Bermudez v. Ciolek
237 Cal. App. 4th 1311
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Two vehicles collided at an intersection in Fountain Valley on January 11, 2012 during a light transition; Bermudez, an uninsured pedestrian on a bicycle, was struck on the sidewalk.
- Jury found both drivers negligent; only Ciolek’s negligence was a substantial factor in Bermudez’s harm, allocating 100% of damages to Ciolek.
- Bermudez sought damages totaling about $3.75 million, with substantial medical costs and noneconomic damages.
- Trial court entered judgment against Ciolek for $3,751,969, then amended damages by reducing $46,175.41 as not supported by substantial evidence.
- Ciolek appealed contending verdict inconsistency and improper damages measures; the appellate court affirmed the judgment as modified.
- The court discussed the proper measure of medical damages for uninsured plaintiffs and the admissibility of medical bill evidence post-Howell and post-Corenbaum, reducing past medical damages accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the special verdict is inconsistent and reversible | Ciolek argues inconsistency between breach of duty by Heacox and his non-substantial causation | Bermudez contends findings are reconcilable under David/Singh standards | No reversible inconsistency; findings read together support the judgment |
| Proper measure of medical damages for an uninsured plaintiff | Bermudez’s past medical costs reflect reasonable value, not just billed amounts | Ciolek relies on Howell to limit to paid/adjusted amounts; market value unclear for uninsured | Damages limited to the lesser of incurred or reasonable value; court adopts $414,255.59 as past medical damages, reducing $46,175.41 from $460,431 |
| Admissibility and use of billed medical costs to prove damages | Billed amounts are relevant to reasonable value and context for uninsured patients | Howell/Corenbaum limit use of billed amounts for past medical expenses | Billed amounts admissible as evidence of reasonable value for uninsured plaintiffs; reduction warranted for mismatch between incurred and reasonable value |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support medical damages award | Experts adequately proved reasonable value of services | Some charges not reasonably valued; medical bills not fully supported | Evidence supports $414,255.59; total past medical damages reduced by $46,175.41 to $414,255.59 |
Key Cases Cited
- David v. Hernandez, 226 Cal.App.4th 578 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (consistency of special verdicts and causation findings analyzed de novo)
- Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 52 Cal.4th 541 (Cal. 2011) (markets for medical services; paid/incurred rule; market value discussion)
- Corenbaum v. Lampkin, 215 Cal.App.4th 1308 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (limits on using billed amounts to prove past/future medical expenses; Howell distinction)
- Katiuzhinsky v. Perry, 152 Cal.App.4th 1288 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (uninsured plaintiffs and value of medical services; lien context explained)
- Ochoa v. Dorado, 228 Cal.App.4th 120 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (unpaid medical bills as evidence; admissibility vs. sufficiency noted)
- Huff v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 216 Cal.App.4th 1463 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (interpleader; hospital lien evidence and reasonable charges discussion)
- Children’s Hospital Central California v. Blue Cross of California, 226 Cal.App.4th 1260 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (use of hospital rates to determine reasonable value; market range relevance)