B. C. v. Contra Costa County

Case Updates

The California appeals court held that a trial court erred in excluding evidence that health insurance benefits under the Affordable Care Act would be available to mitigate plaintiff’s future medical costs. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the amount of plaintiffs’ future medical damages.

The U.S. Chamber and the CalChamber urged a California appeals court to reverse a decision that the plaintiff’s damages for future medical expenses could be based on billed rates rather than the rates actually accepted by providers as full payment. The amicus brief argued that the trial court ignored settled California law that the amounts billed by medical providers do not reflect the market value of medical services. The brief argued that awarding damages based on billed charges rather than the amount accepted as full payment does not compensate plaintiffs; it provides the plaintiff a windfall recovery—in some cases, many multiples of the damages that would make the plaintiff whole.

David Venderbush and Brian D. Boone of Alston & Bird LLP served as counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center in this case.