Martinez v. Delgado-Galban, 439 P.3d 526

Background

Plaintiff was injured in an altercation and received medical treatment, including three ER visits to Tuality Community Hospital; he sued defendant for assault/battery seeking economic (medical) and noneconomic damages.
At trial plaintiff introduced hospital bills and an expert (Dr. Paul Puziss) who testified the treatment was reasonable (i.e., medically appropriate), but plaintiff did not elicit testimony that the charged amounts were reasonable.
After plaintiff rested, defendant moved to strike the claim for medical-expense damages for lack of evidence that the billed charges were reasonable; the trial court initially granted then reversed and denied the motion.
Jury returned a verdict for plaintiff awarding economic and noneconomic damages; defendant appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying the motion to strike.
The appellate court reversed, holding that evidence that treatment was reasonable does not substitute for evidence that billed charges were reasonable, and defendant’s closing remarks were not judicial admissions curing the evidentiary defect.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether medical bills alone suffice to prove reasonableness of medical charges	Puziss’s testimony that treatment was reasonable, together with the bills, is sufficient	Medical bills alone are insufficient; plaintiff must present evidence beyond the bills that the billed amounts are reasonable	Reversed: bills plus testimony about treatment adequacy do not prove billed charges are reasonable; plaintiff failed to establish reasonableness
Whether evidence that treatment was necessary/appropriate establishes reasonableness of charges	Testimony that treatment was reasonable implies the charges are reasonable	Necessity/appropriateness of care is distinct from the reasonableness of billed amounts	Held: necessity of treatment is not evidence of reasonable charges; proof of reasonableness is required
Whether defendant’s closing statements were judicial admissions dispensing with need for proof of reasonableness	Plaintiff contends two defense statements constituted admissions that bills were reasonable	Defense statements were not intended to waive proof; they criticized the bills and argued about damages generally	Held: statements were not judicial admissions and did not cure lack of proof
Whether trial-court error was harmless as to other economic damages	Plaintiff pointed to no evidence of other economic damages (e.g., future care)	Defendant argued all economic-damage claims lacked evidentiary support	Held: appellate court reversed as to medical-expense economic damages; plaintiff conceded no evidence of future medical costs

Key Cases Cited

Tuohy v. Columbia Steel Co., 61 Or. 527 (rule that medical expenses recoverable only with some evidence charges are reasonable)
Valdin v. Holteen and Nordstrom, 199 Or. 134 (plaintiff may testify to amounts billed but must connect charges to reasonableness)
Lea v. Farmers Ins. Co., 194 Or. App. 557 (judicial admission doctrine; statements must waive proof of fact)
Ellington v. Garrow, 213 Or. App. 490 (medical-bill reasonableness requires testimony/evidence as to charges)
State v. McClelland, 278 Or. App. 138 (bill alone insufficient; finder of fact cannot infer reasonableness without evidence)
State v. Campbell, 296 Or. App. 22 (distinguishing necessity of treatment from reasonableness of charges)
White v. Jubitz Corp., 219 Or. App. 62 (same long-standing rule requiring proof of reasonableness)
Foxton v. Woodmansee, 236 Or. 271 (defining judicial admissions)