Pickens v. BNSF Railway Company et al

Filing 108

ORDER denying 60 motion in limine. Signed on 7/2/18 by District Judge Beth Phillips. (Wolfe, Steve)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
SHAWN PICKENS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY,
Defendant.

No. 17-0398-CV-W-BP

ORDER
Pending is Defendant’s Motion in Limine. (Doc. 60.) The parties dispute what evidence
is admissible to prove the value of Plaintiff’s past medical treatment. Defendant seeks to exclude
evidence of the full amount of Plaintiff’s medical bills at trial. Defendant argues that under
Missouri Revised Statute § 490.715, Plaintiff is limited to presenting evidence of the amount
actually paid plus any remaining dollar amount necessary to satisfy the financial obligation for
medical treatment. Plaintiff argues that §490.715 does not limit Plaintiff to introducing evidence
of amounts paid for medical treatment. The Court agrees with Plaintiff.
Section 490.715.5 currently provides:1
5. (1) Except as provided in subsection 2 of this section, parties may
introduce evidence of the actual cost of the medical care or treatment rendered to a
plaintiff or a patient whose care is at issue. Actual cost of the medical care or
treatment shall be reasonable, necessary, and a proximate result of the negligence
or fault of any party.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, the phrase “actual cost of the medical
care or treatment” shall be defined as a sum of money not to exceed the dollar
amounts paid by or on behalf of a plaintiff or a patient whose care is at issue plus
any remaining dollar amount necessary to satisfy the financial obligation for
medical care or treatment by a health care provider after adjustment for any
contractual discounts, price reduction, or write-off by any person or entity.

1

The parties agree that the 2017 version of the statute applies in this case. Thus, the Court need not consider earlier
versions of the statute.

Defendant’s argument that § 490.715.5 limits the introduction of evidence regarding the
value of medical treatment to the amount actually paid is based on Eastern and Western District of
Missouri cases. See Covey v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., No. 16-1262, 2017 WL 6459811 at *4
(W.D. Mo. Dec. 18, 2017); J.B. by and through Bullock v. Missouri Baptist Hosp. of Sullivan, No.
16-01394, 2018 WL 746302 at *2 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 7, 2018); Smith v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 1624, 2018 WL 1806698, at *6 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 17, 2018); and Hensley v. Crete Carrier Corporation,
No. 16-3208, slip op. at 2-3 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 30, 2017). The Court does not find these cases helpful
because either (1) the parties only contested which version of the statute applied and did not contest
what evidence was admissible or (2) the court did explain the basis for its decision. Furthermore,
the Court notes that these decisions are not binding on the Court.
Defendant further argues that by stating that a party “may introduce evidence of the actual
cost of the medical care,” the Missouri legislature intended to create a “permissive mandate” and
limit both parties to introducing only evidence of amounts paid. There do not appear to be any
Missouri Supreme Court or Missouri Court of Appeals cases on point; however, at least two
Missouri Circuit Courts have considered the issue and concluded that the statute does not prohibit
the admission of medical bills. See Newsome v. Anesthesia Assoc. of Kansas City, P.C., No. 1616CV13330 (16th Cir. Ct. Mo. January 30, 2018), Bennett v. SSM Medical Group, No. 1511CC00044 (11th Cir. Ct. Mo. Oct. 3, 2017). As both Circuit Court opinions point out, the statute
provides one method by which the value of medical treatment “may” be proven but nothing in the
language mandates the method of proving such value. The statute contains no language limiting
what evidence can be introduced nor any language prohibiting the admission of specific evidence.
Further, the legislature could have precluded the admissibility of medical bills, but did not do so.
See Bennett v. SSM Medical Group, No. 1511-CC00044 (11th Cir. Ct. Mo. Oct. 3, 2017).

2

Thus,

Court agrees that the statute does not preclude the introduction of medical bills to prove the value
of medical treatment.
Therefore, the Court turns to common law, which provides that recovery for medical
expenses depends upon proof of the necessity and reasonableness of the medical expenses
incurred. Spica v. McDonald, 334 S.W.2d 365, 371 (Mo. 1960) (en banc). Although Missouri
courts held that medical bills do not by themselves prove either the necessity or reasonableness of
medical expenses, parties are permitted to introduce them if there is evidence, such as testimony
by a medical witness, that the medical bills reflect necessary treatment and reasonable changes.
See Spica, 334 S.W.2d at 371, Hudson v. Whiteside, 966 S.W.2d 370, 371 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998),
Schaeffer v. Craden, 800 S.W.2d 165, 165-66 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). Thus, the Court concludes
that Plaintiff is not automatically prohibited from presenting evidence of the amounts billed.
However, Plaintiff must still present evidence that the bills reflect necessary treatment and
reasonable charges. The Court also notes that Defendant is permitted to present evidence that the
amounts billed were not reasonable. For instance, Defendant may present evidence of the amount
Plaintiff paid. Defendant may also present testimony on the issue.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine, (Doc. 60), is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: July 2, 2018

/s/ Beth Phillips
BETH PHILLIPS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3