Tort Law

This page within Virginia Tort Case Law is a compilation of cases reported by the Virginia Supreme Court and summarized by Brien Roche dealing with the topic of Medical Bills.

See Va. Code § 8.01-413.01 which creates rebuttable presumption in personal injury and wrongful death actions that medical bills are authentic and reasonable.

2012 Galumbeck v. Lopez, 283 Va. 500, 722 S.E.2d 551.
Medical bills were properly admitted into evidence in this medical malpractice case as they were not being offered for the purposes of seeking damages or demonstrating how much money the doctor received, but were offered to contrast the level of emphasis he placed on the financial aspect of the treatment versus the quality of care delivered.

2004 Barkley v. Wallace, 267 Va. 369, 595 S.E.2d 271.
Trial court improperly excluded evidence of medical bills that had been discharged in bankruptcy where plaintiff sought to admit them for limited purpose for proving her pain and suffering caused by the accident. Evidence is relevant if it tends to prove or disprove an issue in the case. The amount of the medical bills in this case tends to prove the plaintiff’s pain and suffering.

2000 Acuar v. Letourneau, 260 Va. 180, 531 S.E.2d 316.
Plaintiff may offer evidence of full amount of reasonable medical expenses without any reduction for amounts “written off” by healthcare providers.

2000 Norfolk Beverage Co. v. Cho, 259 Va. 348, 525 S.E.2d 287.
Plaintiffs were examined by physician who performed medical evaluation of plaintiffs after review of all records and he testified as to reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment. Bills incurred by plaintiff were contained within medical summary which was properly admissible.

1995 Parker v. Elco Elev. Corp., 250 Va. 278, 462 S.E.2d 98.
Plaintiff failed to identify medical bills as element of his financial damages within the agreed discovery period. Plaintiff, however, claimed that medical bills were offered solely to show that he was treated for physical injuries, which supported his allegation of pain and suffering. Plaintiff was not seeking recovery of medical bills and as such it was error by trial court to exclude bills.

1989 McMunn v. Tatum, 237 Va. 558, 379 S.E.2d 908.
In regard to medical bills there are four components: (1) authenticity; (2) reasonableness; (3) medical necessity; (4) causal relationship. Plaintiff may offer medical bills through plaintiff’s own testimony if he lays foundation showing: (1) bills are regular on their face; (2) they appear to relate to treatment, nature and detail of which plaintiff has explained. If defendant challenges authenticity, then bills will be insufficient in themselves to create jury issue and independent proof of authenticity will be necessary. If defendant challenges only reasonableness, jury issue is created on that question. Jury may then consider bills as some evidence of their reasonableness. Defendant can test medical necessity or causal relationship, and further, if defense represents it will offer evidence on those issues, bills will be insufficient in themselves to create jury issue and expert foundation is necessary.

1982 Walters v. Littleton, 223 Va. 446, 290 S.E.2d 839.
Plaintiff could have testified as to amount demanded of him if medical statements had been sent to him. Court properly permitted him to state nature of injuries, how he received them, where, how, when and by whom he was treated. Medical bills were not hearsay. Even though no proof offered that bills reasonable, this was still question for jury, based on facts of case.

1972 Norfolk S. Ry. v. Fincham, 213 Va. 122, 189 S.E.2d 380.
Father’s cause of action for medical and incidental expenses was derivative action, and since there was no verdict for son, there can be none for father.

1950 Drudge v. Cooper, 190 Va. 843, 58 S.E.2d 878.
Where medical testimony establishes that eye condition is not related to accident, then bill is not properly chargeable to defendant.