 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gosnell v. Robertson8/20/2002
out by being involved in a trauma?
A: Yes.
This testimony, taken together with Dr. McQuiston's opinion of causation, provided the requisite connection for the jury to conclude that Dr. Hoski's treatment of plaintiff was part of theoverall uninterrupted course of treatment necessitated by plaintiff's motor vehicle accident.
Lastly, with regard to the reasonableness of Dr. Hoski's charges for his medical services, we note that, under N.C. Gen. Stat. ยง 8-58.1 (2001),
henever an issue of hospital, medical, dental, pharmaceutical, or funeral charges arises in any civil proceeding, the injured party . . . is competent to give evidence regarding the amount of such charges, provided that records or copies of such charges accompany such testimony. The testimony of such a person establishes a rebuttable presumption of the reasonableness of the amount of the charges.
Defendant objected only to plaintiff's testimony regarding the amount of the bill. Defendant offered no testimony that Dr. Hoski's charges were unreasonable, and he did not cross-examine Dr. Hoski regarding the reasonableness of the charges when presented with the opportunity. Based on the foregoing, the trial court did not err in allowing Dr. Hoski to testify, and this assignment of error is overruled.
After careful review of the proceedings below, we conclude the parties received a fair trial, free from error.
No error.
Judges McGEE and BRYANT concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
|