Opinion ID: 1903369
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying purdon's motion in limine to exclude mr. locke's medical bills.

Text: ¶ 13. As his next assignment of error, Purdon argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion in limine to exclude Larry Locke's medical bills. Purdon contends that since Locke had not paid the bills, they were not properly damages sustained by him. In addition, a portion of the bills ($29,971.29) were written off by Baptist, which Purdon believes makes them inappropriate as an item of damages. At the least, Purdon feels that he should have been allowed to call Claire Pulliam, as a representative of Baptist, to testify that the bill was indeed written off. Furthermore, Purdon argues the cost of the DCA procedure should be deducted as it was a necessary operation for which Locke could not live without and is therefore not causally connected to the injury. See Drummond v. Buckley, 627 So.2d 264, 268 (Miss.1993). Since Locke would have had to pay for it even if the injury had not occurred, Purdon believes it should not be listed as an element of the damages. Finally, if Locke is able to collect on bills he has not paid, Purdon contends that the very idea of compensatory damages will be violated. Compensatory damages are such damages as will compensate the party for the injury sustained, and nothing more: such as will simply make good or replace the loss caused by the wrong or injury. Richardson v. Canton Farm Equip., Inc., 608 So.2d 1240, 1250 (Miss.1992). ¶ 14. Locke rebuts this contention by pointing out that the Miss.Code Ann. § 41-9-119 (2001), the statute governing the reasonableness of medical bills, simply states that [p]roof that medical, hospital, and doctor bills were paid or incurred because of any illness, disease, or injury shall be prima facie evidence that such bills so paid or incurred were necessary and reasonable. (Emphasis added). There is no doubt that demands for payment were delivered to Locke and thus, incurred by him. Thus, the jury was properly allowed to hear them. ¶ 15. The burden became Purdon's to show that the bills were not reasonable. In Green v. Grant, 641 So.2d 1203, 1209 (Miss.1994), this Court held that the opposing party, in this case Purdon, must present proper evidence in order to rebut the necessity and reasonableness of the bills incurred. After Locke put on evidence of the bills incurred, the burden shifted to Purdon to rebut the reasonable of the bills incurred. Purdon did not introduce any proper evidence to rebut the reasonableness of the bills. In fact, he introduced no evidence before the jury to rebut the reasonableness of bills. Mrs. Pulliam was not allowed to testify regarding her knowledge of bills written off because her testimony was properly ruled to be inadmissable hearsay. The only evidence Purdon complains of being excluded was the testimony of Ms. Pulliam and that evidence was not proper. Since the only evidence Purdon complains of being excluded was the testimony of Ms. Pulliam and we have already established that bills merely have to be incurred to be introduced, this assignment of error is without merit. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion in limine.