Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01890/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01890-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTEBAN QUNITERO AND LETICIA

QUINTERO,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant.

1:08-cv-01890-OWW-SMS

FINDINGS OF FACT AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOLLOWING

BENCH TRIAL

I. INTRODUCTION.

Plaintiffs Esteban Quintero (“Esteban”) and Leticia Quintero

(“Leticia”) are proceeding with an action against the United States

of America pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. 28 U.S.C. §

2671, et seq.

On April 29, 2010, the court concluded a three-day bench trial

and ordered counsel to submit proposed findings of fact conclusions

of law. Esteban submitted proposed findings on May 7, 2010. 

(Docs. 47, 48). Leticia submitted proposed findings on May 10,

2010. (Docs. 49, 50). The United States submitted proposed

findings on May 10, 2010. (Doc. 51). 

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Prior to May 12, 2006, Esteban was a healthy 44 year-old man

1

Case 1:08-cv-01890-OWW -SMS Document 52 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

with no physical disabilities, and Leticia was a healthy 46 yearold women with no physical disabilities.

2. On May 12, 2006, Esteban was driving his 2002 Yamaha Roadster

motorcycle north bound on Santa Fe Road in Merced County. 

Leticia was a passenger on the motorcycle. Plaintiffs’

motorcycle was designed and configured for cruising and was

equipped with an after market wind screen, saddlebags, two seats,

and upright handlebars. The motorcycle was in operative

condition and had a braking system that included a foot brake and

a hand brake. The hand brake was on the left handle bar and was

activated by pressure.

3. Plaintiffs traveled to the Chukchansi Casino approximately two

hours from their residence, which is at 7186 Monterey Court in

Winton, California, where Esteban Quintero has resided for

approximately 30 years and Leticia Quintero has resided

approximately 28 years by inference, as they have been married 28

years. 

4. The time of the incident, according to the testimony

of the Highway Patrol officer who investigated, was 

approximately 2:05 p.m. That accident report, in evidence as

Exhibit 51, shows that the officer, John Patterson, an

experienced Highway patrolman, arrived at approximately 2:30 to

2:35 p.m. 

///

///

2

Case 1:08-cv-01890-OWW -SMS Document 52 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5. Plaintiffs were traveling at approximately 55 to 60 miles per

hour in a 55 miles per hour zone.

6. No evidence of comparative fault was offered. 

7. As Plaintiffs approached the intersection of Santa Fe Road

and Buchanan Hollow Road, Esteban Quintero saw a Unites States’

postal service delivery truck stopped at a stop sign on Buchanan

Hollow Road facing east. The weather conditions were clear, it

was a sunny day, the payment was dry, there were no obstructions

to vision either forward or backward. 

8. The postal truck was then driven by Valerie Babb, whose

married name at the time of trial was Valerie Kuwatani. Ms. Babb

was a relief driver filling in for the regular route driver who

was not on duty May 12. 

9. As Plaintiffs approached the intersection of Santa Fe Road

and Buchanan Hollow road, the postal truck left the stop sign and

turned into the north-bound lane of Santa Fe Road. Ms. Babb did

not see Plaintiffs’ motorcycle as she negotiated the turn on to

Santa Fe Road. Plaintiffs were wearing dark clothing, which

provided at least some basis for them and their motorcycle to bee

seen as they approached the intersection, and the motorcycle was

in close enough proximity to Ms. Babb’s position that it would

have been clearly visible.

10. Esteban Quintero unsuccessfully attempted to avoid a

3

Case 1:08-cv-01890-OWW -SMS Document 52 Filed 07/06/10 Page 3 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

collision with the postal truck by applying his brakes and

steering the motorcycle off to the right. Plaintiffs’ motorcycle

struck the postal truck, knocking Esteban and his motorcycle to

the ground and ejecting Leticia from the vehicle.

11. Plaintiffs were taken by ambulance to Mercy Medical Center

in Merced immediately following the accident. Leticia was

released from Mercy Medical Center after a physical examination

and X-rays. Esteban was transferred to Memorial Hospital in

Modesto, and then to Doctors Medical Center in Modesto. Esteban

was hospitalized for injuries sustained in the collision with the

postal truck from May 12, 2006 to May 30, 2006.

Esteban’s Injuries and Treatments

12. Esteban’s primary injuries were to his left leg: a segmental

tibia fracture with interarticular tibial plateau fracture

component and fractures of the tibia and fibula both proximally

and distally. Esteban also suffered road burns to his upper

extremities, a decubitus ulcer wound on his left heel, and

multiple necrotic blisters on his left calf.

13. On May 24, 2006, Dr. Robert Cash, an orthopedic surgeon,

performed surgery to repair Esteban’s lower leg fractures.

These procedures, described as open reduction and internal

fixation of left tibial plateau fracture and external fixation of

the distal tibia fibula fracture, involved approximately ninety

minutes of surgical time.

4

Case 1:08-cv-01890-OWW -SMS Document 52 Filed 07/06/10 Page 4 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14. Esteban received treatment for soft tissue injuries at

Valley Wound Healing Center in Modesto approximately three times

per week from June 19, 2006 through December 11, 2006.

15. Esteban underwent surgery at Stanislaus Surgical Hospital to

remove the external fixator and to perform debridement of the

decubitus ulcer on his heel on August 21, 2006.

16. On November 29, 2006, Dr. Cash performed arthroscopic

surgery upon Esteban in order to repair damage to the meniscus

and cartilage in Esteban’s left knee at Stanislaus Surgical

Hospital. The procedure was described as arthroscopy with

chondroplasty of the patella and lateral partial meniscectomy.

17. On December 29, 2006, Dr. Cash authorized Esteban to return

to full work duties as a restaurant manager on January 8, 2007.

18. On December 10, 2007, Esteban returned to Dr. Cash’s office

with a primary complaint of pain along the plantar surface of the

left foot. He was referred to physical therapy to assist with

stretching of the Achilles tendon, foot and ankle.

19. On December 8, 2008, Esteban returned to Dr. Cash

with complaints of intermittent heel pain, a stiff ankle, and

knee pain. Radiographs of the ankle revealed atrophy changes of

the bone and some mild arthritic changes.

20. On March 19, 2009, Dr. Cash performed surgery on Esteban at

5

Case 1:08-cv-01890-OWW -SMS Document 52 Filed 07/06/10 Page 5 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stanislaus Surgical Hospital to remove bone spur from

the left ankle. Dr. Cash also injected a corticosteroid into

Esteban’s left knee.

21. On January 26, 2010, radiographs of Esteban’s left lower

extremity were performed at Turlock Imaging Services. The

radiographs revealed mild osteoarthritis of the ankle joint; mild

osteopenia of the ankle; mild osteophytic spurring of the ankle;

and mild osteoarthritis of the knee. Earlier imaging showed more

severe osteopenia of the left lower extremity; the fact that Mr.

Quintero’s bone density has improved in the left lower extremity

is evidence of his increased ability to bear weight on his left

leg.

22. On February 8, 2010, Dr. Cash again examined Esteban’s left

knee and ankle due to Esteban’s complaints of pain and stiffness. 

Dr. Cash administered a corticosteroid injection to the Esteban’s

left knee on February 22, 2010.

23. The billed charge for Esteban’s hospitalization at

Doctors Medical Center from May 15, 2006 to May 30, 2006, was

$214,013.97. Esteban and his insurer paid $27,492.61 for such

medical services.

24. Dr. Cash’s billed charge for performing the ninety-minute

surgery to repair Esteban’s tibia and fibula fractures on May 24,

2006, was $5,460.00. The total amount paid by Esteban’s insurer

for such medical services was $1,527.35.

6

Case 1:08-cv-01890-OWW -SMS Document 52 Filed 07/06/10 Page 6 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

25. Dr. Cash’s billed charge for performing surgery upon

Esteban on March 19, 2009, to remove the bone spur from his

ankle and to inject a corticosteroid into the knee, was

$5,300.00. The total amount paid by Esteban’s insurer for such

medical services was $589.54.

26. The billed charge by Stanislaus Surgical Hospital for

Esteban’s bone-spur surgery on March 19, 2009, was

$17,947.00. The total amount paid by Esteban and his

insurer for such medical services was $4,493.34.

27. The total amounts paid by Esteban and his insurers

for all medical care from the date of the accident, including the

initial hospitalization and surgical repair of fractures, wound

care, the later surgery to remove the external fixator, knee

arthoscopy, bone spur surgery, physical therapy, medications and

various attendant expenses is $74, 864.83. (JX 8.1-8.6).

28. As a result of injuries sustained in the May 12, 2006

accident, Esteban missed work from May 12, 2006, until

January 8, 2007. 

29. Esteban’s bi-weekly salary from January 2005 to August 2005

was $1,250.00. (JX 9). In September 2005, Esteban’s bi-weekly

salary increased to $1,500.00. (JX 9). In addition to his base

salary, Esteban received monthly bonus payments ranging from zero

to approximately $5,000.00 per month depending on the success of

7

Case 1:08-cv-01890-OWW -SMS Document 52 Filed 07/06/10 Page 7 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the business. The average monthly bonus payment Esteban received

in the years 2005, 2006, and 2007 was $2,024.49. 

30. Esteban received one paycheck in May 2006 for $1,500.00 and

a bonus payment of $5,066.37. (JX 9). Esteban did not receive

any more paychecks until he received a $791.20 salary payment on

January 14, 2006. (JX 9). 

31. Esteban did not receive his regular salary payment of

$1,500.00 for second half of May 2006 due to his hospitalization

after the accident. Esteban was unable to work during the months

of June, July, August, September, October, November, and December

of 2006, and thus lost seven months worth of $3,000 in monthly

salary. Esteban missed the first week of work in January 2007

and thus received only $2,291.20 that month, $708.80 less than he

would have received had he worked the entire month. In total,

Esteban lost $23,208.80 in regular salary from 2006 to 2007 based

on time he was unable to work as a result of the accident.

32. In addition to lost salary payments, Esteban also lost seven

monthly bonus payments in 2006 worth an average of $2,024.49, for

a total bonus loss of $14,171.43.

33. Esteban missed an additional two weeks of work in March

2009, presumably costing him half a month’s salary, or $1,500.00. 

No evidence suggests that Esteban did not receive his monthly

bonus payment in January of 2009.

8

Case 1:08-cv-01890-OWW -SMS Document 52 Filed 07/06/10 Page 8 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

34. Esteban’s lost earnings resulting from the accident total

$38,880.23. This total is over $11,000 more than the number

Plaintiffs advance. However, Plaintiffs’ math makes absolutely

no sense. Plaintiffs calculated Esteban averaged $5,200 earnings

per month, but then concluded that he lost only $27,300 in wages

for the 7.5 months he was unable to work. Defendant contends

that Plaintiff’s average monthly during the relevant period were

$4,500.00 per month, however, Defendant provides no explanation

for how this figure was calculated. 

35. The primary medical concern for Mr. Quintero’s future

relates to arthritic changes to the knee and ankle joints. Mr.

Quintero has a few millimeters of offset in the knee joint, which

has potential consequences for future arthritis. Mr. Quintero’s

tibia is also three to five percent out of normal alignment due

to healing of the fracture, although his anatomic/mechanical

axis, which is most important, is maintained.

36. Arthritis in Esteban’s left knee caused by the May 12, 2006

motorcycle accident will cause deterioration in the function of

Estban’s knee and will cause increasing pain as time passes. It

is reasonably certain that within the next five to ten years,

Esteban will require a surgical knee replacement.

37. Knee replacement surgery is an inpatient procedure that

typically involves two to four days in the hospital. According

to Dr. Cash, the typical billed charges for knee replacement

surgery are as follows: Surgical fee, $4,000-$5,000; hospital

9

Case 1:08-cv-01890-OWW -SMS Document 52 Filed 07/06/10 Page 9 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

fee, $50,000-$80,000; anesthesiologist, $500-$1,000;

post-surgical expenses, $2,000-$3,000; physical therapy,

$2,400-$3,000. The total billed cost of knee replacement

surgery, according to Dr. Cash, is approximately $60,000 to

$90,000. The reasonable estimate for this future surgery is the

midrange $75,000. 

38. Esteban has traumatic arthritis in his left ankle resulting

from the accident. Over time, the condition of and pain caused

by Esteban’s ankle will deteriorate to the point that Esteban

will require fusing of the ankle joint, causing permanent loss of

mobility in the ankle joint. 

39. According to Dr. Cash’s estimate, the total billed

charges for ankle fusion surgery are approximately $45,000 to

$50,000 dollars. The reasonable estimate for this future surgery

is the midrange, $47,500

40. Esteban’s current symptoms include pain and stiffness in the

ankle and pain and weakness in the knee. Esteban experiences

pain on a daily basis; he describes his ankle pain as ranging

between three and ten on a ten-point scale, and his knee pain as

ranging between two and ten. Esteban will experience increasing

levels of pain over time until the pain becomes intolerable,

requiring surgery. Esteban walks with a limp and suffers from

swelling in his left leg.

41. The recreational activities that Esteban enjoyed

10

Case 1:08-cv-01890-OWW -SMS Document 52 Filed 07/06/10 Page 10 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

before the May 2006 accident included motorcycle riding, fishing

and camping. Due to his injuries, Esteban no longer rides a

motorcycle and is substantially limited in his ability to enjoy

fishing, camping, dancing, and hiking. Esteban continues to be

able to do maintenance and repairs around the home but does not

undertake certain projects such as laying tile.

42. The primary medical concern for Mr. Quintero’s future

relates to arthritic changes to the knee and ankle joints. Mr.

Quintero has a few milimeters of offset in the knee joint, which

has potential consequences for future arthritis. Mr. Quintero’s

tibia is also three to five percent out of normal alignment due

to healing of the fracture, although his anatomic/mechanical

axis, which is most important, is maintained.

43. Arthritis in Esteban’s left knee caused by the May 12, 2006

motorcycle accident will cause deterioration in the function of

Estban’s knee and will cause increasing pain as time passes. It

is reasonably certain that within the next five to ten years,

Esteban will require a surgical knee replacement.

Leticia Quintero

44. Immediately after the accident, Leticia was transported by

ambulance to Mercy Medical Center with primary complaints of left

shoulder and ankle pain.

45. Leticia reported having fallen off the motorcycle and

landing on her ankle and shoulder. Her knees were tender but

11

Case 1:08-cv-01890-OWW -SMS Document 52 Filed 07/06/10 Page 11 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

without abrasions. Her ankle was swollen but without abrasion,

contusion, or ecchymosis. X-rays revealed no fractures of her

ankles or knees, but a “small avulsion fracture” was seen on her

left shoulder. She was put in a splint, prescribed pain

medication, and released the same day with instruction to follow

up with her primary care doctor.

46. Leticia was referred to Richard W. Slovek, M.D., who first

examined her on May 17, 2006. His diagnosis was a greater

tuberosity fracture of the left shoulder, contusion of the left

shoulder, left knee sprain and abrasion, and left ankle sprain.

Dr. Slovek prescribed pain medication and a sling for the

shoulder and a “Walker Boot” and cane for the ankle.

47. By July 14, 2006, Leticia Quintero reported to Dr.

Slovek that her pain was decreased, shoulder function was a

little better, and strength was unchanged. Her ankle stability

and function was improved, and she reported only minimal

discomfort in the ankle. Range of motion in the ankle was almost

normal. Dr. Slovek advised her to begin physical therapy.

48. Leticia Quintero completed her twelve sessions of

physical therapy on August 30, 2006, and has received no

treatment of any kind for these injuries since August 30, 2006.

49. Occasionally, Leticia continues to experience pain and

popping in her shoulder and stiffness in her ankle. 

12

Case 1:08-cv-01890-OWW -SMS Document 52 Filed 07/06/10 Page 12 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Liability 

1. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the liability of the

United States is determined in the same manner as if the United

States were a private individual under the law of the state where

the incident occurred. see, e.g., Anderson v. United States, 55

F.3d 1379, 1381 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Rayonier v. United

States, 352 U.S. 315, 319 (1957)); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2674.

Plaintiffs’ claims are governed by California law. See id.

2. California Civil Code section 3281 provides: “Every person

who suffers detriment from the unlawful act or omission of

another, may recover from the person in fault a compensation

therefor in money, which is called damages.” CAL. CIV. CODE §

3281. 

3. California Civil Code section § 3333 provides: “For the

breach of an obligation not arising from contract, the measure of

damages, except where otherwise expressly provided by this code,

is the amount which will compensate for all the detriment

proximately caused thereby, whether it could have been

anticipated or not.” CAL. CIV. CODE § 3333 (2009). California law

defines “detriment” as “a loss suffered in person or property.” 

CAL. CIV. CODE § 3282 (2009).

4. “There is no requirement that a plaintiff prove with

certainty the extent of the harm he has suffered as a result of

the defendant's conduct,” rather, damages must be proven to a 

13

Case 1:08-cv-01890-OWW -SMS Document 52 Filed 07/06/10 Page 13 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

reasonable certainty. E.g. Clemente v. Cal., 40 Cal. 3d 202, 219

(Cal. 1985); accord Garcia v. Duro Dyne Corp., 156 Cal. App. 4th

92, 99-100 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). 

5. As the driver of a vehicle on a California road, Ms. Babb

owed Plaintiff a duty not to enter the intersection until she

could proceed with reasonable safety. See CAL. VEH. CODE § 21803. 

Ms. Babb breached her duty by being inattentive and failing to

observe Plaintiffs’ motorcycle. Ms. Babb’s inattentiveness or a

failure to perceive accurately Plaintiffs’ approaching vehicle is

both the legal cause and the proximate cause of the accident. 

6. Babb was negligent. 

7. The liability of the United States is established based on

the fact that Ms. Babb, an authorized employee acting in the

course and scope of her public employment for the postal service,

was the proximate cause of the collision which resulted in

property damages and personal injuries to Plaintiffs.

8. There is no basis for imputing negligence or finding any

actual negligence on the part of Plaintiffs. They were not

comparatively at fault. 

Economic Damages

9. “The normal measure of [medical] damages for a person injured

by another's tortious conduct is the reasonable value of medical

14

Case 1:08-cv-01890-OWW -SMS Document 52 Filed 07/06/10 Page 14 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

care and services reasonably required and attributable to the

tort.” Katiuzhinsky v. Perry, 152 Cal. App. 4th 1288, 1294 (Cal.

Ct. App. 2007) (citing Hanif v. Hous. Auth., 200 Cal. App. 3d

635, 639 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988); accord CAL. CIV. CODE § 3359 (2009)

(“damages must, in all cases, be reasonable”); see also Gimbel v.

Laramie, 181 Cal. App. 2d 77, 81-82 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960) (“If the

court by reason of evidence adduced during the trial doubted the

necessity or reasonableness of any part of the total hospital

bill, it had no alternative but to deny the entire amount”). 

10. Esteban’s lost earnings caused by the accident total

$38,880.23.

11. Whether a plaintiff may recover medical damages in excess of

the amount accepted as full payment by the medical service

provider is an unsettled question under California law that is

currently pending review by the California Supreme Court. See

Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 179 Cal. App. 4th

686, 706-07 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (rejecting Hanif rule) withdrawn

by, petition for review granted at 106 Cal. Rptr. 770 (Cal.

2010). However, a court may consider the amount billed for

medical services in determining the reasonable value of such

services notwithstanding the rule set forth in Hanif. See, e.g.,

Olsen v. Reid, 164 Cal. App. 4th 200, 202 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)

(declining to reach Hanif/Nashihama issue and holding that

consideration of amounts billed is appropriate in determining

reasonable value of services); Greer v. Buzgheia, 141 Cal. App.

4th 1150, 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (consideration of amounts

15

Case 1:08-cv-01890-OWW -SMS Document 52 Filed 07/06/10 Page 15 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

charged appropriate in determining reasonable value of medical

services); Katiuzhinsky, 152 Cal. App. 4th at 1295 (same);

Chapman v. Mazda Motor of Am., 7 F. Supp. 2d 1123, 1124-25 (D.

Montana 1998)(same). Unless the finder of fact concludes that

the reasonable value of medical services rendered to a plaintiff

exceeds the amount that was actually paid for such services, the

rule set forth in Hanif is not implicated. See Greer, 141 Cal.

App. 4th at 1157 (countenancing trial court’s practice of

“reserving the propriety of a Hanif/Nishihama reduction until

after the verdict”). 

12. The only evidence in the record evidencing the reasonable

value of the past medical services provided to Plaintiffs

consists of the amounts billed by the service providers and the

amounts accepted by the service providers in full satisfaction of

these medical charges. In light of the fact that the service

providers accepted reductions of the total billed amounts as full

payment, belies a finding that the billed amounts represent the

reasonable value of the services provided. The best evidence of

the reasonable value of the services received by Plaintiffs

contained in the instant record is the evidence showing the

payments accepted by the medical service providers in full

satisfaction of Plaintiffs’ medical debts, which proves the

actual loss. The recoverable medical costs to date that Esteban

is entitled to recover is $74,864.83 in damages for past medical

expenses, and that Leticia is entitled to $4,245.88 for past

medical expenses.

16

Case 1:08-cv-01890-OWW -SMS Document 52 Filed 07/06/10 Page 16 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Esteban’s Future Medical Expenses

13. “Although it is desirable that there be definiteness of

proof of the amount of damage as far as is reasonably possible,

it is even more desirable that an injured person not be deprived

of substantial compensation merely because he cannot prove with

complete certainty the extent of harm he has suffered.” Garcia

v. Duro Dyne Corp., 156 Cal. App. 4th 92 , 98-99 (Cal. Ct. App.

2007)(citation omitted). Where evidence establishes that future

medical costs are reasonably certain to fall within a projected

range, a finder of fact may award damages that do not exceed the

upper limit of the range established by the evidence. Id. Nor

is it reasonable to go below the range absent conflicting

evidence.

14. Dr. Cash testified that Esteban will require knee

replacement surgery within the next five to ten years, as well as

ankle replacement surgery. Based on the estimates provided by

Dr. Cash, the most reasonable amount is the midrange of $75,000

damages for his future knee replacement surgery and $47,500.00

the midrange in damages for his future ankle fusion surgery, for

a total of $122,500.00 for future medical specials. For total 1

medical specials, past and future of $197,364.83 for medical

specials plus lost wages of $38,880.23. This totals $236,166.06.

Defendant contends that the reasonable value of future medical services Esteban

1

will require will likely be less than Dr. Cash’s estimates, because medical

service providers often accept considerably less than the amount billed in full

satisfaction of medical debts. Defendant asks the court to limit Esteban’s

future medical damages to $50,000.00. Defendant’s contention is too speculative

to accept, as the actual amount that will be accepted by a medical provider in

the future depends a plethora of unknown variables.

17

Case 1:08-cv-01890-OWW -SMS Document 52 Filed 07/06/10 Page 17 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Esteban’s Non-Economic Damages

15. “California case law recognizes, as one component of general

damage, physical impairment which limits the plaintiff's capacity

to share in the amenities of life.” Loth v. Truck-A-Way Corp.,

60 Cal. App. 4th 757, 764 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (citations

omitted). California law does not provide a definite standard or

method of calculation by which to fix reasonable compensation for

physical impairment which limits a plaintiff’s ability to engage

in certain life activities. Id. However, California law

requires the finder of fact to “impartially determine pain and

suffering damages based upon evidence specific to the plaintiff.” 

Id.

16. In light of the evidence adduced at trial concerning

Esteban’s pain, suffering, and the physical limitations Esteban

will face for the remainder of his life, approximately 34 years,

Esteban is entitled to $525,000.00 in non-economic damages for

pain, suffering, and loss of consortium and quality of life. He

will have experienced four (4) surgeries.

Leticia’s Loss of Consortium Damages

17. California law grants either spouse the right to recover for

loss of consortium caused by negligent injury to the other

spouse. E.g. Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 12 Cal. 3d 382,

392-93 (Cal. 1974). In a common law action for loss of

consortium, the plaintiff can recover not only for the loss of

companionship and affection through the time of the trial but

also for any future loss of companionship and affection that is

18

Case 1:08-cv-01890-OWW -SMS Document 52 Filed 07/06/10 Page 18 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

sufficiently certain to occur. Boeken v. Philip Morris USA,

Inc., 48 Cal. 4th 788, 799 (Cal. 2010). When a plaintiff's

spouse is permanently disabled as a result of a defendant's

wrongdoing, future loss of companionship and affection is

sufficiently certain to permit an award of prospective damages.

Id. at 799-800. 

18. In light of the evidence adduced at trial concerning

Esteban’s pain, suffering, and the physical limitations he will

face for the remainder of his life, Leticia is entitled to

$30,000.00 in damages for loss of consortium, plus medical,

economic damages of $4,245.88. 

ORDER

For the reasons stated, it is ORDERED that:

1) Defendant is liable to Esteban Quintero in the amount of

$236,166.06 for economic damages and $525,000 for noneconomic damages for a total of $761,166.06; and

2) Defendant is liable to Leticia Quintero in the amount of

$30,000 for loss of consortium damages, plus $4,245.88 in

economic damages; 

3) Plaintiffs shall recover their costs of suit; and 

4) Plaintiffs shall submit a form of judgment consistent

with this Order within five (5) days of service of these

findings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19

Case 1:08-cv-01890-OWW -SMS Document 52 Filed 07/06/10 Page 19 of 19