Yaffee v. Skeen (Nov. 25, 2024, C097746, C097988) __Cal.App.5th __ [2024 WL 4887969]
David Yaffee sued Joseph Skeen and his employer, KLS Transportation, Inc., for personal injury stemming from a motor vehicle accident. Overruling a defense objection based on Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541 and its progeny, the trial court permitted Yaffee’s expert to opine on the reasonable value of his past and future medical services based on typical charged amounts without regard to the amounts his health insurer actually paid for that care. The jury returned a verdict in Yaffee’s favor, accepting his medical expense damage expert’s testimony in full. The trial court then entered a judgment for $3 million in compensatory damages (past and future medical damages, lost income, and noneconomic damages), and $1.6 million in costs and interest. Defendants appealed, contesting the awards.
The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court ordered a new trial on past medical damages, rejecting Yaffee’s argument that the Hospital Lien Act (HLA), Civil Code section 3045.1, permitted his expert to disregard the limits imposed by Howell and its progeny. The court explained that the HLA allows hospitals to assert liens for the value of required emergency services that are unpaid by uninsured patients. And while Hospitals cannot assert liens absent an unpaid debt, they may contract with health insurers to preserve their right to assert liens against tort recoveries for the difference between the reasonable value of services and lower negotiated payments. However, the lien must relate to “emergency services,” as defined by Health and Safety Code section 1317.1, and cannot include services provided after patients are discharged. The court held that, while Yaffee’s hospital had preserved its right to assert an HLA lien in excess of the negotiated payments it received, the trial court committed prejudicial error by allowing Yaffee to recover past medical expense damages measured by the reasonable value of post-discharge services, rather than limiting the damages to amounts actually paid—as Howell requires. The court also reversed the future medical damages award because there was no evidence that Yaffee would probably incur some of those future expenses.
