In the case of Irving Holdings, Inc. v. Brown the Dallas Court of Appeals held that Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code Section 41.0105 is a rule of recovery and not a rule of damages and should be applied after the fact finder’s determination of damages based on the claimant’s reasonable and necessary medical expense affidavits and after other statutory limitations and/or offsets. In so holding, the Dallas Court of Appeals stated that Section 18.001 affidavits were “sufficient evidence to support a finding of fact by judge or jury that the amount charged was reasonable or that the service was necessary.”
By contrast, in the case of Garza de Escabedo v. Haygood the Tyler Court of Appeals held that under Section 41.0105 medical affidavits showing the amount of the medical bills were insufficient evidence as a matter of law to support a medical damages verdict.
Apparently the Texas Supreme Court agrees with the Dallas Court of Appeals Irving Holdings opinion and disagrees with the Tyler Court of Appeals Escobedo opinion as the Texas Supreme Court has denied the petition for review in the Irving Holdings matter and granted the petition for review in the Escobedo matter. Historically, when the Texas Supreme Court grants a petition for review it reverses some portion of the underlying opinion in more than 80% of such instances.
When taken as a whole, these developments suggest that the appropriate method of addressing the paid v. incurred issue is to submit all of the medical bills to the jury and then to reduce the medical damages to the “paid” amount after the verdict and after any other offsets or credits.
For more information contact a Tyler Truck Accident Attorney today.