KING v. WILLMETT Part - I
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>KING v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >KING v. WILLMETT</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 8/9/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u>CERTIFIED<br /> FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION</u>*<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/>IN THE COURT OF<br /> APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/>THIRD APPELLATE<br /> DISTRICT<br /> <br/>(Sacramento)<br /> <br/>----<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=661<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=394 valign=top ><br /> <br/>MICHAEL KING,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiff and Appellant,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>CAROL WILLMETT,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendant and Respondent.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=268 valign=top ><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>C059236<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>(Super.<br /> Ct. No. 06AS02165)<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> APPEAL<br /> from a judgment of the Superior Court<br /> of Sacramento<br /> County, Judy Holzer Hersher, Judge. <br /> Reversed with directions.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Walker,<br /> Hamilton & Koenig, LLP, Walter H. Walker, III; Hinton, Alfert & Sumner,<br /> Scott H.Z. Sumner, Jeremy Lateiner for Plaintiff and Appellant.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Hinton,<br /> Alfert & Sumner, Scott H.Z. Sumner, Jeremy Lateiner for amicus curiae on<br /> behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Mayall,<br /> Hurley, Knutsen, Smith & Green, Mark E. Berry, Jesmin Alam for Defendant<br /> and Respondent.<br /> <br/> In this case we<br /> primarily consider whether, in a negligence action against a nonpublic<br /> defendant, the reduction of a plaintiff's award of past medical expense damages to<br /> the dollar amount ultimately paid by the plaintiff's private health insurance<br /> to his health care providers is appropriate under the collateral source<br /> rule. In light of the public policy<br /> conclusions expressed by our state Supreme Court and the Legislature's<br /> enactment of specific statutes governing the operation of the collateral source<br /> rule in limited kinds of cases, we conclude reduction is inappropriate in this<br /> case. Therefore, the trial court erred<br /> in reducing the award here.[1]<br /> <br/> In the unpublished<br /> portion of this opinion, we reject plaintiff's other contentions of reversible error. <br /> <br/> We shall reverse<br /> the amended judgment on verdict and remand the matter to the trial court with<br /> directions to reinstate the jury's award of past medical expense damages and<br /> enter a new judgment in favor of plaintiff with interest and costs consistent<br /> with such award.<br /> <br/><b<br /> >BACKGROUND</b><br /> <br/> Plaintiff Michael<br /> King, an insurance defense attorney employed as the managing attorney for the<br /> Sacramento legal office for Farmers Insurance, was driving south on Highway 99<br /> on the evening of August 27, 2004, when he was rear-ended by defendant Carol<br /> Willmett. According to plaintiff, he was<br /> hit three times. Plaintiff got out of<br /> his car and went back to defendant's car where he spoke with defendant. Defendant admitted responsibility for the<br /> accident several times and, at plaintiff's urging, wrote a note stating: â€