rather, it allows the jury to decide
2

1

how to apply the evidence in calculation of damages.”

2

506.

3

Id. at

However, payments made through the California Medical

4

Assistance Program (“Medi-Cal”) “fall outside the scope of Civil

5

Code section 3333.1.”

6

barred from recovering any amount against the plaintiff under

7

section 3333.1(b), the Medi-Cal program may seek recovery of

8

Medi-Cal payments “against either the successful plaintiff

9

through the Medi-Cal lien procedure or in a direct action against

Id.

Thus, while private insurers are

10

the third party tortfeasor.”

11

Cal. App. 3d 331, 341 (3d Dist. 1982).

12

Id.; see also Brown v. Stewart, 129

If section 3333.1 does not apply to payments made

13

through Medi-Cal, then MICRA’s exception to the collateral source

14

rule for medical malpractice cases is inapplicable and does not

15

allow evidence of future Medi-Cal payments made on behalf of the

16

plaintiff.

17

from a plaintiff’s damages award, first by the jury due to

18

evidence of future Medi-Cal payments, and then by the Medi-Cal

19

program as it seeks to recover payments made on behalf of the

20

plaintiff in the future.

21

Such interpretation prevents a “double deduction”

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion in limine will be

22

granted with respect to evidence regarding future Medi-Cal

23

benefits.

24

However, defendants are not categorically barred from

25

introducing future benefits receivable under the Affordable Care

26

Act, by which plaintiff may receive benefits from private

27

insurance, although such insurance in some cases may be

28

subsidized by the federal government.
3

See Brewington v. United

1

States, Case No. CV 13-07672-DMG(CWx), 2015 WL 4511296, at *5-6

2

(C.D. Cal. July 24, 2015) (admitting evidence of Affordable Care

3

Act coverage as a collateral source of future medical care

4

expenses).

5

allows evidence both of past payments and future payments.

6

Indeed, section 3333.1(a)’s allowance of evidence of any amount

7

“payable as a benefit” encompasses both past and future medical

8

costs.

9

Permanente Med. Grp., 38 Cal. 3d 137, 164-65 (1985). Accordingly,

Notwithstanding plaintiff’s objection, section 3333.1

See Barme v. Wood, 37 Cal. 3d 174, 177-78 (1984); Fein v.

10

plaintiff’s motion in limine will be denied with respect to

11

evidence of future benefits under the Affordable Care Act.

12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion in

13

limine is GRANTED IN PART.

Any evidence regarding E.R.’s future

14

benefits under Medi-Cal is hereby excluded.

15

Dated:

March 28, 2017

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4