Court Opinion

ID: 9595112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:35:51.612899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:59:29.041368
License: Public Domain

Andrews, Judge,
concurring specially.
Although I concur with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court’s allowance of the testimony here was proper, I believe that it is necessary to overrule Hayes v. Gary Burnett Trucking, 203 Ga. App. 693 (2) (417 SE2d 676) (1992), to reach this result. In Hayes, which involved a quite similar situation, this court determined that pursuant to Denton v. Con-Way Southern Express, 261 Ga. 41 (402 SE2d 269) (1991), the allowance of the collateral source evidence constituted reversible error.
I recognize that there are factors which distinguish this case from Hayes. First, no motion in limine or motion to bifurcate was filed in the instant case. Furthermore, in Hayes, few details regarding the testimony and the nature of the collateral source evidence were given and it is possible that there are factual distinctions between Hayes and the instant case which are not readily apparent.
Nevertheless, to a large extent, the facts in this case and in Hayes are indistinguishable. Here, Moore injected the issue of insurance into the trial on direct examination and also through several of her own medical bills which were introduced as trial exhibits. Moore testified that a gap in treatment by one of her physicians was due to her inability to pay. In Hayes, the court specifically stated: “[appellees argue that the collateral source evidence was admissible because of appellant’s injection into the trial of issues related to the *73financial hardship she suffered as a result of the accident and appellant’s explanation that a gap in treatment by one of her physicians was due to her inability to continue to pay for the medical treatment. It is permissible to cross-examine a plaintiff on the availability of insurance benefits to test his averment that he did not return to see a certain physician because he was unable to pay for the physician’s services. However, we cannot conclude that by raising matters related to her financial condition after the accident, appellant opened the door for the admission of the collateral source evidence introduced by appellees. To allow such would enable appellees to get in through the back door the same prejudicial matter that the Supreme Court ruled in Denton to be inadmissible.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hayes at 695. In my opinion, this portion of Hayes is inconsistent with an affirmance of the trial court’s decision here to allow the testimony and is inconsistent with the principle, cited by the majority, that the law has now been restored to its status before the enactment of OCGA § 51-12-1 (b). See generally Willard v. Wilburn, 203 Ga. App. 393 (416 SE2d 798) (1992).
Decided March 19, 1993.
Jerome C. Ware, for appellant.
Harper, Waldon & Craig, Thomas D. Harper, for appellee.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge McMurray and Presiding Judge Birdsong join in this special concurrence.