The opinion of the court was delivered by: Terrence F. McVerry United States District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Presently before the Court are the following:
(1) MOTIONS IN LIMINE WITH RESPECT TO THE DAMAGES PORTION OF THE TRIAL, with brief in support, filed by Plaintiff, the National Indoor Football League, L.L.C. ("NIFL") (Document Nos. 100 and 103, respectively), and the response and brief in opposition filed by Defendant, R.P.C. Employer Services, Inc. ("RPC") (Document Nos. 104 and 107, respectively); and
(2) MOTION IN LIMINE WITH RESPECT TO PLAINTIFF'S DAMAGES, with brief in support, filed by RPC (Document Nos. 105 and 106) and the reply in opposition filed by the NIFL (Document No. 108).
The Motions will be addressed seriatim.
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST MOTION IN LIMINE WITH RESPECT TO THE DAMAGES PORTION OF TRIAL (DOCUMENT NO.100-1)
RPC contends that each claim for damages being asserted by the NIFL on behalf of an injured player for the lack of workers compensation coverage/benefits should be reduced by a $1,000 per claim deductible pursuant to the terms of the Service Agreement.*fn1 The NIFL responds that because its claims are for common-law damages, the damages available to it are the full amount of damages and no deductible or set off should apply.
In its Memorandum Opinion and Order of Court filed on March 16, 2006 (Document No. 71), the Court determined that the claims surrounding this litigation "fall outside the scope of workers' compensation statutes" and, therefore, the NIFL is entitled to recover the full amount of common law damages. Plaintiff's potential recovery will not be limited by the level of reimbursement available under the Ohio Worker's Compensation Act. Likewise, Plaintiff's claims for common law damages are not subject to or reducible in any way by a deductible or set off.
Moreover, in the Court's view the Service Agreement language pertaining to a workers' compensation deductible is simply not applicable to any damages in this litigation. Rather, the referenced deductible pertains to RPC's fee structure. See Service Agreement, Fee Structure Statement ("DEDUCTIBLE: $1000 - PER CLAIM AS ASSESSED TO EACH TEAM BY THE LEAGUE MANAGEMENT.) This deductible may very well be applicable to the calculation of fees payable to RPC under the contract, i.e., no payroll percentage fee payable to RPC on the first $1,000.00 of workers compensation benefits paid per claim. There is no other reference any where in the Service Agreement that a deductible is intended to apply to any workers' compensation coverage or benefits. See also Service Agreement, ¶ 5(a) Insurance - Workers' Compensation Insurance.
The Court finds that the NIFL's damage claims are not to be reduced by any deductible or set off and therefore will grant the NIFL's First Motion in Limine.
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION IN LIMINE WITH RESPECT TO THE DAMAGES PORTION OF TRIAL (DOCUMENT NO.100-2)
In the NIFL's second motion in limine, it seeks to introduce all Health Care Financing Administration ("HCFA") 1500 forms and/or medical charts/notes/reports or a combination of both to substantiate its damages as long as same are accompanied by a certification that complies with Federal Rules of Evidence ("FRE") 803(6) and 902(11).
By Order of Court dated March 23, 2006, the Court ordered as follows: "1. Plaintiff will be allowed to introduce into evidence any and all medical records supplied to Defendants in November 2005 to the extent that the records in question are admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) and 902(11), or otherwise with an appropriate foundation witness;
"2. Plaintiff will be allowed to introduce into evidence any medical(s) records or documents that were produced to Defendants on March 13, 2006, if such records constitute the underlying supporting documentation to establish or confirm the accuracy of the information set forth in the medical provider-completed Health Insurance Claim Forms (HCFA-1500s) that were previously produced to Defendants in November 2005, to the extent that the records in question are admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) and 902(11), or otherwise with an appropriate foundation witness. See November 18, 2005, correspondence from Timothy Leventry, Esquire to Michael J. Seymour, Esquire; and December 5, 2005, correspondence from Timothy Leventry, Esquire to Michael J. Seymour, Esquire.
"3. To the extent that the documents produced on March 13, 2006 are beyond the scope of those records provided to Defendants in November 2005, same will be excluded." Order of Court, March 23, 2006, Document No. 82.
The Court is not persuaded that it should change its decision on this issue but some clarification may be warranted. The NIFL may introduce an HCFA 1500 form alone provided said form/record(s) is in compliance with FRE 803(6) and 902(11) or otherwise through an appropriate foundation witness. Likewise, the NIFL may introduce a medical provider's notes/chart/report (or other similar medical record) alone provided said record(s) is in compliance with FRE 803(6) and 902(11) or otherwise through an appropriate foundation witness. Also, each component of any combination of HCFA 1500 form(s) and medical provider ...