Ochoa v. Dorado
228 Cal. App. 4th 120
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On July 10, 2008 Joaquin Ochoa (driver) and Imelda Moreno (owner/passenger) were rear-ended by Trimac driver Jesus Dorado; defendants conceded liability and a jury awarded various economic and noneconomic damages to both plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs presented medical bills (unpaid) and testimony from treating physicians and retained economic experts; plaintiffs did not present testimony establishing the reasonableness of past medical charges.
- Defendants filed several in limine motions (including a Howell-based challenge to admissibility of medical charges and a motion to limit treating-physician opinions) and posttrial motions: JNOV, new trial, and to strike noneconomic damages under Civil Code § 3333.4.
- The trial court sustained parts of the Howell-related in limine rulings at trial (excluding treating physicians from opining on reasonable value), admitted bill amounts, and later (posttrial) granted a partial new trial on medical damages and certain economic items and struck noneconomic damages; no judgment was entered.
- The Court of Appeal held the new trial and JNOV motions were prematurely filed (no final decision/judgment), rendering the motions and the court’s rulings on them void; it also held the order striking noneconomic damages was nonappealable and dismissed appeals where appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the new trial and JNOV motions properly before the court? | Plaintiffs did not directly contest prematurity; focus was on merits. | Motions were timely and should be decided on the merits. | Motions were premature (filed before a final decision/judgment); motions and rulings thereon are void. |
| Are unpaid medical bills evidence of the reasonable value of past medical services? | Unpaid bills are evidence of the expense incurred and thus of value. | Unpaid bills are not an accurate measure of reasonable value per Howell and later cases. | Unpaid medical bills are not evidence of reasonable value and cannot alone support past medical damages. |
| May a nonretained treating physician testify about reasonable value without an expert declaration? | Plaintiffs: treating physicians may opine based on facts and experience acquired during treatment without a declaration. | Defendants: such opinions require expert disclosure/declaration if offered as expert testimony on value. | Treating physicians may testify about reasonable value based on facts acquired in the physician–patient relationship (or other independent, non‑litigation sources) without a retained‑expert declaration; if the opinion was developed for litigation, a declaration is required. |
| Was the order striking noneconomic damages immediately appealable and was there a judgment to appeal? | Plaintiffs: order appealable; they challenged striking of noneconomic awards. | Defendants: appealed denial of JNOV and other orders; contended appealable issues existed. | The order striking noneconomic damages (post‑verdict, tried separately) was interlocutory/nonappealable; no judgment had been entered, so appeals from the (nonexistent) judgment were of no effect and must be dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, 52 Cal.4th 541 (establishes that recoverable past medical expense is limited to amount paid or incurred and to the reasonable value; cautions that billed amounts are not reliable measures of value)
- Corenbaum v. Lampkin, 215 Cal.App.4th 1308 (holds full billed amounts are irrelevant to reasonable value where discounts exist; explains inadmissibility of billed amounts for past/future medical valuation)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Huff, 216 Cal.App.4th 1463 (concludes unpaid hospital bill based on standard charges is not evidence of reasonable value)
- Schreiber v. Estate of Kiser, 22 Cal.4th 31 (treating physicians are nonretained experts for certain opinions and need not provide expert witness declarations for opinions formed independently of litigation)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450 (explains "prematurity" doctrine for new trial notices and when a case is deemed "decided")
- Fong Chuck v. Chin Po Foon, 29 Cal.2d 552 (premature new trial notice is void)