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.
Comments on Briggs v. Cavazos