CALVERT v. ELLIS, 13-cv-00464-APG-NJK. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20160202735
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 08, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE MEDICAL BILLS (Dkt. #207) ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . Defendants move in limine to exclude "any evidence as to Plaintiff's medical bills" because Plaintiff's experts are not qualified to opine on the reasonableness of the charges in those bills. (Dkt. #207 at 1.) It is unclear at present whether Plaintiff's experts have the background and experience to opine on the reasonableness of the charges of the various medical providers.
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE MEDICAL BILLS (Dkt. #207) ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . Defendants move in limine to exclude "any evidence as to Plaintiff's medical bills" because Plaintiff's experts are not qualified to opine on the reasonableness of the charges in those bills. (Dkt. #207 at 1.) It is unclear at present whether Plaintiff's experts have the background and experience to opine on the reasonableness of the charges of the various medical providers. A..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE MEDICAL BILLS
(Dkt. #207)
ANDREW P. GORDON, District Judge.
Defendants move in limine to exclude "any evidence as to Plaintiff's medical bills" because Plaintiff's experts are not qualified to opine on the reasonableness of the charges in those bills. (Dkt. #207 at 1.) It is unclear at present whether Plaintiff's experts have the background and experience to opine on the reasonableness of the charges of the various medical providers. At trial, before testifying about the reasonableness of charges, the expert must lay sufficient foundation of her or his expertise in reviewing bills of the various medical specialties involved.
Defendants also object that such testimony must be excluded as speculative because the bills are subject to a lawyers' lien and may be reduced in the future. (Id. at 8.) That argument is rejected. Just because a medical provider may agree to reduce a lien in the future does not render a plaintiff's damages speculative.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion in limine (Dkt. #207) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE against being reasserted at trial.
Source: Leagle
