1 r r

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE

THERESA DOTY §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
vs. § Docket No. 37484 .:

RONALD WEAVER AND CITY OF

§
§
cJ_d
.i·I-.18d_ __.__:!..1.--- day of
JOHNSON CITY § Jul\'7- 20.l_j_at _ _

Defendants.
§ I :oo o'clock--P---M
§
Brenda Downes, C!a:k fc:>
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO DECLARE PORTIONS OF DR.
GREGORY L. STEWART'S TESTIMONY INADMISSIBLE

Comes now the Plaintiff, Theresa Doty, by and through counsel and pursuant to

Dedmon v. Steelman. et al, 535 S.W. 3rd 31 (TENN.2017), decided November 17, 2017,

as well as the collateral source rule, and moves this Court for its Order striking certain

testimony of Dr. Gregory L. Stewart.

In support of this motion, the Plaintiff would show the following:

On June 10, 2019, the deposition of Dr. Gregory L. Stewart was taken for proof in

this matter.

At that time, it was stipulated that Dr. Stewart was qualified to testify as an expert

witness and that the treatment performed on the Plaintiff was necessary as a result of

injuries she sustained in the automobile accident at issue. (See deposition of Dr. Stewart

p.5 lines 4-24; p. 25 lines 17-19 attached hereto as Exhlbit I).

During Dr. Stewart's cross-examination he was asked numerous times about

discounted rates accepted by medical providers from insurers. (See Deposition of Dr.

Stewart p. 23 lines 10-25; p. 24 lines 1-25; p. 25 lines 1-16 attached hereto as Exhibit 2).

11
 r
In particular the following exchange occurred:

Q. . .. Would you agree, Dr. Stewart, that there is a significant

difference between a typical billing and what might be a

reasonable charge based in reality?

A. There is a large difference between the typical bill that is

sent for medical services ...

Mr. Gothard: Object to the form.

A. .. . and what is reflected in reality with the money that

changes hands.

(See Dr. Stewart Deposition p. 23 lines 10-19 previously attached hereto as Exhibit 2).

Even though it was understood that all the bills incurred by Ms. Doty were

typical undiscounted bills for this area, Attorney Heron asked,

Q. But that's - - in large measure there's a difference between a

typical - -what medical providers typically send out and what they

are paid in reality.

A. That's correct.

Mr. Gothard: Objection, collateral source

Q. Say that again?

Mr. Gothard: Objection, collateral source.

(See Deposition of Dr. Stewart p. 23 lines 20-25; p. 24 lines 1-8 previously

attached hereto as Exhibit 2).

Dr. Stewart went on to testify,

2.

11
 r
" .. .I don't know how they set those charges. And I don't know how

they actually get paid, other than through their voluntary contractual

agreements with different entities."

('See Deposition of Dr. Stewart p. 24 lines 16-19 previously attached hereto as

Exhibit 2).

and,

" ... I know that we basically set up contracts with third party

payers to pay us a certain amount. Sometimes they are fixed amounts,

sometimes they are percentages of Medicare rates for our services."

(See Deposition of Dr. Stewart p. 25 lines 7-10 previously attached hereto as

Exhibit 2).

LAW AND ARGillvffiNT

This is a personal injury case in which the defendants continue to attempt to

submit evidence in violation of the collateral source rule.

The case of Dedmon v.Steelman, et al,_was decided on November 17, 2017. At

that time, the Tennessee Supreme Court made it clear that the collateral source rule was

alive and well in this State.

The Court found,

" .. .Consequently, the Plaintiffs may submit evidence of... full,

undiscounted medical bills as proof of... 'reasonable medical expenses'

and the Defendants are precluded from submitting' evidence of

discounted rates for medical services accepted by medical providers as a

result of.. .insurance."

.3

II I
 r
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been

served upon the attorney for Defendant:

Erik Herrin, Esq.

Herrin, McPeak & Associates
515 E. Unaka Avenue
P.O. Box 629
Johnson City, TN 37605-0269

by mailing a true and accurate copy thereof to them, first class mail, postage prepaid, on

this :2. ( day of ~ , 2019.

Alexander W. Gothard

11
•
r r

Id at page 467.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the deposition

testimony of Dr. Stewart beginning on page 23 line 10 and ending on page 25

line 16 be stricken as it is inadmissible pursuant to the collateral source rule and

existing law.

Respectfully submitted this 2/ day of ..:Tc?N C 2019.

flJ~o~/£flfi;
Fox& Farmer
8900 Executive Park Drive
P.O. Box 31589
Knoxville, TN 37930
Tel: 865-531-9400

11