California Court of Appeal, Yaffee v. Skeen, Docket No. C097746

Personal Injury Complaint

 

Complaint in Intervention

 

Damages for Past Medical Expenses

 

Collateral Source Rule

 

Future Non-Economic Damages

 

California Law

 

 

 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County. Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

 

 

A jury awarded plaintiff, David Yaffee, $3,299,455 in damages for past and future economic earnings and noneconomic loss for injuries he received when his vehicle was hit from behind in 2015 by a truck driven by defendant Joseph Skeen while Skeen was driving for his employer KLS Transportation, Inc. (KLS). National Liability & Fire Insurance Company (National) appeared on behalf of KLS in the litigation. We hereafter refer to National and Skeen as defendants.

 

 

Trial Court Proceedings: Plaintiff filed a personal injury complaint against Skeen and KLS. National filed a complaint in intervention as KLS’s liability insurance carrier. The court considered various motions in limine the parties filed prior to trial.

 

 

A plaintiff seeking compensatory damages for the cost of past medical services must establish that the charges for those services were reasonable. (Moore v. Mercer (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 424, 436-437 (Moore); Calhoun v. Hildebrandt (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 70, 73.)

 

 

A plaintiff must satisfy a two-step burden to prove the reasonableness of charges for past medical services. (Moore, supra, 4 Cal.App.5th at pp. 436-437.) “First, plaintiff must prove that she actually incurred the medical expenses and the amount of the patient’s liability for the expenses caps her potential recovery. ... Second, plaintiff must prove the reasonable value of the medical services but is entitled to no more than the expenses the patient actually incurred.” (Id. at p. 437.) In Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal. 4th541(Howell) our Supreme Court considered the proper measure for calculating past medical expenses of a plaintiff with private health insurance and held, “that an injured plaintiff whose medical expenses are paid through private insurance may recover as economic damages no more than the amounts paid by the plaintiff or his or her insurer for the medical services received or still owing at the time of trial.” (Id. at p.566.)

 

 

The collateral source rule precludes deduction of compensation the plaintiff has received from a source independent of the tortfeasor to reduce recoverable damages and evidence of such payments is inadmissible for that purpose. (Howell, supra, 52 Cal.4th at pp. 548, 552.)

 

 

An injured party may collect damages for detriment “certain to result in the future.” (§ 3283.) California decisional law has noted that, “the ‘requirement of certainty... cannot be strictly applied where prospective damages are sought, because probabilities are really the basis for the award.’ (6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, supra, Torts, §1552, p.1027.) Still, ‘“‘there must be evidence to show such a degree of probability of their occurring as amounts to a reasonable certainty that they will result from the original injury.’[Citations.]”’ (Bellman v. San Francisco H. S. Dist. (1938) 11 Cal.2d 576, 588.)” (Behr v. Redmond (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 517, 533.) With respect to future medical damages, an injured plaintiff “is entitled to recover the reasonable value of medical services that are reasonably certain to be necessary in the future.” (Cuevas v. Contra Costa County (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 163, 182; see also Bermudez, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p.1326 [stating a jury instruction according to this principle was correct].)

 

 

Future Non-Economic Damages: “‘“Non-economic” damages are such “subjective, non-monetary losses as pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, injury to reputation and humiliation.”’ [Citation.] ‘To recover future damages, a plaintiff must prove that his or her detriment is reasonably certain to result in the future.’ [Citation.]” (Audish v. Macias (2024) 102 Cal.App.5^th 740, 752.) “‘While there is no clearly established definition of “reasonable certainty”, evidence of future detriment has been held sufficient based on expert medical opinion which considered the plaintiff’s particular circumstances and the expert’s experience with similar cases.’ [Citation.] However, expert testimony is not required in all cases. For example, it is unnecessary if the injury is such that the jury could conclude, based on all the evidence and relying upon its own experiences and common knowledge, that the future harm is reasonably certain to occur. ... Courts have affirmed a jury’s finding of future damages based on the plaintiff’s testimony of continued pain and suffering at the time of trial.” (Colucci v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 442, 460.) “The amount of damages to be awarded is a question of fact committed, first to the discretion of the trier of fact, and then to the discretion of the trial court on a motion for new trial.” (Fernandez v. Jimenez (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 482, 490.) We give great weight to the jury and trial court’s determinations. (Ibid.) “The amount to be awarded is ‘a matter on which there legitimately may be a wide difference of opinion.’” (Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit Lines (1961) 56 Cal.2d 498, 508.) We will interfere if the verdict is so large that, “at first blush, it shocks the conscience and suggests passion, prejudice or corruption on the part of the jury.” (Id. at p.507.)

 

 

 

 

(California Court of Appeal, Dec. 17, 2024, Yaffee v. Skeen, Docket No. C097746, Certified for Publication)