### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON O ct obe r 9, 200 7 S es sio n
HEL EN M. BORNER, ET AL 

### . v. DANNY R. A UTRY

A Dire ct A ppeal f

rom the Circ uit Court for Madison Cou nty No. C-04- 502 The Hon orable Donald Allen, Ju dge

No. W2007-00731-C OA-R9-C V - F iled Dece m ber 13, 2007

Thi s is a T e n n

. R. Ap p

. P. 9 inte r lo c u to r y a p p e a l f r o m t h e O r d e r o f th e tr ia l c o urt s tr iking medical bill s attache d to Plaintiffs/Appellants’ complaint pursuant to T.C.A. § 24-5-113. The trial
c ourt sp e c if ic a lly he ld t hat, b e c a us e Pla int if

fs /App e lla

nts inc ur re d tota l med ic a l e xpe ns e s in e xce ss of the statutory maxi mum of $4,000.00, t he Plaintiffs/Appellants wer e not entitled to the statutory presumption of re asonable ness and ne cessity . Findingno err ors of law , we a ffirm a nd rema nd.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; A ppe al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e ntof t he Ci r c uitCo ur t A ffirm e d and Rem anded

W. F RAN K C RAW FORD ,J

. delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which A L AN E. H I G H ERS , P.J ., W.S. joined and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J

. , c o n c ur s s e p ar a t e l y.
Mitchell G. T ollison of J ackson, Te nnessee For Appellants, He len M. Bor ner, L ekesa

F. B orner , Individually

and as Par ent and Ne x t Frie nd of Ka derius Q. Hunt, a minor Wesley A. Clay ton and Matt S. Shepherd of Jackson, Tenne ssee F or Appe llee, Da nny R. Autry

OP IN ION
On Dec ember

7, 2004, Helen M. B orner , L ekesa F. B orner , individually

and as ne x t friend of Ka d er i u s Q. Hunt (tog ether , “Plaintiffs,” or “ Appellants”) filed suit ag ainst Danny R. Autry (“D efe ndant,” or “Appe llee”) for injuries sustained and medica l expenses incurre d as a r esult of a motor vehicle a ccide nt on Dece mber 7, 2003 in Madison County , Tenne ssee. He len M. Bor ner a nd L e ke sa F . B or ne r w e re tr e a te d b y

Dr . M ic ha e l D . H e llm an, an a ne sth e sio log is t wh o p ra c tic e s a s a pain spec ialist. It is undisputed that the r espec tive medical c harg es incurr ed by Helen M. B orner

and L ekesa F. B orner

exceede d $4,000.00

Pur su ant t o T .C. A. §2 4- 5- 11 3( a ), He le n M . B or ne r a ttached a do cume nt t o th e c omp la int , which listed medica l e x penses in the amount of $3,977.75. L ekesa F. Bor ner attache d a docume nt lis tin g me dic a l e xpe ns e s to ta lin g $3 ,9 68 .0 0. As pa re nt a nd ne xt fr ie nd

of Ka de ri us Q. Hunt, L e ke sa-2-

Bor ner attached a

single medical bill in the amount of $234.00 for his treatment. Kaderius Hunt’s
me dic a l bi lls are no t a t iss ue in thi s a pp e a l. B e c a

us e He le n B or

ne r a nd L e ke sa B or ne r r e da c te d th e ir medical bills to remove cer tain char g es for medical treatment in order to c omply with the $4,000.00 maxi mum allowed under T.C.A. §24-5-113( a), Mr . Autry filed a Motion to Strike or Quash the medi ca l b i l l s at tache d to the Complaint. Mr. Autry specific ally

argues that the bills incurre d by H e l e nB o r

n e r an d L e k e s a B o r n e r e x c e e d th e s t a tu t o r

y am o un to f $ 4 , 0 0 0

. 0 0 an d th a t , c o n s e qu e n t l y, Plaintiffs reliance upon that statute is improper. B y Orde r of J anuar y 19, 2007, the trial cour

t gr anted Mr. Autry ’s Motion to S trike or Qua sh the medica l bills attache d to the Complaint. The tr ial court sp e c if ic a lly he ld t hat, “ if a pla int if f in a civ il ac tio n pay s or i nc ur s me dic a l, h os pit a l, o r d oc tor bil ls in e x cess of $4,000, then the plaintiff must pre sent expert medical testimony reg ar d i n g t he
re a so na ble ne ss a nd ne c e ssi ty of tho se c ha

rg e s and c ann ot use the statut or y pr e sumpt ion

se t f or th i n Tenn. Code Ann. § 24- 5-113(a ).”

On J anuar y 26, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Interlocutory Appea l from the January

19, 2007 Orde r. By Orde r of Marc h 27, 2007, the trial court g rante d Plaintiffs’ Motion for Interlocutory Appea l. B y Orde r of May 17, 2007, this Court gra

nted Plaintiffs’ Tenn. R. App. P. 9 application. The Appe llants raise two issues for revie w as stated in their

brief:
1. Whether a Plaintiff c an re l y upon T.C.A. § 24-5-113 whe n the Plaintiff incurre d medical bills in ex cess of $4,000.00 al t h o u g h the Plaintiff does not seek to introduce any bills i n ex cess of

$4,000.00 and there i s no proof that a ny medical bills in ex cess of $4,000.00 are
r e l a t e d t o th e c ar a c c i d e n ta ti s s u e ? 2. Whether a Plaintiff may delete por

tions of a medica l b i l l so that the medica l bills itemiz ed and attache d to the Complaint results in an amount under $4,000.00?

Be cause the issues befor e us involve the interpr et ation and applica bility of T.C.A. § 24-5- 11 3, the y are qu e sti on s o f l aw. As su c h, our r e vie w o f t he tr ial cou rt ’s or de r i s de novo upon the
rec ord with no presumption of corr ectne ss a ccompa nying the trial court’s c onclusions of law. See Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( d) ; W a l dron v. Delff

s , 98 8 S. W.2 d 1 82 , 1 84 (T e nn . Ct . App . 1 99 8) ; Sim s v. Ste wart , 973 S.W .2d 597, 599-600 (Te nn. Ct. App. 1998).
This Court has rec og nized that plaintiffs are require d to present c ompetent proof r eg arding the rea sonablene ss a

nd nece ssity

of their medic al expenses. Se eHog an v . Re ese , 1998 WL 430627 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). I n Hogan , this Court addressed this burden in li gh t of the L eg islature’s
e na c tme nt o f T .C. A. § 2 4- 5- 11 3, to w it:

At comm on law re asonable ness and ne cessity of medica l expenses alleg edly cause d by

the def endant are elements constituting a part of the burde n of p ro of re sting upon the pla intiff. See 22 Am.Jur.2d “Da mag es”, § 197 ( 1988). To re lieve this burden on small claims, the-3- le g isl a tur e by

c ha pte r 7 34 of

the Pub lic Ac ts o f 197 8 cr e a te d a pr ima fa c i e p r e s u mp t i o no f

n e c e s s i ty

an d r e a s o n a b l e n e s s un d e r

c e rta in
c on dit ion s.
This act of the Gene ral Asse mbly is presently

codifi ed as T.C.A. § 24-5-113( a)( 1)(2) and (3)

. Hogan , 1998 WL430627 at *6.

Th e Ge ne ra l A sse mbl y

ha s ame nd e d T. C.A

. § 24 -5 -1 13 se ve ra l tim e s and , mos t r e c e ntl y , in chapte r 780 of the P ublic Acts of 2000, the Genera l Assembly raises the presumption amount from $2 ,5 00 .0 0 to the pr e se nt m a ximumamou nt o f $ 4, 00 0. 00 . T .C. A. § 2 4- 5- 11 3 (20 00 ) c ur re ntl y pr ov ide s, in p e rt ine nt p art , a s f oll ow s: § 2 4- 5- 11 3. Bill s; he alt h c ar e and t r e at m e nt (a )( 1) Pr oo f i n a

ny c ivi l a c tio n th a t me dic a l, h os pit a l or do cto r b ill s wer e paid or

incurre d becaus e of a

ny illness, disease, or injury may be ite mize d in the c omp la int or c ivi l w arr ant w itha c op y of bil ls p a id
or inc ur r e d a t t a c h e d a s ane xh i b i tt o th e c o mp l a i n to r c i v i l w ar r a nt. Th e bil ls i te mize d a

nd a tta c he d as a

n e xhibi t sh a ll b e pr ima

fa c ie evidenc e that the bills so paid o r i ncurr ed we re ne cessa ry and
rea sonable. (2 ) T his se c tio n s ha ll a

pp ly on ly in pe rs on a l in

jur y a c tio ns br ou g ht i n any court by injured par

ties ag ainst the persons r espons i b l e for
c a us ingsu c h in

jur ie s. (3) This prima fac ie presumption shall apply to the medical, hospital and doctor bills itemized w ith c opies of bills attac hed to t he complaint or civil war

rant; provided, that the total amount of such bills does not ex cee d the sum of four thousa nd dollars ($4,000).

In West v. Hudson , 1988 WL122431 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) (permission to appea l denied Marc h 2 7, 19 89 ), thi s Co ur t a dd re sse d th e qu e sti on of whe ther T. C.A . § 24 -5 -1 13 is a

pp lic a ble wh e re me dic a l e xpe ns e s e xce e d th e statut or y ma ximumamou

nt, to w it:
Whe r e th e me d ic a l, h o s p it a l o r d o c to r b il ls e xc e e d

$ 2 , 5 0 0 [i

. e

. the statutory maxi mum amount prior to the 2000 amendment, se e su pra ] we think the statute imposes a duty upon the plaintiff to p ro v e by
c o mp e t e n tp r o o f

t h a tt h e s e r

v i c e s w e r e r e n d e r e d , th e y w e r e n e c e s s ar y, and the c harg es for

the servic es we re r easona ble.-4-

In Ja c ks on v

. Sunke nbe rg , 2000 WL66045 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) , this Court, apply ing the
rea soning of West v. Hudson , reve rsed the tr ial court’s de cision to admit int o evidenc e plaintiff’ s me dic a l bi lls e xce e din g the sta tut or y ma ximum , w hic h w a s $ 2, 50 0 at th a t ti me , to wi t: I n th is c a se , w hil e pla in ti ff sa id h e wa s o nly c la imi ng$2 ,5 00 in medical e x penses, the “total” of the bill he sought to introduce at trial clea rly exceede d $2,500.00. I n W est v. Hudson ...this Court ex plained that when a plaintiff has medic al bills tot aling more than $2,500.00, plaintiff must present e x pert medic al t estimony reg ardingthe
rea sonablene ss and necessity of t hose charg es. I t was ther efor e er ror fo r t he Tr ia l Judg e to a dmi t in to evi den c e pla int if f’ s me dic a l bi lls wh ic h e xce e de d th e $2 ,5 00 .0 0 to ta l.

Ja c ks on v

. Sunke nbe rg , 2000 WL66045 at *2.

L ikewise, in the pre sent ca se, it is undisput ed that the total of the re spective me dical bills of Helen B orner

and L ekesa

Bor ner exceed the curr ent statutory limit of $4,000. Consequently , the trial court did not err

in declining to apply

the T.C.A. § 24-5-113 pr esumption in thi s matter.
Con c e rn ingAp pe lla

nts ’ a rgume nt t hat a pla int if f m ay re da c t c e rt a in por

tio ns of me dic a l bi lls in o rd e r t o com po rt wi th the statut e , w e dis a g re e . In c on str uin g statut e s, the Cou

rt ' s r ole is t o as ce rt ai nan d

gi v e e ff ec tt o th e l egi s l at i v e i n t en twi th o u tu n d u l y re s tri ct i n g o r e x p an d i n g a s t at u t e's
cover ag e beyond its int ended sc ope. Sal le e v . Ba rre tt , 1 71 S.W. 3d

82 2 ( Te nn .2 00 5) ; Mc Ge e v . Be st , 106 S.W .3d 48 (Tenn.Ct.App.2002). I n McGe e , the Court said:

Th e ru le of

statut or y c on str uc tio n to wh ic h a ll o the rs mus t yie ld i s that the i ntention of the leg islature must preva il. Ma ngr um v. O we ns , 9 1 7 S

. W

. 2 d 2 4 4 , 2 4 6 ( T en n

. C t

. Ap p

. 1 9 9 5 )( ci t i n g Plough , Inc. v. P r em i er Pn eum atics, Inc. , 660 S.W .2d 495, 498 (T e nn .Ct .App .1 98 3) ; City of Humbol

dt v. Mo rri

s , 579 S.W .2d 860, 863 (Tenn.Ct.App.1978)). “[ L ]egislative intent or pur pose is to be
asce rtaine d primarily

from the natural and or dinary meaningof the languag e used, when re ad in the context of the entire statute, without any forc ed or subtle construction to limi t or extend the import of the languag e.” Id. (c i t i n g Worrall v. Kroger Co. , 545 S.W .2d 7 3 6 , 738 (Tenn.1977) ). The Court ha s a duty to construe a

statute so th at no part will be inoper ative, super fluous, void or insignific ant. The Court must give e ffe ct to ever

y word, phrase, c lause, a

nd sentenc e of the Act in orde r to ac hieve the L eg islature' s intent, and it must construe a statute so that no sec tion will destroy another

. Id. (ci t i n g City of Ca r y v i l l e v . . Campb e ll Co unty , 660 S.W .2d 510, 512 (T e nn .Ct .App .1 98 3) ; Ti

dwe ll v . Co lli ns , 522 S.W .2d 674, 676 (Tenn.1975)

. Id . at 64.-5-

As set out above, in or der f or the pre sumption t o attach, T .C.A. § 24-5-113 requires that “a
c op y of bil ls paid or in curred

[be] attach ed as an ex hibit to t he complaint...” ( emphasis adde d). Sub se c tio n (a )( 3) pr ov ide s that the “ tot a l amou nt o f s uc h b ill s” c ann ot e xce e d $ 4, 00 0. He re , it is undisputed that the medica l expenses actually paid or incur

red by App ell ants exceede d $4,000. Nonethele ss, Appellants contend that the statutory languag e “total amount of such bills” ref ers to the do c ume nts or , a s in

thi s c a se the po rt ion s the re of , that ar e a tta c he d to the Com pla int rathe r t ha n to the bil ls t hat w e re a c tua lly pa id or inc ur re d. Whe n re a din g the statut e in its tot a lity , w e dis a g re e wi th Appellants’ c ontention. As discussed in Hogan , su pr a , T.C. A. § 2 4- 5- 11 3 w a s e na c te d in or de r t o “re lieve [the plaintiffs burden to prove rea sonablene ss and nec essity of medica l treatment] on small
c l a i ms .” Hog

an v . Re ese , 1998 W L 4 3 0 6 2 7 at * 6 (empha sis added). In order to ensure that the statutory presumption is lim ited only to small cla i m s, the plain languag e of the statute requir es plaintiffs to itemize and attach to their complaints copies of bills “paid or incurre d,” T.C.A. § 24-5- 11 3( a )( 1) , a

nd lim its the “ tot a l amo un t of suc h b ill s” to $ 4, 00 0. T. C.A . § 24 -5 -1 13 (a )( 3) . T he re is nothing in the languag e of this statute from which this Court can conclude t h at t h e L eg islature int e nd e d p art ie s to be a

ble to p ic k an d ch oo se amon g the ir me dic a l bills in o rd e r t o f or c e tho se bil ls int o th e statut or

y sc he me . I n th e op ini on

of thi s Co ur t, t o a llo w p la int if

fs to r e da c t th e ir

me dic a l bi lls to o ste ns ibl y

c omp or t wi th the statut e , f

lie s in the fa c e of

the L e g isl a tiv e int e nt t o li mit the pr ima fa c ie pr e sumpt ion

to c a se s th a t are tr

uly sma ll c la ims

. For the fore g oing r easons, w e af fi rm the Orde r of the tr ial court. We re mand the ca se for such fur ther proc eeding s as may

be nec essar

y consistent with this Opini on. Costs of the appea l are
a sse sse d o ne -h a lf

to Ap pe lla

nt He le n M. Bo rn e r, and

he r s ur e ty , a

nd on e -h a lf to A pp e lla nt L e ke sa F. B orner , and her

surety

.

__________________________________________ W. FRANK CRAWFORD, J UDGE