Yanez v. SOMA Environmental Engineering 6/24/10 CA1/1

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2010 » Yanez v. SOMA Environmental Engineering 6/24/10 CA1/1

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: A123893

Case Date: 09/02/2010

Preview:Filed 6/24/10

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

ANA SILVA YANEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOMA ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiff Ana Yanez sued defendants SOMA Environmental Engineering, Inc., Mansour Sepehr, and Brian Tims (collectively SOMA) for injuries she suffered in an automobile accident. A jury found that SOMA`s negligence caused Yanez`s injuries, and returned a special verdict awarding her $150,000 in damages, including $44,519.01 in damages for past medical expenses. After judgment was entered, SOMA moved to reduce the award for medical expenses to $18,368.24, which was the amount actually accepted by Yanez`s medical providers as payment in full under their contracts with Aetna and Healthnet, her private health insurers. The trial court granted the motion and entered an amended judgment reducing Yanez`s damage award. Yanez appeals from the amended judgment, contending the trial court erred in reducing the jury`s award, and in denying Yanez her post-offer costs and interest under Code of Civil Procedure section 998. We reverse the amended judgment and remand the case back to the trial court to (1) enter a new judgment restoring the original amount of damages awarded by the jury, and (2) redetermine Yanez`s entitlement to an award of costs and prejudgment interest. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. VG-06288107) A123893

I. BACKGROUND Yanez sued SOMA for injuries suffered in an October 2005 automobile accident. The individual defendants were the driver of the pickup truck that collided with Yanez`s automobile and the owner of SOMA Environmental Engineering, Inc. Over SOMA`s objections, the trial court granted Yanez`s motion to allow into evidence the amounts billed by her health care providers for her medical treatment, without regard to the amount of the billed expenses that were actually paid (by Yanez or her health insurers) or were still considered owing by the provider. SOMA contended unpaid amounts were irrelevant to its liability but conceded the trial court had no choice but to grant the motion in light of Greer v. Buzgheia (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1150 (Greer).1 Over Yanez`s objection, the court ruled it would conduct a posttrial hearing to determine if her medical expense damages should be reduced to the amount of the expenses actually paid to her providers by Yanez or her insurance carriers, and accepted by the providers as payment in full for their services. The trial was limited to the issues of causation and damages. During the trial, Yanez submitted documentary evidence of her past medical bills to the jury and her surgeon testified that the surgery bill for approximately $17,000 was reasonable. Regarding past medical expenses, the jury was instructed to award damages in an amount that would compensate Yanez for the reasonable cost of reasonably necessary medical care that she has received. The jury returned a special verdict of $150,000, which included an award of $44,519.01 in damages for past medical expenses for services from 10 different health care providers. The court entered judgment on the verdict for $150,000.

Greer held that evidence of the full amount of a plaintiff`s billed medical expenses were admissible in a personal injury action to show the reasonable cost of medical care, even if such expenses were not ultimately recoverable to the extent they exceeded the amount actually paid by plaintiff or his insurer. (Greer, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1156

Download Yanez v. SOMA Environmental Engineering 6/24/10 CA1/1.pdf