Paid v. Incurred medical bills

In a case filed after Nov 1, 2011 we are claiming that Plaintiff is entitled to include INCURRED medical bills. Defendant claims we only get PAID bills. The Judge has set the matter for hearing. He invited us to submit briefs about "constitutionality or otherwise" of 12 OS 3009.1. I am looking for some authority which might help us convince the Court to allow INCURRED bills to be considered by the jury rather than just paid.

Answer: I don't know that you will do any good attacking constitutionality of the "paid v. incurred" statute. However, if your claim arose before November 1, 2011, you have a good chance that the statute can't be applied to your case without violating the constitution. The issue will be whether the change is substantive (in which case it probably can't be) or procedural (in which case it can). It seems to me it is a pretty substantive change.

Even if it is constitutional, it may not hurt you. This is so because an error in the statute makes it apply only if the defendant is able to produce a written statement by each health care provider that the health care provider agrees to accept the reduced amount in full payment. That may be hard for them to do.