Suta v. The Home Depot Inc

[4] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE [7] VAHID SUTA, Cause No. C22-0744RSL [8] Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART [9] v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 10 RECONSIDERATION THE HOME DEPOT, INC., [11] Defendant. [13] On November 20, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion [14] 15 for summary judgment regarding damages. Dkt. # 49. Defendant filed a timely motion for [16] reconsideration, arguing that the Court manifestly erred by (1) conflating its challenge to the [17] sufficiency of the evidence regarding medical causation with its challenge to the sufficiency of [18] 19 the evidence regarding the reasonableness of the medical costs incurred and (2) concluding that [20] plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 2(a)(2)(C) was harmless. Dkt. # 50. The Court requested [21] additional briefing on the matter and, having considered the parties’ submissions, finds as [22] 23 follows: [23] A. Reasonableness of Past Medical Treatment and Expenses [25] Under Washington law, “[a] plaintiff in a negligence case may recover only the [26] 27 reasonable value of medical services received, not the total of all bills paid.” Patterson v. [28] 1 Horton, 84 Wn. App. 531, 543 (1997). Medical records and bills/receipts are relevant “only if [2] supported by additional evidence that the treatment and the bills were both necessary and [3] reasonable.” Id. See also Carr v. Martin, 35 Wn.2d 753, 761 (1950) (“evidence of the [4] 5 indebtedness incurred and the amounts paid [] for the series of physicians and the hospital” do [6] not raise “a presumption that the charges made were reasonable” or otherwise shift the burden to [7] defendant to prove otherwise); Damasco v. United States, No. C17-641 RSM, 2018 WL 8 9 4237752, at *7–8 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 6, 2018) (same) (citing Patterson, 84 Wn. App. at 543 , and [10] Carr, 35 Wn.2d at 761-62 ). With regards to past medical expenditures, plaintiff has not offered [11] any evidence besides the billing records. Having shown only the amount, not the reasonableness, [12] 13 of his past medical costs, plaintiff has failed to produce evidence sufficient to raise a triable [14] issue of fact under Washington law. See Cudmore v. Tjomsland, 44 Wn.2d 308, 309 (1954) [15] (“Whatever may be the rule elsewhere, it is now the established law in this jurisdiction that the [16] 17 reasonable value of services rendered must be established.”) (citing Carr, 35 Wn.2d at 761 ). [18] Defendant’s motion for reconsideration on this point is GRANTED, and plaintiff’s claim for [19] past medical expenses is dismissed. [20] 21 B. Future Medical Expenses [22] When the issue is whether future medical expenses will be incurred and the amount [23] thereof, medical records and bills are relevant and admissible without the need to show [23] 25 reasonableness and necessity. Patterson, 84 Wn. App. at 543 . Mathematical exactness regarding [26] amount is not required where future damages are concerned, id. at 544 , and “allowance for the [28] 1 cost of future medical care can be made” based on evidence “that future medical care will be [2] necessitated by the injury suffered by the plaintiff,” Leak v. U.S. Rubber Co., 9 Wn. App. 98 , [3] 103 (1973). The Washington Supreme Court has twice approved the submission of the issue of [4] 5 future medical damages to the jury based on little more than the existence of past medical [6] expenditures, plaintiff’s condition at the time of trial, and evidence that future medical expenses [7] were reasonably certain. Helman v. Sacred Heart Hosp., 62 Wn.2d 136, 151 (1963); Webster v. [8] 9 Seattle, Renton & Southern Ry. Co., 42 Wash. 364, 365 (1906). See also Erdman v. Lower [10] Yakima Valley, Washington Lodge No. 2112 of B.P.O.E., 41 Wn. App. 197 , 209–10 (1985) [11] (where plaintiff’s impairments continued to exist at the time of trial, he had received medical [12] 13 attention for the impairments in the past, and there was evidence that future treatment would be [14] necessary, the jury determines whether to award future damages). [15] Because evidence of reasonableness is not necessary to recover future medical expenses, [16] 17 defendant’s motion for reconsideration on this point is DENIED. [18] 3. Harmlessness [19] Defendant argues that the Court should not have considered whether plaintiff’s failure to [20] 21 comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(C) was harmless because plaintiff failed to raise harmlessness or to [22] request a less severe sanction than exclusion. Dkt. # 50 at 4; Dkt. # 55 at 5-6. In making his [23] argument, defendant ignores its own “procedural lapse” in the summary judgment briefing. Dkt. [23] 25 # 49 at 4. Defendant failed to acknowledge or address the causation evidence in plaintiff’s [26] medical records when it filed its motion for summary judgment. When plaintiff pointed out the [28] 1 relevant evidence in his opposition memorandum, defendant then argued in reply that the [2] evidence should not be considered under Rule 26(a)(2). Plaintiff was deprived of an opportunity [3] to address the argument and establish harmlessness. In light of the extensive record regarding [4] 5 what plaintiff produced, when it was produced, and how it was produced, the Court nevertheless [6] chose to consider defendant’s belated argument and determine whether the circumstances [7] presented supported a finding of harmlessness. Defendant’s procedural objection is overruled. [8] 9 With regards to the substance of the Court’s decision, defendant has not shown manifest [10] error. While it is clear that defendant disagrees with the Court’s assessment of the situation and [11] the weighing of the Lanard Toys Ltd. v. Novelty, Inc., 375 F. App’x 705, 713 (9th Cir. 2010), [12] 13 factors, the analysis and decision are, at most, debatable. Reconsideration is appropriate only [14] when clear and indisputable (i.e., manifest) error is present, not when a litigant is disappointed [15] in the outcome. [16] 17 While the Court remains convinced that defendant could have and should have conducted [18] follow-up discovery regarding past and future medical expenses rather than hope that the [19] evidence produced in discovery would be excluded, the trial date in this matter has now been [20] 21 continued to April 22, 2024. Defendant will therefore be given the opportunity to conduct [22] additional, limited discovery regarding the need for and estimated costs of future medical [23] treatment related to plaintiff’s injuries. The Court declines to shift the costs of such discovery. [28] 1 For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 50) is [2] GRANTED in part. Plaintiff’s claim for past medical expenses is dismissed for failure to [3] provide evidence that the expenses were necessary and reasonable. Plaintiff shall, within seven [4] 5 days of the date of this Order, inform defendant whether Dr. Debiparshad and/or Dr. Nwosu will [6] be testifying at trial regarding future medical expenses. Defendant may note the testifying [7] physician’s deposition, and the parties shall work cooperatively to schedule and conduct the [8] 9 depositions by the end of February. [10] 11 Dated this 31st day of January, 2024. [13] Robert S. Lasnik 14 United States District Judge