Ochoa v. Aldrete
| Decision Date | 08 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | 21-C-632 |
| Citation | 335 So.3d 957 |
| Parties | Marco OCHOA v. Brad ALDRETE, Aldrete & Sons Shoring Co., Inc. and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RELATOR, MARCO OCHOA, Miguel A. Elias, Paula J. Ferreira, Adam M. Klock, Mario D. Zavala, Jr., Graham Brian, Donald A. Mau, Olivia L. Kinnear, Rashim J. Khan, Robert E. Duhon
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT, BRAD ALDRETE, ALDRETE & SONS SHORING CO., INC. AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Nicholas C. Gristina Andrew, G. West Gordon, P. Guthrie, III
Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Jude G. Gravois, and John J. Molaison, Jr.
Relator-plaintiff, Marco Ochoa, seeks review of the district court's August 10, 2021 judgment in favor of Respondents-defendants, Brad Aldrete, Aldrete & Sons Shoring Co., Inc., and State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. The district court granted Respondents’ Motion in Limine to exclude the total medical expenses billed by Relator's medical providers and to limit Relator to only offering at trial evidence of the medical expenses paid to his healthcare providers by the third-party funding/factoring company, HMR Funding, LLC (hereinafter "HMRF"). For the foregoing reasons, we grant the writ, vacate the August 10, 2021 judgment, and remand this matter for further proceedings.
On June 28, 2018, Mr. Ochoa was involved in a motor vehicle accident with Brad Aldrete. Mr. Ochoa had limited financial resources to cover the costs of his medical treatment for his alleged accident-related injuries. Prior to filing suit, his medical providers, One Spine Institute - Dr. Peter Liechty; Crescent View Surgery Center; and Louisiana Rehab Products, Inc., entered into an agreement with a third-party medical funding/factoring company, HMR Funding, LLC, for it to purchase Mr. Ochoa's outstanding medical bills at a negotiated or discounted rate in exchange for an assignment to collect the billed amount of the medical expenses from Mr. Ochoa and the proceeds of the resolution of his claim. To obtain Mr. Ochoa's consent to that agreement, a representative for each medical provider, One Spine Institute - Dr. Peter Liechty; Crescent View; and Louisiana Rehab Products, Inc., entered into an Assignment Agreement 1 with Mr. Ochoa detailing, inter alia , his personal responsibility to each provider and the providers’ assignment of its rights to HMRF. No representative from HMRF signed the agreement.
On March 21, 2019, Mr. Ochoa filed suit against Brad Aldrete, Aldrete & Sons Shoring Co., Inc., and State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. for damages and injuries sustained in connection with the June 28, 2018 automobile accident.
On June 29, 2021, Respondents filed a Motion in Limine seeking to exclude evidence as to the billed amount of medical specials and to limit Relator to only presenting the actual amounts paid to his medical providers. In connection with their motion, Respondents attached the Lien and Receivables Purchase and Assignment Agreements between HMRF and One Spine Institute - Dr. Peter Liechty; Crescent View; and Louisiana Rehab Products, Inc.2 Also submitted were the Master Purchase Agreement between Benchmark Rehabilitation Partners, LLC and HMRF3 ; the 1442 deposition transcript of Deborah Lukhard, a corporate representative of HMRF; three Assignment Agreements executed by Relator and his medical providers, One Spine Institute - Dr. Peter Liechty; Crescent View; and Louisiana Rehab Products, Inc., respectively.
In their motion, Respondents argued that HMRF purchased the account receivables from Mr. Ochoa's medical providers at a significantly discounted rate, cumulatively less than 42% of the billed amounts, in satisfaction of the medical bills, and thus, Mr. Ochoa is not responsible to pay any amount over that which was paid by the third-party financing company, HMRF. Ultimately, Respondents asserted that the collateral source rule is inapplicable to this matter.
On July 13, 2021, Mr. Ochoa filed an Opposition to Respondents’ motion. He averred that HMRF's involvement with his medical providers should be excluded on the grounds that the collateral source rule and La. C.E. art. 409 prohibits the admissibility of such information at trial. Mr. Ochoa relies on Whitley v. Pinnacle Entm't, Inc. of Delaware, CV 15-00595-BAJ-RLB, 2017 WL 1051188 (M.D. La. Mar. 20, 2017), to support his position that there is no windfall or double recovery by him, and that the billed amount for his medical expenses are costs he will actually incur. Later that same day, Respondents filed a Reply to Mr. Ochoa's opposition wherein they re-urged that the collateral source rule does not apply, that Hoffman4 and Bozeman5 are controlling, and that Mr. Ochoa never entered into an agreement with HMRF or negotiated with his medical providers regarding a discounted payment to satisfy the billed amount of his medical bills.
At the July 22, 2021 hearing, after considering the arguments of the parties and the evidence introduced, the district court took the matter under advisement. On August 10, 2021, the district court rendered judgment, with written reasons6 , in favor of Respondents and against Mr. Ochoa. Mr. Ochoa seeks supervisory review.
The trial court is granted broad discretion in its evidentiary rulings, which are not to be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Moonan v. Louisiana Med. Mut. Ins. Co ., 16-113 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/22/16), 202 So.3d 529, 534, writ denied , 16-2048 (La. 1/9/17), 214 So.3d 869 (internal citations omitted). A motion in limine presents an evidentiary matter that is subject to the great discretion of the trial court. Id . On appeal, the court must consider whether the complained-of ruling was erroneous and whether the error prejudiced the plaintiff's case, otherwise a reversal is not warranted. La. C.E. art. 103(A). Id . The determination is whether the error, when compared to the record in its totality, has a substantial effect on the outcome of the case, and it is the complainant's burden to so prove. Id .
The central issue before this Court is whether the collateral source rule applies to the difference between the amounts billed by Mr. Ochoa's medical providers and the discounted amounts paid by HMRF, a third-party medical funding/factoring company, to those providers in satisfaction of receivables when Mr. Ochoa remains liable for the billed amount.
We first address if, pursuant to the Assignment Agreements, Mr. Ochoa is liable for the remaining balance of the billed invoices after HMRF acquired, by paying a negotiated or discounted amount of the medical invoices, the account receivables from the medical providers.
As preliminary matter, we address the nature of the contracts between the medical providers and Mr. Ochoa, and its bearing on HMRF.
Assignments of right are governed by La. C.C.P. art. 698, which provides:
A cause of action in tort is both an incorporeal movable thing and property that is owned under Louisiana law. See La. C.C. arts. 448, 461, and 473 ; Heyse v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York , 255 La. 127, 229 So.2d 724, 726 (La. 1969) ; Conrad v. Swiss Chalet Picnic Grounds & Catering Service , 96-606 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/30/96), 686 So.2d 1055. No particular form or words are necessary to constitute a valid assignment. Katz v. Saruessen , 476 So.2d 16, 19 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1985).
Further, all rights may be assigned, with the exception of those pertaining to obligations that are strictly personal. La. C.C. art. 2642. Strictly personal obligations on the part of an obligee are those for which the performance is intended for the benefit of the obligee exclusively. La. C.C. art. 1766. It is well settled that most litigious rights can be assigned, transferred, or inherited and are therefore not strictly personal. La. C.C. art. 2652 ; Guidry v. Theriot , 377 So.2d 319, 324 (La. 1979) ().
Upon review of the documents attached to the writ application, the Assignment Agreements executed by Mr. Ochoa and by the medical providers, One Spine Institute - Dr. Peter Liechty, Crescent View, and Louisiana Rehab Products, Inc., respectively, contain identical language and provisions. The pertinent sections of the Assignment Agreements are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial