Howell v. Hamilton Meats and Haygood v. Escabedo: Will Nevada Adopt Paid

Howell v. Hamilton Meats and

Haygood v. Escabedo

Will Nevada Follow These Precedents?

How Will Plaintiff’s Attorneys Respond?

How Can The Defense Counter?

Haygood v. Escabedo, Slip Op. No. 09-0377 (Tex. Sup. Ct. July 1, 2011)

Plaintiff got his medical care from a health care provider on his group health planThe rates were discounted by the providerAt trial, Plaintiff wanted to recover the amount billed and not the amount the provider had accepted as full payment Texas Supreme Court said only evidence of recoverable expenses is admissible

Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 52 Cal. 4th 541, 257 P.3d 81,

128 Cal Rptr. 3d 658 (2011) Plaintiff received medical care from a health care provider on patient’s group health planAgain, the provider accepted discounted rates as payment in fullCalifornia had no statute like Texas but the defense argued fairnessCalifornia Supreme Court allowed admission of full bill but granted a post trial motion to reduce judgment to reflect the discount

Tri-County Equipment & Leasing, LLC v. Klinke,

Nev. Sup. Ct. Case No. 55121 Auto Accident That Happened in 2007

At Trial The Jury Awarded Plaintiff $17,510 in medical expenses $10,000 pain and suffering

However, Evidence Showed That The Medical Providers Had Accepted $12,162.26 as full payment for the bills

Tri-County Equipment & Leasing

Tri-County filed a motion before trial to exclude evidence of payments in excess of $12,162.26

The Trial Court said that Plaintiff would be allowed to put on evidence of the full billed amount


Next Tri-County asked that it be allowed to introduce the copies of the bills that showed the reduction the providers accepted

Again, Tri-County was told no.

Tri-County Equipment & LeasingFinally, after the trial, Tri-County asked the court to reduce the total amount of the bills from $17,510 to $12,162

The trial court refused to make the reductions requested


In April, 2011, two judges of a three judge panel from the Nevada Supreme Court decided the case against Tri-County stating that Nevada law would not allow introduction of the evidence of the write downsIn its decision, the court said: “When medical costs are written down, one

party is likely to receive a windfall. If one party must receive a windfall . . . it should be the Plaintiff”


Within 30 days of the three-member panel decision, Tri-County asked for a hearing before the entire Supreme Court.

About the same time, the Plaintiff’s bar was asking that the Panel’s Order be published and thus permanently enshrined in Nevada Law.


The California Supreme Court published the Howell opinion on August 18, 2011

On September 12, 2011, the Nevada Supreme Court granted Tri-County’s Motion for Rehearing before the entire Supreme Court

The arguments before the entire Supreme Court were heard on November 1, 2011


If The Supreme Court Decides In Favor Of Tri-County What Will The Fall Out Be? Texas attorneys say that since the Haygood

decision became law, the Plaintiff’s attorneys are instructing the clients to avoid getting their medical care through group medical programs. Instead Plaintiffs are getting more lien based care, thereby avoiding the effects of the reduction


Defense Response? Find out which bills are paid vs. on liens Gather information on the amounts accepted

by any of the providers to satisfy any bills Prepare to challenge the reasonableness of

the medical bills that lien care providers are submitting

Medical bill auditsBe sure the medical bill auditor is prepared to testify regarding the outcome of the audit

Thank you!

Howell v. Hamilton Meats and Haygood v. Escabedo: Will Nevada Adopt Paid

Business

Transcript of Howell v. Hamilton Meats and Haygood v. Escabedo: Will Nevada Adopt Paid