(a) Whenever an issue of hospital, medical, dental, pharmaceutical, or funeral charges arises in any civil proceeding, the injured party or his guardian, administrator, or executor is competent to give evidence regarding the amount paid or required to be paid in full satisfaction of such charges, provided that records or copies of such charges showing the amount paid or required to be paid in full satisfaction of such charges accompany such testimony.
(b) The testimony of a person pursuant to subsection (a) of this section establishes a rebuttable presumption of the reasonableness of the amount paid or required to be paid in full satisfaction of the charges. However, in the event that the provider of hospital, medical, dental, pharmaceutical, or funeral services gives sworn testimony that the charge for that provider's service either was satisfied by payment of an amount less than the amount charged, or can be satisfied by payment of an amount less than the amount charged, then with respect to that provider's charge only, the presumption of the reasonableness of the amount charged is rebutted and a rebuttable presumption is established that the lesser satisfaction amount is the reasonable amount of the charges for the testifying provider's services. For the purposes of this subsection, the word "provider" shall include the agent or employee of a provider of hospital, medical, dental, pharmaceutical, or funeral services, or a person with responsibility to pay a provider of hospital, medical, dental, pharmaceutical, or funeral services on behalf of an injured party.
(c) The fact that a provider charged for services provided to the injured person establishes a permissive presumption that the services provided were reasonably necessary but no presumption is established that the services provided were necessary because of injuries caused by the acts or omissions of an alleged tortfeasor. (1983, c. 776, s. 1; 2011-283, s. 1.2; 2011-317, s. 1.1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2023 · leading case:
Osetek v. Jeremiah, 621 S.E.2d 202 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005).
Osetek v. Jeremiah, 621 S.E.2d 202 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 40× “" N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8-58.1 creates a rebuttable mandatory presumption of the reasonableness of medical charges under certain conditions [1] .”
Jacobsen v. McMillan, 476 S.E.2d 368 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 22× “In the instant situation, plaintiffs argue the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant their Rule 59 motion because of the presumption created by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-58.1 . Section 8-58.1 provides: Whenever an issue of hospital, medical, dental, pharmaceutical, or…”
Blackmon v. Bumgardner, 519 S.E.2d 335 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 16× “N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8-58.1 (1986). At trial, plaintiff's medical records were admitted into evidence.”
Chamberlain v. Thames, 509 S.E.2d 443 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 6× “B Medical Charges N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8-58.1 (1986) states that, when an issue of medical or hospital charges arises, 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.”
Griffis v. Lazarovich, 588 S.E.2d 918 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-58.1 (2001) creates a mandatory presumption of reasonableness for a plaintiff’s medical expenses if the medical expenses are an issue and evidence is presented showing the total charges.”
Sykes v. Vixamar, 830 S.E.2d 669 (N.C. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-58.1 (b) (the presumption of reasonableness of medical charges is rebutted by "sworn testimony that the charge for that provider's service .”
McCurry v. Painter, 553 S.E.2d 698 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 5× “However N.C.G.S. § 8-58.1 (1999) provides that: Whenever an issue of hospital, medical, dental, pharmaceutical, or funeral charges arises in any civil proceeding, the injured party or his guardian, administrator, or executor is competent to give evidence regarding the amount of…”
Graciano v. Blue Sky Logistics LLC (M.D.N.C. 2019).
· cites it 13× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-58.1 establishes a rebuttable presumption that the amount of medical expenses is reasonable when the injured party testifies regarding medical bills.”
Carmely v. United States (W.D.N.C. 2023).
· cites it 6× “Plaintiff seeks to admit the evidence on two bases: first, that Rule 414 prohibits admission, but not necessarily “viewing” of this evidence by the trier of fact, and second, that Rule 414 is inconsistent with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-58.1 , which addresses the reasonableness of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.