Summary
applying N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 414 as substantive law
Summary of this case from Russe v. United StatesOpinion
3:20-cv-00689-RJC-DCK
03-01-2023
DAVID ABRAHAM CARMELY and MICHAL BARAMI CARMELY, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
ORDER
Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States District Judge
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Parties' motions in limine. (Doc. Nos. 59, 62, 63, 66). In the interest of providing the parties with the Court's rulings ahead of trial, the Court below lists the Parties' relevant filings by docket number, a summary of the request, and the Court's ruling.
I. PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST
| Doc. No. | Request | Ruling |
| 59 | Plaintiffs' Request: The testimony of Dr. Carstairs should not be allowed. | The Plaintiffs' request is DENIED. The evidence is relevant under Fed.R.Civ.P. 401, and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 403. |
II. DEFENDANT'S REQUESTS
| Doc. No. | Request | Ruling |
| 62 | Defendant's Request: Exclude any evidence of Plaintiff's medical expenses that exceeds the amount actually paid or necessary to satisfy the bills that have been incurred but not yet satisfied. | The Defendant's request is GRANTED. “Evidence offered to prove past medical expenses shall be limited to evidence of the amounts actually paid to satisfy the bills that have been satisfied, regardless of the source of payment, and evidence of the amounts actually necessary to satisfy the bills that have been incurred but not yet satisfied.” N.C. G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 414 (“the Rule”). Plaintiff seeks to admit the evidence on two bases: first, that Rule 414 prohibits admission, but not necessarily “viewing” of this evidence by the trier of fact, and second, that Rule 414 is inconsistent with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-58.1, which addresses the reasonableness of medical bills. As a threshold matter, the Court will apply Rule 414 because the Rule is substantive law. Law is substantive when its application may “significantly affect the result of litigation.” Lauer v. United States, No. 1:12-cv-41, 2013 WL 566124, at *3 (W.D. N.C. Feb., 13, 2013); see also Sigmon v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 517CV00225KDBDCK, 2019 WL 7940194, at *1 (W.D. N.C. Nov. 14, 2019) (applying Rule 414 as substantive law); Hairston v. Harward, 821 S.E.2d 384, 392 (N.C. 2018) (stating that the North Carolina Supreme Court has treated the collateral source rule as a substantive rule of law concerning damages); Nicholson v. Thom, 763 S.E.2d 772, 789 n.19 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014) (“In 2011, the collateral source rule was abrogated by Rule 414 of the North |