Opinion ID: 2525113
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Medicaid evidence and pain and suffering damages

Text: Loncar argues that Medicaid evidence should have been admissible because accepting public assistance caused her additional emotional distress and pain and suffering. The superior court gave Loncar broad leeway to introduce evidence on this claim, explaining: Ms. Loncar can testify about her medical condition, she can testify about her medical bills she has had, she can testify about her difficulty in obtaining medical care, she can testify about her bills and the amount that [has] been run up without mentioning insurance. But if Loncar were permitted to introduce evidence of Medicaid payments, the court continued, the door would be opened to evidence from both sides on the larger issue of insurance paymentsand this potentially very large body of evidence would create more confusion of the issues than ... any probative value it may have. The superior court's conclusion on this issue is not unreasonable and certainly is not an error [that] affected the substantial rights of a party; [17] we therefore affirm its ruling on this issue.