Opinion ID: 1893716
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the court erred in failing to submit to the jury the $553.05 medical bill from singing river hospital since it was sufficiently authenticated and shown to be reasonably related to treatment of plaintiff's injuries?

Text: Moody argues that the trial court erred in failing to admit into evidence the $553.05 medical bill from Singing River Hospital. This Court has stated: When a party takes the witness stand and exhibits bills for examination by the court and testifies that said bills were incurred as a result of the injuries complained of, they become prima facie evidence that the bills ... were necessary and reasonable. However, the opposing party may, if desired, rebut the necessity and reasonableness of the bills by proper evidence. The ultimate question is then for the jury to determine. Jackson v. Brumfield, 458 So.2d 736, 737 (Miss. 1984) (emphasis added); see Miss. Code Ann. § 41-9-119 (1972). Moody verified on direct examination that the total amount of medical bills that related to the treatment of his injuries was $18,466.54 (that amount less his daughter's bill and the $553.05 bill from his hospitalization from July 15-17, 1989 equals $17,740.74  the exact amount of the jury's verdict). Dominoes contended at trial that the bills were not a result of the injuries complained of. Such argument was essentially a question of whether or not Dr. McCloskey had verified during his testimony that the bills were a result of the injuries in question. Surely, the jury could have reduced his damages by the amount of this bill based on Moody's admission that this hospitalization was the result of his failure to follow doctor's orders by going to the boat dock the day after he was discharged and attempting to pick up a wrench off the deck of his boat. However, based on Jackson v. Brumfield, 458 So.2d at 737, that was an issue for the jury. It was reversible error in refusing to allow the $553.05 bill to go to the jury. In conjunction with the jury's failure to award any damages for pain and suffering, we find that the appropriate remedy in the case at hand is a new trial solely on the issue of damages.