Fear Not Law Articles: GREER v. BUZGHEIA

GREER v. BUZGHEIA

Filed 7/5/06; pub. order 8/1/06 (see end of opn.)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

JAMES ROBERT GREER,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

HOSSAM ALI BUZGHEIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

C049444

(Super. Ct. No. 01AS06618)

Defendant Hossam Ali Buzgheia appeals from a judgment and order denying judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV)^[1] after a jury awarded plaintiff James Robert Greer, a total of $321,500 in damages arising from an automobile accident.

Defendant seeks a new trial or a reduction in the judgment on the following grounds: (1) the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of the amount of medical costs billed to plaintiff in excess of those actually paid; (2) the trial court should have granted a posttrial reduction of the damage award to reflect a compromise of plaintiff's medical bills; (3) the trial court committed prejudicial error in limiting the testimony of plaintiff's accident reconstruction expert; and (4) the court abused its discretion in permitting plaintiff to call an undesignated medical expert.

Finding no reversible error, we shall affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was injured when defendant's pickup truck ran a red light and collided with plaintiff's pickup truck as plaintiff was making a Uâ€‘turn on Folsom Boulevard in Sacramento. Soon after the accident, plaintiff complained of low back pain with radiation to his spine and hips. Plaintiff attempted to return to his job as a DSL^[2] lineman for SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc. (SBC) but could not perform his duties without experiencing severe pain.

One year after the accident, plaintiff returned to work part time with the aid of pain injections, but this was unsuccessful, and his doctor declared him unable to return to work at his former occupation.

Two MRI scans, taken about 15 months apart, revealed that plaintiff had suffered a degenerative disk disruption or tear, with accompanying nerve damage. When the pain did not significantly subside, plaintiff underwent spinal fusion surgery whereby the damaged disk tissue at the L5-S1 spinal segment was removed and replaced with bone material.

Plaintiff filed a personal injury complaint against defendant. Plaintiff's employer, SBC, filed its own complaint to recover approximately $30,000 in medical and disability benefits it paid on plaintiff's behalf. The two actions were consolidated by stipulation.

Shortly before the commencement of trial, SBC assigned all of its rights to plaintiff and filed notice that it would not be participating in the trial.

The most hotly disputed issue at trial was whether the severe back problems plaintiff experienced after the accident were attributable to it. Plaintiff presented expert medical testimony that, while he may have had some preexisting spinal degeneration, his current condition was directly related to the trauma he suffered as a result of the accident. Defendant's medical expert testified that plaintiff â€

Description	Where plaintiff offered evidence of medical expenses that were not actually paid and the trial court correctly denied motion in limine while postverdict reduction of jury's award of medical expenses may be appropriate in those circumstances. The defendant cannot prevent the jury from hearing evidence regarding reasonable medical costs for plaintiff's care in the first instance. Defendant's failure to request that award of past medical expenses be determined by special verdict waived contention that damage award included medical expenses not actually paid or incurred.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.