Opinion ID: 2639484
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: MSS is entitled to an offset.

Text: Horton's second claim is that the trial court improperly reduced the jury award for cure by deducting the medical bills already paid by MSS. Essentially, Horton argues that there is no evidence that MSS actually paid any of Horton's medical bills and that whether MSS is entitled to an offset is a jury question. This argument has little merit. MSS and Horton stipulated to Horton's medical bills. The jury awarded the entire amount, less the expenses for diabetes since the jury found that condition to be unrelated to Horton's injuries. During the trial, Horton attempted to introduce evidence of medical bills paid by MSS but was prevented from doing so by the trial court. [95] After the trial, MSS moved to reduce the jury award for cure by $122,030.76, the amount paid by MSS for medical bills arising from Horton's injuries. The trial court observed that there was no dispute that the bills had been paid: There is no factual dispute between the parties regarding the sum paid nor is there dispute that the $122,030.76 was paid on behalf of the defendant for medical expenses arising out of plaintiff's injuries.... [T]here are no factual issues to be resolved. Both agreed that the issue to be decided here is simply a legal one. .... There is no legitimate dispute here. The plaintiff had a total of $186,000 in medical/cure expenses. The defendant paid $122,030.76 of those expenses. The defendant should be given credit for those payments. We agree with the trial court and reject Horton's argument that he should get what amounts to a double recovery of medical expenses.