legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Briggs v. Cavazos
Defendants Ricky Cavazos and Juan Cavazos appeal a postjudgment order granting a new trial solely on the issue of damages.[1] Before trial, the court granted a motion in limine excluding evidence which established the amount plaintiff Michael Briggs was initially billed for medical expenses incurred as a result of the tort at issue. In granting the motion in limine, the court stated its reading of the cases indicate[s] that . . . only the amount that has been paid should . . . go into evidence[,] not the amount initially billed. (See Nishihama v. City and County of San Francisco (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 298, 306 (Nishihama); Hanif v. Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635, 643 (Hanif).) The court changed direction when presented with a motion for new trial, concluding it did not think it had discretion under the relevant case law to exclude evidence of medical bills from the jurys consideration, even if it had the duty to reduce damages after trial if the damage award for medical expenses exceeded the amount actually paid by plaintiffs insurer and accepted as payment in full by plaintiffs medical care providers.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale