IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT MEDICAL BILLS HAVE BEEN PAID
By Mark G. Cunningham

In a recent personal injury trial, plaintiff had significant past medical specials, most of which had been paid at about ten cents on the dollar. I asked the trial court to allow me to introduce evidence of the amounts paid. The other side blew a gasket and objected. Over objection, the trial court allowed the evidence.

The primary object of an award of an award of damages and the fundamental principle on which it is based are just compensation and no more. Mozzetti v. City of Bisbane, (1977) 67 CA 3d 565, 576. A person injured is entitled to recover the reasonable value of medical care and services reasonably required and attributable to the tort. Gimbel v. Laramie, (1960) 181 CA 2d 77, 81. Medical bills alone will not support a medical claim of damages because they do not reveal whether the charges were reasonable, whether they were for reasonably necessary medical attention to an injury-related condition and whether they were for treatment of a condition proximately caused by defendant. McAllister v. George, (1977) 73 CA 3d 258, 264.

The reasonable value of medical expenses is the total amount actually paid by the plaintiff or by a collateral source on behalf of plaintiff. Hanif v. Housing Authority, (1988) 200 CA 3d 635, 640-41. If the rule were otherwise and the reasonable value of medical expenses was defined only as amounts "billed", even if that amount was in excess of the amount accepted as payment, plaintiffs would be overcompensated. This is because plaintiffs would be receiving more than the amount that had been paid to cover the costs of treatment. Such a result would violate the well settled rule that a plaintiff in a tort action is not to be placed in a better position than he would have been had the wrong not been done. Hanif at 641, citing Valdez v. Taylor Automobile Co. (1954) 129 CA 2d 810, 821-22.

The collateral source rule has no bearing on what constitutes the reasonable value of medical services. The rule requires that if an injured party receives some compensation for his injuries from a source wholly independent of the tortfeasor, such payment should not be deducted from the damages which the plaintiff would otherwise collect from the tortfeasor. Helfend v. So. Cal. Rapid Trans Dist (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 1, 6. But the rule does not apply when evidence of amounts paid is being offered for another purpose, i.e. on the issue of reasonable charges.

Thus, evidence of an amount paid is relevant and probative on the issue of reasonable charges and should be admitted. Evidence C. §351.