Rebecca Howell, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., Defendant and Respon — Klein, J…

Summary

This dissent would reject both recovery of inflated gross medical charges and the majority's cap at the amount accepted by preferred providers. It would permit recovery of the reasonable value of medically necessary care, determined by expert and other relevant evidence at trial, because the negotiated writeoff is a benefit obtained through the plaintiff's insurance and should not benefit the tortfeasor. The dissent would reverse the Court of Appeal and order a limited new trial on reasonable medical value.