1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-81244-MATTHEWMAN

WILLIAM HERBERT BRITT,

Plaintiff,

v.

WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO RECONSIDER AND/OR CLARIFY ORDER [DE 122]

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP’s 

(“Defendant”) [Motion] to Reconsider and/or Clarify Order on Motion in Limine to Prevent 

Admission of Evidence of the Portion of Plaintiff’s Medical Bills Not Paid by Plaintiff or Medicare 

(“Motion”) [DE 122]. Plaintiff, William Herbert Britt (“Plaintiff”), has filed a Response [DE 130], 

and the matter is now ripe for the Court’s review. 

On March 24, 2022, the Court entered an Omnibus Order on Defendant’s Motions in 

Limine [DE 118]. The Court ordered in relevant part as follows:

Defendant’s Renewed Motion in Limine to Prevent Admission of Evidence of 

Medical Billing Above Medicare Allowed Amounts [DE 106] is GRANTED IN 

PART AND DENIED IN PART1. Defendant seeks to prohibit Plaintiff from 

1 The Court notes that the Florida Second District Court of Appeal recently certified the following question to the 

Florida Supreme Court after answering the question in the negative:

DOES THE HOLDING IN JOERG V. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE 

CO., 176 SO. 3D 1247 (FLA. 2015), PROHIBITING THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE 

OF MEDICARE BENEFITS IN A PERSONAL INJURY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF A JURY'S 

CONSIDERATION OF FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES ALSO APPLY TO PAST MEDICAL 

EXPENSES?

Case 9:20-cv-81244-WM Document 135 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2022 Page 1 of 4
2

introducing at trial “evidence of the portion of Plaintiff’s medical bills exceeding 

Medicare allowed amounts.” [DE 106 at 1]. In support of its Motion, Defendant 

represents that “Plaintiff’s medical providers have either already accepted 

Medicare payments in full satisfaction of their bills or have . . . opted out of 

Medicare [or] entered into a compliant private contract with the Plaintiff.” Id. at 15. 

Defendant also points to cases that support the proposition “that evidence of the 

contractual discount by Medicare providers should be excluded from trial.” See, 

e.g., Boyd v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 890 So. 2d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2005); see also Dial v. Calusa Palms Master Ass’n, Inc., 308 So. 3d 690, 691 (Fla. 

2d DCA 2020) (“[T]he appropriate measure of compensatory damages for past 

medical expenses when a plaintiff has received Medicare benefits does not include 

the difference between the amount that the Medicare providers agreed to accept and 

the total amount of the plaintiff’s medical bills. The trial court should have granted 

the . . . motion in limine and prohibited [the plaintiff] from introducing the full 

amount of her medical bills into evidence.” (citation omitted)). Plaintiff’s Response 

fails to address these cases. Thus, to the extent that any of his medical bills have 

already been fully satisfied by Medicare, Plaintiff is prohibited from introducing at 

trial evidence of the portion of those bills that exceeds the amounts actually 

received by the providers. The Court agrees that such evidence is not relevant under 

FRE 401, and to the extent it is arguably relevant, it is unfairly prejudicial under 

FRE 403 as it will likely confuse and mislead the jury. Thus, that portion of the 

motion is granted.

However, the Court is not persuaded that it should prohibit Plaintiff from 

introducing at trial evidence of the portion of Plaintiff’s medical bills which have 

not yet been paid (and may never be paid) by Medicare that exceeds the limits of 

what Medicare would pay to fully satisfy such medical bills. Defendant points to 

no binding precedent requiring such a ruling, nor does it set forth a compelling basis 

for the same. This Court will not exclude relevant damages evidence based on 

speculation that Medicare may pay at some point in the future. Therefore, the Court 

denies Defendant’s motion on that issue. 

[DE 118].

In its Motion, Defendant requests that the Court “reconsider that portion of its order 

denying Defendant’s Renewed Motion in Limine to Prevent Admission of Evidence of Medical 

Dial v. Calusa Palms Master Ass’n, Inc., 308 So. 3d 690, 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020), review granted, No. SC21-43, 

2021 WL 1604008 (Fla. Apr. 26, 2021). The Florida Supreme Court held oral argument on the issue on February 8, 

2022. If the Florida Supreme Court enters an opinion between the date of this Order and the trial in this case, Plaintiff 

and Defendant are free to file a motion for reconsideration with the Court if they have a good-faith basis to do so. 

Case 9:20-cv-81244-WM Document 135 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2022 Page 2 of 4
3

Billing Above Medicare Allowed Amounts and preclude Plaintiff from introducing evidence of 

phantom damages such as his full past medical bills.” [DE 122 at 11]. Defendant alternatively 

requests that the Court “clarify its ruling that it will not impact Defendant’s ability to receive a 

collateral source setoff so that the Final Judgment only reflects that amount of his medical bills for 

which Plaintiff will be legally responsible to pay.” Id.

In Response, Plaintiff argues that Defendant is misrepresenting what the applicable law 

stands for and that Defendant is trying to bar Plaintiff from “presenting the truth, the medical bills 

he incurred and for which he expressly contracted with his healthcare providers to pay in full, and 

he would be left unable to recover from his true damages incurred.” [DE 130 at 6]. Plaintiff also 

argues that Defendant’s requested relief would leave Plaintiff “liable to the requisite healthcare 

providers for the full charges he incurred.” Id.

“Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.” Holland v. 

Florida, No. 06-20182-CIV-SEITZ, 2007 WL 9705926, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 26, 2007) (citation 

and internal quotation marks omitted). A motion for reconsideration may be granted based on 

three major grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new 

evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Burger King Corp. 

v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1369 (S.D. Fla. 2002). In other words, “[t]he only 

grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration ‘are newly-discovered evidence or manifest 

errors of law or fact.’” United States v. Dean, No. 20-11603, 2020 WL 7655426, at *2 (11th Cir. 

Dec. 23, 2020) (per curiam) (quoting Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (per 

curiam)). “A party’s disagreement with the court's decision, absent a showing of manifest error, is 

not sufficient to demonstrate entitlement to relief.” Id. (citing Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int'l, Inc., 

626 F.3d 1327, 1344 (11th Cir. 2010)).

Case 9:20-cv-81244-WM Document 135 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2022 Page 3 of 4
4

The Court has carefully reviewed Defendant’s Motion and Plaintiff’s Response, along with 

the case law and statutes cited within, and finds that Defendant has not met its very high burden 

for the Court to reconsider its prior ruling on the motion in limine at issue. There has been no 

intervening change in controlling law, there is no new evidence, and there is no need to correct 

clear error or prevent manifest injustice. 

However, the Court will grant the Motion to the extent that Defendant requests clarification 

of the Court’s prior Order [DE 118]. The Court’s prior ruling on the motion in limine will not 

necessarily impact Defendant’s ability to receive a collateral source setoff, if appropriate, “so that 

the Final Judgment only reflects that amount of his medical bills for which Plaintiff will be legally 

responsible to pay.” [DE 122 at 11]. Any issues relating to setoff shall be determined by this Court 

post-trial. See Hodge v. Tide Tamer Indus., Inc., No. 4:19CV575-MW/CAS, 2020 WL 7633911, 

at *2 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 1, 2020).

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s 

[Motion] to Reconsider and/or Clarify Order on Motion in Limine to Prevent Admission of 

Evidence of the Portion of Plaintiff’s Medical Bills Not Paid by Plaintiff or Medicare [DE 122] is 

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, 

this 14th day of April, 2022.

__________________________

WILLIAM MATTHEWMAN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 9:20-cv-81244-WM Document 135 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2022 Page 4 of 4