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In the unpublished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