Opinion ID: 1356921
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Medical Records and Bills

Text: Ellis incurred numerous medical expenses following his accident. At trial, respondent moved to introduce Ellis' medical bills into evidence. Appellant objected arguing that some of the bills were not directly related to the injuries allegedly caused by appellant's negligence. Appellant also objected arguing that he should not be held responsible for the bills because the bills were not debts against Ellis' estate. The trial court overruled these objections but required respondent's expert to go line-by-line over the bills to determine which items were, in his opinion, directly related to Ellis' quadriplegia. On appeal, appellant first argues the trial court erred in overruling the objections to the bills because this placed the burden on him to disprove the connection [between each bill and the alleged negligence] rather than requiring [respondent] to carry her affirmative burden of proving [a] connection. This argument is patently without merit. As stated above, the trial court specifically required respondent to prove which bills were directly related to Ellis' quadriplegia. Next, appellant argues the trial court erred in admitting bills allegedly unrelated to appellant's negligence. This argument is also without merit. First, appellant's brief fails to identify any bills introduced at trial that were unrelated to the alleged negligence. Second, the only evidence presented at trial regarding the bills was Dr. McAlary's testimony that he reviewed each bill line-byline to determine which items were directly related to appellant's negligence. Only those items that Dr. McAlary testified were directly related to appellant's negligence were submitted to the jury. Appellant also argues the trial court erred in admitting into evidence certain unspecified bills because they had not been paid by either Ellis or his estate and were no longer debts of the estate. We disagree. Whether or not these bills were debts of the estate, they were still admissible to show the extent of pain and suffering Ellis endured as the result of appellant's alleged negligence. Whether respondent could properly recover for such bills, however, is an issue that was not preserved for review in this case as appellant failed to present any evidence regarding which bills, if any, had been discharged and were no longer debts of the estate. Finally, appellant argues the trial court erred in not allowing him to introduce unspecified records that showed Ellis' medical condition prior to the accident. Appellant contends these records were relevant on the issue of damages because the records indicated Ellis was taking pain medication prior to his accident and therefore all of the pain Ellis suffered as a quadriplegic could not be attributable to appellant's conduct. However, appellant failed to proffer which records he sought to introduce. Consequently, this issue is not preserved for review. See Greenville Memorial Auditorium v. Martin, 301 S.C. 242, 391 S.E.2d 546 (1990) (failure to make proffer of excluded evidence precludes review on appeal). For the foregoing reasons, the judgment below is AFFIRMED. FINNEY, C.J., and TOAL, MOORE and WALLER, JJ., concur.