Jaime Guzman v. Melvin Jones, 804 F.3d 707

Collision between Melvin Jones (truck driver) and Jaime Guzman; Jones and employer Celadon conceded fault; trial limited to damages.
Jury awarded Guzman $1,314,000 (including $104,000 for past medical bills); appellants do not contest liability or other awards.
Guzman introduced medical bills showing list charges; he was uninsured and had not received Medicaid or workers’ compensation payments at the time of treatment.
Appellants sought to exclude the bills arguing Guzman may have been eligible for insurance/Medicaid such that billed amounts were not "actually incurred." District court admitted the bills.
Appellants requested an independent medical examination (IME); Guzman disclosed intent to have back surgery, scheduled and had surgery before the IME; appellants later moved for spoliation sanctions and an adverse inference instruction.
District court denied spoliation sanctions and adverse-inference instruction; Fifth Circuit affirmed and ordered a slight remittitur to correct a numerical error in the award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of billed medical charges under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.0105	Guzman: billed amounts are actual debts; he was billed, owes them, and they are admissible	Jones/Celadon: billed list prices are not "actually incurred" if plaintiff may have been eligible for insurance or public benefits that would reduce charges	Admitted: court affirmed that an uninsured plaintiff who was billed and remains liable may present list charges; Haygood does not bar such evidence when reduced-rate payments were not actually paid or owed
Spoliation / adverse-inference due to pre-IME surgery	Jones/Celadon: Guzman’s surgery before IME altered or destroyed evidence; bad-faith spoliation warrants adverse inference/sanctions	Guzman: disclosed intent to have surgery; no evidence of bad faith or intent to hide evidence; IME nevertheless occurred and records/scans pre-surgery were provided	Denied: no evidence of bad faith; timing alone insufficient for spoliation sanctions; district court did not abuse discretion

Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v. Babcock, 703 F.3d 284 (5th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review of evidentiary rulings)
Global Petrotech, Inc. v. Engelhard Corp., 58 F.3d 198 (5th Cir.) (de novo review of underlying legal determinations on admissibility)
Haygood v. De Escabedo, 356 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2012) (holding recoverable medical expenses limited to amounts actually paid or obligated to be paid)
Big Bird Tree Service v. Gallegos, 365 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (permitting recovery of billed charges where provider retained right to collect from uninsured plaintiff)
Metro. Transit Auth. v. McChristian, 449 S.W.3d 846 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (admitting billed medical expenses for uninsured plaintiff where bills showed no insurer adjustments and plaintiff remained liable)
Rimkus Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Cammarata, 688 F. Supp. 2d 598 (S.D. Tex. 2010) (definition and preservation duties related to spoliation)
Condrey v. SunTrust Bank of Georgia, 431 F.3d 191 (5th Cir.) (bad faith requirement for adverse inference/sanctions for spoliation)