The way medical bills are evaluated in California personal injury cases continues to evolve. One key legal principle in these cases is the “collateral source rule.” Under this rule, an injured person’s recovery generally cannot be reduced just because they have insurance or received other financial assistance. In other words, if you are injured due to someone else’s fault, that person does not get to pay less simply because you have health insurance or another safety net.
However, California courts have refined how the collateral source rule applies, especially when it comes to what medical expenses can be presented to a jury. In the past, a plaintiff might introduce the full amount originally billed by medical providers, even if health insurance ultimately negotiated a much lower amount. But after the California Supreme Court’s decision in Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., courts now focus on the actual amount paid or owed for medical services rather than the initial billed amount. This shift means that plaintiffs can no longer rely solely on “sticker price” medical bills to prove their damages.
Since Howell, courts and attorneys have navigated how this ruling plays out in real cases. Some recent decisions have clarified the following points:
1. Evidence of Billed vs. Paid Amounts:The amount a medical provider initially bills is often far higher than what is finally accepted as full payment, especially where insurance negotiations occur. Under current law, the recoverable medical damages are generally limited to what was actually paid or still owed, not the inflated billed amount.
2. Presenting the Costs to a Jury:Lawyers must be careful when introducing evidence of medical bills. While the fact that insurance paid some or all of the bill might not be shared with the jury (to preserve the collateral source rule’s core protection), the total amount “billed” often will not come in if it does not reflect the true economic loss. Judges are increasingly acting as gatekeepers, making sure juries see only relevant, accurate figures.
3. Out-of-Network and Future Care:Plaintiffs who choose medical care outside their insurance network or need future treatment may still present evidence of those projected costs. However, the courts will require solid proof—such as expert testimony or treatment estimates—to prevent speculation.
These developments matter for anyone involved in a personal injury claim—particularly clients who are unsure how their insurance coverage or past medical bills affect the value of their case. By understanding these legal changes, clients can better appreciate why their attorney carefully evaluates medical records, billing statements, and provider contracts. It also explains why some settlement values might differ from what clients intuitively expect when they see the initial “sticker price” on a medical bill.
In short, the evolving rules around the collateral source rule and medical damages ensure a fairer, more accurate assessment of an injured person’s true losses. As these legal standards continue to develop, we remain committed to keeping our clients informed and prepared, helping them navigate claims with clarity and confidence.
Comments