{"content":[{"text":"Stewart’s care. Plaintiff incurred substantial medical bills as a result of her injury and \n rehabilitation from the accident at issue.","bbox":{"left":0.117647,"top":0.091176,"width":0.764573,"height":0.03690900000000001}},{"text":"Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, in which she sought compensatory damages in the \n amount of $300,000 for her medical bills and subsequent recovery. She then provided an \n itemization of the medical and hospital bills that were incurred pursuant to Tennessee Code \n Annotated section 24-5-113(b), which creates a rebuttable presumption of the \n reasonableness of such bills as follows:","bbox":{"left":0.117647,"top":0.147842,"width":0.765031,"height":0.09357599999999999}},{"text":"[I]n any civil action for personal injury brought by an injured party against \n the person or persons alleged to be responsible for causing the injury, if an \n itemization of or copies of the medical, hospital or doctor bills which were \n paid or incurred because of such personal injury are served upon the other \n parties at least ninety (90) days prior to the date set for trial, there shall be a \n rebuttable presumption that such medical, hospital or doctor bills are \n reasonable.","bbox":{"left":0.176471,"top":0.261176,"width":0.6472519999999999,"height":0.13115099999999996}},{"text":"Any party desiring to offer evidence at trial to rebut the presumption shall \n serve upon the other parties, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the date set \n for trial, a statement of that party’s intention to rebut the presumption. Such \n statement shall specify which bill or bills the party believes to be \n unreasonable.","bbox":{"left":0.176471,"top":0.412085,"width":0.6470579999999999,"height":0.09357500000000002}},{"text":"The City stipulated to its liability and to the necessity of Plaintiff’s medical \n treatment but objected to the reasonableness of the computation as reflected in the \n undiscounted medical bills provided by Plaintiff. The City sought to rebut the \n reasonableness of such bills through the following two witnesses (1) Dr. Stewart, who \n offered a general opinion concerning the “out of control” billing practices at JCMC and (2) \n Marc Chapman, who offered his expert opinion concerning the general inaccuracy of the \n amount billed in comparison to the amount accepted as payment in full by JCMC. Plaintiff \n responded that the proffered testimony violated the collateral source rule, which bars a \n defendant in a personal injury case from introducing evidence of payments or benefits the \n plaintiff received from a third-party for the plaintiff’s damages. Plaintiff also questioned \n Mr. Chapman’s expert qualifications.","bbox":{"left":0.117647,"top":0.525418,"width":0.765026,"height":0.20660599999999996}},{"text":"The trial court found in favor of Plaintiff, finding that Dr. Stewart’s testimony \n violated the collateral source rule and that Mr. Chapman’s methodology had not been \n proven or tested. The case proceeded to a bench trial, after which the trial court found in \n favor of Plaintiff and awarded her compensatory damages and additional damages for her \n pain and suffering. This timely appeal followed.","bbox":{"left":0.117647,"top":0.751782,"width":0.7646649999999999,"height":0.09357500000000007}},{"text":"- 2 -","bbox":{"left":0.481961,"top":0.907842,"width":0.035679000000000016,"height":0.018121000000000054}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}