Johnson et al v. Trans-Carriers, Inc. et al

Filing 126

ORDER granting 102 Motion in Limine; denying as moot [103, 104] Motions. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 1/3/17. (Anderson, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER STEPHEN JOHNSON
and MELISSA JOHNSON,
Plaintiffs,

)
)
)
)
v.
)
No. 2:15-cv-2533-STA-dkv
)
TRANS-CARRIERS, INC. and
)
GORDON A. NEWSOME,
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL BILLS
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
GORDON NEWSOME’S DRIVING RECORD AND TICKET HISTORY AND
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

Before the Court is Defendants Trans-Carriers, Inc. and Gordon A. Newsome’s Motion in
Limine Regarding Plaintiff’s Medical Bills (ECF No. 102), Motion in Limine to Exclude Gordon
Newsome’s Driving Record and Ticket History (ECF No. 103), and Motion in Limine to
Exclude Gordon Newsome’s Employment History (ECF No. 104), all filed on October 24, 2016.
Plaintiffs Christopher Stephen Johnson and Melissa Johnson have filed written responses to
Defendants’ Motions. The Court conducted a pretrial conference with counsel for all parties on
October 27, 2016, and subsequently granted Defendants’ motion to continue the trial on
November 15, 2016. A jury trial is now reset for January 9, 2017. For the reasons set forth
below, Defendants’ Motion in Limine Regarding Plaintiff’s Medical Bills is GRANTED, and
Defendants’ other Motions in Limine are DENIED as moot.

1

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges negligence arising out of a 2015 motor vehicle accident in
Memphis, Tennessee. The Complaint names as Defendants the driver of a tractor-trailer, Gordon
A. Newsome, and the trucking company Newsome worked for, Trans-Carriers, Inc. In their
Motions in Limine, Defendants now ask the Court to exclude certain proof regarding Plaintiff
Christopher Stephen Johnson’s medical bills as well as proof concerning Defendant Gordon
Newsome’s driving record and ticket history and employment history. In their written responses
to Defendants’ Motions, Plaintiffs state that they do not intend to introduce proof in their case-inchief about Newsome’s prior driving record, history of traffic tickets, or his employment with
other trucking companies.

At the pretrial conference, counsel for Defendants stated that

Defendants intended to dismiss Newsome’s counterclaims against Plaintiffs. In light of these
developments, the Court finds that Defendants’ Motions in Limine to exclude proof about
Newsome’s driving record, ticket history, and employment history are now moot. Therefore,
those Motions will be DENIED.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine Regarding Plaintiff’s Medical Bills remains. Defendants
argue in support of their Motion that the Court should not allow Plaintiffs to introduce proof of
the full amount billed for the medical services and treatment rendered to Plaintiff Christopher
Stephen Johnson as a result of injuries he allegedly sustained in the collision. Defendants argue
that Plaintiff’s proof should be limited to the amounts actually paid by Plaintiff’s insurance
company, and not the full amounts billed by the medical providers. In the alternative, should the
Court allow Plaintiffs to introduce proof of the full amounts, Defendants argue that they should
be permitted to introduce proof of the amounts actually paid. Plaintiffs have responded in
opposition to Defendants’ Motion. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ approach violates the

2

collateral source doctrine and improperly introduces proof of Plaintiffs’ insurance coverage.
Plaintiffs point out that the Tennessee Court of Appeals recently decided in Dedmon v. Steelman
that a plaintiff is entitled to present evidence of the full amount of his medical expenses and that
a defendant then has the opportunity to rebut the reasonableness of the full amounts with proof of
the amounts actually paid. Plaintiffs argue that if the jury in this case is to hear proof of the
actual amounts paid, then the Court should follow the procedure described in Dedmon.
ANALYSIS
The Court holds as it has in prior cases presenting the same issue that proof of the full,
non-discounted amounts paid for medical services is not admissible. The parties agree that
Tennessee law supplies the law of decision for this issue. In a diversity case, the Court is bound
to apply the substantive law of Tennessee as if the action had been brought in the courts of that
state.1 Under the Erie doctrine, a federal court must apply the substantive law of a state as it has
been determined by the highest court of the state.2 When the highest court of the state has not
answered a particular question of law, the federal court must discern or predict how the state
courts would respond if confronted with the same question.3 The federal court must ascertain
from all available data what the law is and apply it.4

1

Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938); Corrigan v.
U.S. Steel Corp., 478 F.3d 718, 723 (6th Cir. 2007).
2

Gahafer v. Ford Motor Co., 328 F.3d 859, 861 (6th Cir. 2003).

3

Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, Dykes, Goodenberger, Bower & Clancy, 740 F.2d
1362, 1365 (6th Cir. 1984); Clutter v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 646 F.2d 1151, 1153 (6th Cir.
1981).
4

Bailey v. V & O Press Co., Inc., 770 F.2d 601 (6th Cir. 1985).
3

Under Tennessee law, a plaintiff must prove that the medical expenses he or she seeks to
recover as damages are both “necessary and reasonable.”5 The issue presented in this case is
whether Plaintiff may introduce the full, non-discounted amounts of his medical bills in order to
prove the reasonable amount of the medical expenses. The Tennessee Supreme Court has
addressed this issue but only in the context of hospital liens under the state’s Hospital Lien Act.6
In West v. Shelby County Healthcare, “the parties disagreed about the reasonableness of the
amount of the [healthcare provider's] charges” for services.7 The court found the disagreement
“understandable because the [healthcare provider] had two versions of its costs—one for [the
patients] and their insurance companies and another for the lien and the third-party tortfeasor.”8
The Court held that the healthcare provider’s “non-discounted charges . . . should not be
considered reasonable charges” for purposes of the Hospital Lien Act.9 The non-discounted
charges were not reasonable because they did not reflect the rate for services in the actual
marketplace: few insurers pay the hospital’s listed, full charge. Furthermore, healthcare providers
further their own economic interest by agreeing to discount charges for patients insured by
separate companies. Although West specifically concerned the construction of the Tennessee
Hospital Lien Act, the Court finds the Tennessee Supreme Court’s reasoning illustrative and
persuasive.10

5

Borner v. Autry, 284 S.W.3d 216, 218 (Tenn. 2009).

6

See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 29–22–101 to 107.

7

West v. Shelby County Healthcare, 459 S.W.3d 33, 44 (Tenn. 2014).

8

Id.

9

Id.

10

See also Keltner v. United States, No. 2:13–cv–2840–STA–dkv, 2015 WL 3688461
(W.D. Tenn. June 12, 2015).
4

Plaintiffs argue that the application of West in the personal-injury context violates the
collateral source rule. The collateral source rule is an evidentiary doctrine whereby proof of
payment by any collateral source is inadmissible at trial.11 The Tennessee Supreme Court has
explained that “in an action for damages in tort, the fact that the plaintiff has received payments
from a collateral source, other than the defendant, is not admissible in evidence and does not
reduce or mitigate the defendant’s liability.”12 The doctrine is a “substantive rule of law that
bars a tortfeasor from reducing damages owed to a plaintiff by the amount of recovery the
plaintiff receives from sources that are collateral to the tortfeasor.”13 But the collateral source
rule does not reach the question presented in Defendants’ Motion in Limine. The issue is not
whether the Court should admit proof that Plaintiffs have received payment for their medical
expenses from a collateral source. The issue is whether Plaintiff should be allowed to discharge
his burden to prove the reasonableness of his medical expenses with evidence of the full, nondiscounted medical charges. Although proof of medical expenses may implicate the collateral
source rule,14 the rule exists to “preclude[] certain deductions against otherwise recoverable

11

Fye v. Kennedy, 991 S.W.2d 754, 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

12

Donnell v. Donnell, 415 S.W.2d 127, 134 (Tenn. 1967) (abrogated on other grounds by
Dupuis v. Hand, 814 S.W.2d 340 (Tenn. 1991)).
13

J & M, Inc. v. Cupples, No. E2004–01328–COA–R3–CV, 2005 Tenn.App. LEXIS
301, at *7, 2005 WL 1190704 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2005) (citing Jackson v. City of
Cookeville, 31 F.3d 1354, 1359 (6th Cir. 1994)).
14

Dedmon v. Steelman, No. W2015–01462–COA–R9–CV, 2016 WL 3219070, at *11
(Tenn.Ct.App. June 2, 2016) (“Defendants are permitted to offer proof contradicting the
reasonableness of the medical expenses. . . . However, in doing so, they must not run afoul of the
collateral source rule.”).
5

damages;” the rule “does not expand the scope of economic damages to include expenses
plaintiff never incurred.”15
Finally, Plaintiffs cite the recent decision of Dedmon v. Steelman where the Tennessee
Court of Appeals “reject[ed] any assertion that the supreme court meant for its holding in West,
standing alone, to control all determinations of reasonableness with regard to medical expenses
under Tennessee law.”16 The Tennessee Court of Appeals noted its disagreement with this
Court’s decisions on West’s impact on personal injury cases.17 The Court of Appeals held in a
thorough and well-reasoned opinion that “a plaintiff may present the testimony of a physician
who testifies that the amount of medical expenses billed or charged to a plaintiff was reasonable”
and that a defendant should then be “permitted to offer proof contradicting the reasonableness of
the medical expenses” subject to the limits of the collateral source rule.18 The Tennessee
Supreme Court currently has the Dedmon decision under review.
While this Court cannot simply ignore Dedmon under Erie principles,19 the Court’s task
here is to predict how the Tennessee Supreme Court would rule on the matter. 20 In light of West,

15

Keltner, 2015 WL 3688461, at *4 (quoting Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions,
Inc., 52 Cal.4th 541, 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 325, 257 P.3d 1130, 1133 (2011)); see also Hall v. USF
Holland, Inc., 152 F.Supp.3d 1037, 1041 (W.D. Tenn., 2016).
16

Dedmon, 2016 WL 3219070, at *9.

17

Id. (“At least three federal district court opinions have interpreted West as defining the
standard of reasonableness for medical expenses in personal injury litigation. See Smith v.
Lopez–Miranda, No. 15–CV–2240–SHL–DKV, 2016 WL 1083845, at *1–3 (W.D.Tenn. Feb.
10, 2016); Hall v. USF Holland, Inc., No. 2:14–CV–02494, 2016 WL 361583, at *2 (W.D.Tenn.
Jan. 12, 2016); Keltner v. U.S., No. 2:13–CV–2840–STA–DKV, 2015 WL 3688461, at *3–5
(W.D. Tenn. June 12, 2015).”).
18

Id. at *11.

19

Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Howell, 227 F.3d 672,
676 (6th Cir. 2000).
6

the Court continues to find that the Tennessee Supreme Court would hold that an injured
plaintiff’s full, non-discounted medical bills would not represent the plaintiff’s reasonable
medical expenses. For these reasons, Defendants’ Motion in Limine is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: January 3, 2017.

20

Hartford Fire Ins., 740 F.2d at 1365.
7