Foster vs Madison Harbor, Alc

Opposition

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.February 26, 2014

M A D I S O N H A R B O R , A L C 1 7 7 0 2 Mi tc he ll No rt h, Ir vi ne , C A 8 2 6 1 4 Tel ( 94 9) 75 6- 90 50 = Fa x (9 49 )7 56 -9 06 0 Al Parvaneh, SBN 218320 aparvaneh(@madisonharbor.com Jenos Firouznam-Heidari, SBN 266257 jheidari@madisonharbor.com MADISON HARBOR, ALC 17702 Mitchell North Irvine, California 92614 Tel (949)756-9050 Fax (949)756-9060 Bradley P. Knypstra, SBN 177901 brad@khtriallawyers.com KNYPSTRA HERMES, LLP 18200 Von Karman Ave Ste 730 Irvine, CA 92612-1039 Tel (949) 679-9202 Fax (949) 679-9088 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of Orange 080472017 at 02:53:00 PM Clerk of the Superior Court By & Clerk, Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Defendants Madison Harbor, ALC; Ali Parvaneh; and Robert Sabahat SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE —~ CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER MATTHEW FOSTER, an individual; Plaintiff, V. MADISON HARBOR, a law corporation ROBERT SABAHAT, an individual; ALI PARVANEH, an individual; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive; Defendants. Case No.: 30-2014-00707156 ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES: Hon.: Judge Peter Wilson Dept: C12 DEFENDANTS MADISON HARBOR, ALC; ROBERT SABAHAT; AND ALI PARVANEH’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE COLLATERAL SOURCE EVIDENCE AND WORKERS COMPENSATION BENEFITS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Hearing: Date: August 7, 2017 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: C15 Action Filed: February 26, 2017 Trial Date: August 7, 2017 DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NG. 3 TO EXCLUDE COLLATERAL SOURCE EVIDENCE AND WORKERS COMPENSATION BENEFITS -1- Fa x (9 49 )7 56 -9 06 0 M A D I S O N H A R B O R , AL C 17 70 2 Mi tc he ll No rt h, ir vi ne , CA 92 61 4 Te l (9 49 ) 75 6- 90 50 +» LH L r N o co ~~ O N Wn TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants Madison Harbor, ALC; Robert Sabahat; and Ali Parvaneh (collectively referred to as “Defendants™) will and hereby do oppose Plaintiff Matthew Foster’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Collateral Source Evidence and Workers Compensation Benefits (“Motion”). The Opposition will be made on the grounds that while the collateral source rule does prohibit evidence that payments were made by a third party or insurer, Plaintiff's damages must be limited to what Plaintiff actually became obligated for to those third parties and Plaintiff cannot be placed in a better position than that which he would have been had the act complained of not occurred. (Hanif v. Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.35, 635.) This Opposition 1s based on the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the complete files and records in this action, and whatever oral and documentary evidence may be presented at the hearing on this matter. Respectfully submitted on this 4" day of August, 2017, by: MADISON HARBOR, ALC Jenos Heidari, Attorney for Defendants DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE COLLATERAL SOURCE EVIDENCE AND WORKERS COMPENSATION BENEFITS 2. SS N L 0 S N nn R W N e re t M A D I S O N H A R B O R , A L C === Fa x (9 49 )7 56 -9 06 0 17 70 2 Mi tc he ll No rt h, ir vi ne , CA 92 61 4 Tel ( 94 9) 75 6- 90 50 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION This dispute is a legal malpractice action stemming from legal services provided by Defendants to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has alleged Defendants committed malpractice in relation to both (1) a personal injury matter relating to an April 2006 injury suffered by Plaintiff, and (2) a subsequent indemnity claim brought based on an assignment of rights obtained for Plaintiff in connection with the settlement of the personal injury matter. Plaintiff has sought an order from this Court, in limine, to exclude evidence of Plaintiff’s payments from collateral sources, including workers compensation benefits. While the collateral source rule does prohibit evidence that payments were made by a third party or insurer, Plaintiff's damages must be limited to what Plaintiff actually became obligated for to those third parties and Plaintiff cannot be placed in a better position than that which he would have been had the act complained of not occurred. 11. MEDICAL EXPENSES SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THAT ACTUALLY PAID BY COLLATERAL SOURCES Plaintiff’s claimed special damages are limited to what was actually paid out of pocket by Plaintiff and those collateral sources who made payments on his behalf. In Hanif v. Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635, the court reduced an award of special damages because the award included amounts over and above what the plaintiff had paid for medical services. As explained by the Hanif court: [Plaintiff is entitled to recover up to, and no more than, the actual amount expended or incurred for past medical services so long as that amount is reasonable. (And see generally Annot., Necessity and Sufficiency, in Personal Injury or Death Action, of Evidence as to Reasonableness of Amount Charged or Paid for Accrued Medical, Nursing, or Hospital Expenses (1967) 12 A.L.R.3d 1347.) This notion is supported by the following comment on "value" from the Restatement Second of Torts, which comment directly addresses the point at issue here: "When the plaintiff seeks to recover for expenditures made or liability incurred to third persons for services rendered, normally the amount recovered is the reasonable value of the services rather than the amount paid or charged. If, however, the injured person paid less than the exchange rate, he can recover no more than the amount paid, except when the low rate was intended as a gift to him." (Italics added, Rest.2d Torts, § 911. com. h.) DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE COLLATERAL SOURCE EVIDENCE AND WORKERS COMPENSATION BENEFITS -1- === Fa x (9 49 )7 56 -9 06 0 M A D I S O N H A R B O R , A L C 17 70 2 Mi tc he l No rt h, Ir vi ne , CA 92 61 4 Te l (9 49 ) 75 6- 90 50 S D 0 O N B W B Y pn t | (See also Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, 567-568 [holding that when a medical care provider has, by agreement with the plaintiff's private health insurer, accepted as full payment for the plaintiff's care an amount less than the provider's full bill, evidence of that amount is relevant to prove the plaintiff's damages for past medical expenses and, assuming it satisfies other rules of evidence, is admissible at trial; Where a trial jury has heard evidence of the amount accepted as full payment by the medical provider but has awarded a greater sum as damages for past medical expenses, the defendant may move for a new trial on grounds of excessive damages. (Code Civ. Proc., § 657, subd. 5.) A nonstatutory “Hanif motion” is unnecessary. The trial court, if it grants the new trial motion, may permit the plaintiff to choose between accepting reduced damages or undertaking a new trial. (/d., § 662.5, subd. (b).)].) An award larger than that amount actually paid by the worker's compensation carrier (or that Plaintiff actually became indebted for) for Plaintiff’s medical expenses would entail a windfall as it would cover more than the actual medical expenses incurred by Plaintiff. The primary objective of an award in a civil action is to restore the plaintiff to his former position as nearly as possible. An award should not place him in a better position. (Valdez v. Taylor Automobile Co. (1954) 129 Cal. App.2d 810.) Since the workers compensation carrier is entitled to recover the amount that it paid on behalf of Plaintiff through its subrogation and lien rights, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount equal to the amount paid by the carrier from those parties who are found liable. (Helfend v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1, 10-11.) Further, there is no evidence that Plaintiff would become responsible for any amounts that were not paid for by the carrier. Even further, Plaintiff in this action reached a resolution with the worker’s compensation carrier to be obligated for less than the full amount paid by the carrier — prior to March 10, 2008. Since the settled amount is all Plaintiff expended or incurred liability for to a third party, namely the worker’s compensation carrier, the settlement amount is admissible for showing Plaintiff’s true damages and without such evidence, Plaintiff will be placed in a better position than that if the act complained of never occurred, which is contrary to the laws and policy of this state. Moreover, Plaintiff has to prove which portion of the worker’s compensation payments compensated him and which portions compensated medical providers. If Plaintiff “opens the door” — as he must — to separate these amounts and prove his medical damages, Defendants must be allowed to DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE COLLATERAL SOURCE EVIDENCE AND WORKERS COMPENSATION BENEFITS a M A D I S O N H A R B O R , A L C 17 70 2 Mi tc he ll No rt h, Ir vi ne , CA 92 61 4 Tel ( 94 9) 75 6- 90 50 ==» Fa x (9 49 )7 56 -9 06 0 10 1 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 examine the same. To the extent Plaintiff informs the court that he does not intend to actually present any evidence of medical damages, then Plaintiff’s Motion should be granted. Otherwise, Plaintiff is attempting to deny Defendants of their due process rights and seeks to obtain a windfall by way of this Motion. 11. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request this Court deny Plaintiffs Motion to the extend Plaintiff seeks to preclude evidence of what he actually became liable for or incurred in past medical expenses. Respectfully submitted on this 4” day of August, 2017, by: MADISON HARBOR, ALC qa eT Jenos Firouzngn-Heidari, Attorney for Bgfendants DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE COLLATERAL SOURCE EVIDENCE AND WORKERS COMPENSATION BENEFITS ~ “3