Uspenskaya v. Meline
241 Cal. App. 4th 996
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Clare Meline appeals after a jury found her negligent and awarded Plaintiff Anna Uspenskaya past medical expenses of $261,713.71 in a collision case.
- Plaintiff was uninsured and executed liens on her claims to pay medical providers; MedFin purchased those liens from the providers.
- Plaintiff remained liable for the full medical charges despite the liens and MedFin purchase.
- Defendant sought to admit MedFin payments (amounts MedFin paid to purchase the liens) as evidence of the reasonable value of treatment, while the court admitted billed amounts.
- The trial court excluded MedFin payments under Evidence Code 352 due to risk of prejudice and confusion absent evidence linking payments to reasonable value; it admitted only the billed amounts.
- On appeal, the court held the MedFin payments were properly excluded absent evidence tying the payments to reasonable value; the billed amounts were not reversed and the judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of MedFin payments as proof of reasonable value | Uspenskaya | Meline | Excluded; not enough nexus to reasonable value; risk of prejudice |
| Sufficiency of offer of proof for MedFin evidence | Uspenskaya | Meline | Offer adequate to preserve issue; court correctly exercised discretion under 352 |
Key Cases Cited
- Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 52 Cal.4th 541 (Cal. 2011) (discusses collateral source rule and discounted payments in insured cases)
- Katiuzhinsky v. Perry, 152 Cal.App.4th 1288 (Cal. App. 4th 2007) (limits on recoverable economic damages and value of services when third-party payments affect liability)
- Corenbaum v. Lampkin, 215 Cal.App.4th 1308 (Cal. App. 2013) (discounted insurer payments may indicate value but not solely establish reasonable value; supports Howell distinction)
- Bermudez v. Ciolek, 237 Cal.App.4th 1311 (Cal. App. 2015) (uninsured plaintiff; discounted payments not automatically controlling for reasonable value; requires nexus evidence)
- Geffcken v. D’Andrea, 137 Cal.App.4th 1298 (Cal. App. 2006) (illustrates balancing of probative value versus prejudice under 352 in evidentiary rulings)