Howell v. Hamilton - An Update

In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court granted review in Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Case No. S179115.

The Court specified the following issues: "(1) Is the "negotiated rate differential" - the difference between the full billed rate for medical care and the actual amount paid as negotiated between a medical provider and an insurer - a collateral source benefit under the collateral source rule, which allows plaintiff to collect that amount as economic damages, or is the plaintiff limited in economic damages to the amount the medical provider accepts as payment? (2) Did the trial court err in this case when it permitted plaintiff to present the full billed amount of medical charges to the jury but then reduced the jury's award of damages by the negotiated rate differential?"

As one might suspect, a number of groups filed requests for depublication, including the California Capital Insurance Company, the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel, and the American Insurance Association. Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) opposed depublication. With a lot of money riding on these issues, one can expect heavy briefing on both sides.