Pain Management Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Reasonable Value of Medical Expenses
Posted on November 4, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiff Armen Avoyan brought this action against the United States alleging negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), arising out of a motor vehicle accident between the Plaintiff and a United States Postal Service employee, Azad Hovhannesian.
The government, however, sought to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Lawrence R. Miller, as to the reasonable value of medical expenses.
Pain Management Expert Witness
Lawrence Ross Miller, M.D., F.I.P.P is a physician who has been board-certified in internal medicine, nephrology, anesthesiology, and pain medicine. He has practiced medicine for three decades, operating multiple locations throughout Los Angeles.
Discussion by the Court
The government contended that Miller is not a qualified expert pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 because he lacks specialized training or certification in the area of expense valuation, and that he proffers testimony that is not the product of reliable principles and methods.
However, the Court found that Miller is a qualified expert because he has several decades’ worth of experience as a doctor setting fees, reviewing bills, working with insurers, and observing market rates.
Furthermore, the government objected that Miller did not employ a reliable methodology to determine the reasonable value of Plaintiff’s medical expenses.
Nevertheless, the Court disagreed. Miller’s methodology of determining what was reasonable consisted of taking the median of the range of possible charges that could be charged for any given medical service.
Finally, the government objected that Miller did not systematically keep track of the prices he saw, which rendered his methodology unreliable. This objection, however, goes to weight and credibility, not admissibility, and may be explored through cross-examination.
The government also noted that Miller has a lien on this lawsuit. Basically, the government appeared to suggest both that Miller may be biased because he is invested in a favorable outcome for the Plaintiff, and that Miller may have artificially high prices that reflect the risk and delay in getting paid.
As to the former, Plaintiff and Miller explained that the arrangement means only that Miller will be paid at the conclusion of the lawsuit, not that Miller will be paid only if Plaintiff wins the lawsuit. California courts have permitted this arrangement. As to the latter, Miller admitted this. In any case, both of these subjects also go to weight and credibility, and are appropriately addressed through cross-examination.
Held
The Court denied the government’s motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, Lawrence R. Miller.
Key Takeaway:
No one denies that an expert might draw a conclusion from a set of observations based on extensive and specialized experience. In other words, Miller’s experience is sufficient to qualify him to testify as to the reasonableness of medical bills even without special training or education on that topic.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Armen Avoyan V. United States of America |
| Docket Number: | 2:24cv434 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, California Central |
| Order Date: | September 05, 2025 |
