The Continuing Chronicles Of Proving Cost Of Medical Treatment.

In a personal injury action, defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude testimony by plaintiffs’ nonretained treating physicians on any expert opinions that were not formed at the time of and for purposes of treatment, but instead were formed for purposes of litigation. Defendants argued that Plaintiffs had listed 25 individual, nonretained treating physicians or other health care providers in their expert witness designation and stated in the designation that each would testify on “plaintiff’s condition, diagnosis, prognosis and related issues.” Defendants argued that this description “does not include opinions on the reasonable value of medical services or the non-medical causation issues relating to the injuries,” and that the treating physicians for whom no expert witness declaration was provided should be precluded from testifying on such matters. The trial court granted defendants’ motions in limine, ruling that plaintiffs’ treating physicians not designated as retained experts could testify only on their Medical Treatment services provided, their medical diagnoses, and the fees charged for their services. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ nonretained treating physicians could not testify on other matters such as whether their fees represented the reasonable value of the Medical Treatment services provided. The appellate court reversed the order, stating that unpaid medical bills are not evidence of the reasonable value of the services provided. The appellate court also said that when a demand for exchange of expert witness information under CCP § 2034.210 is made, no expert witness declaration is required for a treating physician offering an opinion on the reasonable value of services provided by the treating physician. (Ochoa v. Dorado (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; July 22, 2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 120, [174 Cal.Rptr.3d 889].)