Opinion ID: 835127
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: defendant's evidentiary argument

Text: In its final, alternative, evidentiary argument, defendant contends that, if the amount that Medicare paid plaintiff's medical providers does not establish the limits of defendant's liability, then it is at least admissible evidence of the reasonable value of the services that they rendered. The amount that one pays for services generally is admissible and often may be an important factor in determining the reasonable value of those services. See Oliver v. N.P.T. Co., 3 Or. 84, 87 (1869) (In estimating damages, it is proper to consider loss of time, money necessarily paid, or debts necessarily incurred in curing the bodily injury   .). But, in the circumstances where it applies, ORS 31.580(2) precludes the admission of such evidence when it discloses the existence and amount of a collateral source benefit: Evidence of the [collateral] benefit [received by plaintiff]    and the cost of obtaining it is not admissible at trial, but shall be received by the court by affidavit submitted after the verdict by any party to the action. In this case, ORS 31.580(2) prohibited defendant from proving to the jury the benefits that plaintiff received from Medicarethe satisfaction of his obligations to his providers by both payment and write-offs. That did not mean, however, that defendant was required to accept liability for the charges that plaintiff sought to recover. Plaintiff had the burden of proving to the jury that his claimed medical expenses were reasonable. Defendant could have put plaintiff to his proof and could have called witnesses to testify that the amounts that plaintiff sought were unreasonable. Instead, defendant stipulated at trial that the bills that plaintiff submitted as evidence were reasonable. Therefore, defendant is bound by the jury's factual determination and award.