Opinion handed down October 26, 2010
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Supreme Court of Missouri examined whether municipalities may bring declaratory judgment actions to solve boundary disputes with other municipalities. Individuals are prohibited from bringing such actions, but it was not clear if the prohibition extended to municipalities and other public corporations. The court said that the public policy reasoning behind prohibiting individuals from bringing such actions does not apply to municipalities. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Missouri allowed Lake St. Louis to bring a declaratory judgment action against O’Fallon to determine the boundary between the two cities.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Deck v. Teasley[1]
Opinion handed down Oct. 26, 2010
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
In Deck v. Teasley, the Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed an action arising out of a traffic accident. After interpreting Missouri Revised Statutes section 490.715.5, the circuit court limited the plaintiff’s evidence of medical damages to the amount of money actually paid to the providers by Medicare coverage, supplemental insurance, and the plaintiff. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that section 490.715.5 supplies a rebuttable presumption that the dollar amount paid to satisfy the medical providers is the proper value of medical treatment when determining damages. The court found that the plaintiff had properly rebutted this presumption by presenting sufficient evidence that the amount billed was the actual value of her treatment. Additionally, the court held that testimony about possible future medical treatment, including surgery, is relevant and admissible, even if such treatment is not reasonably certain to occur at the time of trial.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
In Deck v. Teasley, the Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed an action arising out of a traffic accident. After interpreting Missouri Revised Statutes section 490.715.5, the circuit court limited the plaintiff’s evidence of medical damages to the amount of money actually paid to the providers by Medicare coverage, supplemental insurance, and the plaintiff. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that section 490.715.5 supplies a rebuttable presumption that the dollar amount paid to satisfy the medical providers is the proper value of medical treatment when determining damages. The court found that the plaintiff had properly rebutted this presumption by presenting sufficient evidence that the amount billed was the actual value of her treatment. Additionally, the court held that testimony about possible future medical treatment, including surgery, is relevant and admissible, even if such treatment is not reasonably certain to occur at the time of trial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)