Horsing Around? Court of Appeals Finds Reasonable Minds Could Differ

In DeHaven, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling that although the Defendant presented video recordings that showed Plaintiff performing the same activities for which she sought replacement services on the days in question, Plaintiff provided an explanation for her activities depicted in the video that created a question of fact to be resolved by the jury. Thus, a reasonable person viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff could find that Plaintiff’s abilities were limited such that the replacement services in question were reasonable and necessary.

Analyzing and weighing the findings in Bahri and Shelton, the Court of Appeals found that the record leaves open an issue on which reasonable minds could differ, being whether Plaintiff misrepresented her need for and receipt of replacement services. Further, the jury verdict specifically finding that neither Plaintiff nor her husband knowingly made false statements to Defendant with the intent to conceal or misrepresent material facts or circumstances in connection with the claim, supports the conclusion that reasonable minds could (and, in fact, did) reach this conclusion.

To access the full article: https://bit.ly/2WXhiS4