position, whereby it could be allowed to mislead the trier of fact as to the contents of the inadmissible writing. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to allow Marie Gorostieta to testify as to the amounts contained in the medical bills. IV. JURY INSTRUCTIONS 142 The Gorostietas allege that the trial court erred in removing a sentence from a requested jury instruction that had been taken verbatim from section 41-6-80 of the Utah Code. In addition, they argue that the court erred in giving jury instructions 16, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 28. Parkinson counters that the jury instructions given by the court covered all aspects of the applicable law in this case and there was no prejudicial error in removing the sentence complai W.2d 646, 654 (Tex.Ct.App.1998) (<HOLDING>); Forcier v. Grand Union Stores, Inc., 128 Vt.
holding that statute provides medical bill is admissible to prove amount fairness and reasonableness of charges holding that statute does not eliminate plaintiffs burden to prove reasonableness and necessity of past medical expenses holding that an award for medical expenses is proper when the expenses have been incurred but not paid holding that statute allows admissibility of evidence by affidavit to prove reasonableness and necessity of medical expenses holding that recovery for medical expenses incurred as result of accident depends on proof of necessity and reasonableness