Lee v. Dennison et al

Filing 133

ORDER Denying 98 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 1/17/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TRW)

Case 2:19-cv-01332-KJD-NJK Document 133 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

ALEXIS LEE,

8
9
10

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
DINO DENNISON, et al.,

11
12

Case No. 2:19-cv-01332-KJD-NJK

Defendants.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2 (#98) to preclude or limit

13

reference to medical liens or any other collateral source of payment. Defendants filed a response

14

in opposition (#108).

15

I. Background

16

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident on September 9, 2017. Plaintiff Alexis

17

Lee (“Lee”) was driving an economy-sized Hyundai Sonata and Defendant Dino Dennison

18

(“Dennison”) was driving a semi-truck as an employee of Defendant Knight Transportation

19

(“Knight”) when the two vehicles collided. While Defendants have generally accepted liability,

20

the parties still dispute the amount and causation of damages alleged by Plaintiff.

21

Plaintiff’s second motion in limine argues that “Any evidence of reference to medical

22

liens should be strictly limited to asking doctors who still hold their liens at the time of trial: (1)

23

what a medical lien is; and (2) whether their treatment was offered on such a medical lien. Any

24

further questioning along these lines violates would violate [sic] the collateral source rule and

25

would cause unfair prejudice to plaintiffs.” Doc. No. 98 at p. 6, l. 15-19.

26

II. Analysis

27
28

A motion in limine is a procedural mechanism made in advance to limit testimony or
evidence in a particular area” and is “entirely within the discretion of the Court.” Diamond X

Case 2:19-cv-01332-KJD-NJK Document 133 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 3

1

Ranch, LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co., No. 3:13-cv-00570-MMD-WGC, 2018 WL 2127734, at

2

*1 (D. Nev. May 8, 2018). A “motion in limine should not be used to resolve factual disputes or

3

weigh evidence.” IGT v. Alliance Gaming Corp., No. 2:04-cv-1676-RCJ-RJJ, 2008 WL

4

7084605, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 21, 2008). “To exclude evidence on a motion in limine, ‘the

5

evidence must be inadmissible on all potential grounds.’” Diamond X Ranch, 2018 WL

6

2127734, at *1 (quoting Indiana Ins. Co. v. General Elec. Co., 326 F.Supp.2d 844, 846 (N.D.

7

Ohio 2004)).

8
9

Plaintiff is correct that Nevada has “adopt[ed] a per se rule barring the admission of a
collateral source of payment for an injury into evidence for any purpose.” Proctor v. Castelletti,

10

911 P.2d 853, 854 (Nev. 1996). It concluded that “[collateral source evidence inevitably

11

prejudices the jury because it greatly increases the likelihood that a jury will reduce a plaintiffs

12

award of damages because it knows the plaintiff is already receiving compensation.” Id. Federal

13

courts likewise have adopted the collateral source rule. See Eichel v. New York Cent. R.

14

Co., 375 U.S. 253, 255 (1963) (stating that evidence the plaintiff is receiving benefits from a

15

collateral source is prejudicial); Russo v. Matson Nov. Co., 486 F.2d 1018, 1020 (9th Cir.

16

1973) (stating that “where the injured plaintiff's compensation comes from a collateral source, it

17

should not be offset against the sum awarded for the tort nor considered in determining that

18

award”).

19

However, evidence that Plaintiff was treated by physicians who hold medical liens does

20

not, in and of itself, violate the collateral source rule. Evidence of the existence of a medical lien

21

does not suggest a third-party source of payment; rather, it evidences “an unpaid bill.” Calvert v.

22

Ellis, 2016 WL 153044 at *4 (D. Nev. January 12, 2016). Thus, the existence of a lien could

23

implicate the lienholder’s credibility (i.e., whether the lien-holding witness is testifying in order

24

to help plaintiff recover funds to pay the lien). Id. Therefore, Defendants are not precluded from

25

asking Plaintiff’s treating physicians who are also retained experts whether they hold a medical

26

lien and in what amount. Nor are they precluded from arguing that the physicians may be biased

27

because they have an incentive to assist Plaintiff in maximizing recovery in this case. Expert

28

compensation is relevant and admissible as it may impact bias. Id.

-2-

Case 2:19-cv-01332-KJD-NJK Document 133 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 3

1
2

III. Conclusion
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2 (#98) is

3

DENIED.

4

Dated this 17th day of January, 2023.

5
6

_ ___________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge

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

-3-