Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 24-4-409 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 24-4-409 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 24-4-409

TITLE 24 EVIDENCE

Section 4. Relevant Evidence and its Limits, 24-4-401 through 24-4-418.

ARTICLE 2 LEGISLATIVE FACTS; ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS

24-4-409. Payment of medical and similar expenses.

Evidence of furnishing, offering, or promising to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses occasioned by an injury shall not be admissible to prove liability for the injury.

(Code 1981, §24-4-409, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)

Cross references.

- Offers to pay medical and similar expenses, Fed. R. Evid. 409.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-37.1 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Application and illustrations.

- Neither former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-37 (see now O.C.G.A. § 24-4-408) nor former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-37.1 (see now O.C.G.A. § 24-4-416) prevented admitting letter from defendant medical device manufacturer because there was evidence plaintiff patient's surgeon requested that manufacturer pay for third surgery to replace the device, and the letter in response confirmed the terms; further, there was evidence the offer was made to maintain the surgeon's goodwill due to the number of devices the surgeon implanted in patients on a yearly basis. Trickett v. Advanced Neuromodulation Sys., 542 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (S.D. Ga. 2008) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-37.1)

Evidence properly excluded.

- In a medical negligence action, the trial court properly excluded statements of regret made by the doctor sued pursuant to the plain meaning of former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-37.1(c) (see now O.C.G.A. § 24-4-416), despite the suing patient's claim that such should have been admitted as statements against interest and under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule; moreover, retroactive application was not improper as the Georgia General Assembly intended that the law be applied to cases pending at the time it was passed. Airasian v. Shaak, 289 Ga. App. 540, 657 S.E.2d 600 (2008) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-37.1)

No results found for Georgia Code 24-4-409.