Martinez v. MILBURN ENTERPRISES, INC.
Supreme Court of Kansas
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Davis, C.J., Rosen and Biles, JJ.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part: We agree the district court erred in limiting plaintiff s recovery for medical expenses to only those cash amounts actually paid by plaintiff and her health insurance company. The jury must determine the reasonable value of medical services. But this determination should not depend upon how successful plaintiff s insurance company was at negotiating lower prices to benefit its insureds. For that reason, the district court’s ruling on the motion in limine must be reversed. We concur in this result.
We write separately…
2Cases cited51 opinions
- Lockshin v. SemskerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2010
- Texarkana Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. MurdockTexas Supreme Court · 1997
- Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Robinson v. BatesOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- Bozeman v. StateSupreme Court of Louisiana · 2004
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.