Bruce R. McCormick v. Willis R. Bunting III

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/29/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2100985 Bruce R. McCormick v. W i l l i s R. Bunting I I I Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CV-09-903293) Court MOORE, J u d g e . B r u c e R. M c C o r m i c k a p p e a l s from a judgment e n t e r e d by t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t ("the t r i a l c o u r t " ) i n f a v o r o f W i l l i s R. B u n t i n g III. We r e v e r s e . 2100985 Procedural History On O c t o b e r 14, M c C o r m i c k and 2009, B u n t i n g other defendants filed a complaint alleging, against among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t M c C o r m i c k had n e g l i g e n t l y a l l o w e d t h e v e h i c l e t h a t he driving to collide with Bunting's e v e n t u a l l y proceeded to t r i a l a g a i n s t McCormick. on vehicle. Bunting's Prior to t r i a l , The case negligence claim Bunting f i l e d a motion i n l i m i n e t o p r e v e n t McCormick, d u r i n g the t r i a l , to "any from referring and hospital p a y m e n t s made f o r [ B u n t i n g ' s ] m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s by any p e r s o n was or e n t i t y t h a t i s not a p a r t y to this a c t i o n " o r f r o m a r g u i n g t h a t B u n t i n g ' s damages a w a r d s h o u l d be reduced o r o t h e r w i s e a f f e c t e d by s u c h p a y m e n t s . of the t r i a l , the t r i a l and, d u r i n g t h e t r i a l , t o p r e s e n t any e v i d e n c e paid the recovery, medical which At the o u t s e t court granted t h a t motion i n l i m i n e , the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not a l l o w McCormick i n d i c a t i n g that c o l l a t e r a l sources expenses amounted to for which Bunting $36,552.03. Also was McCormick's a t t o r n e y o f f e r e d p r o o f , out of the of the jury, t h a t Blue Cross and Blue S h i e l d p a i d $2,434.08 and U n i t e d S e r v i c e A u t o m o b i l e p a i d $1,426.02 i n m e d i c a l the hearing of Alabama had A s s o c i a t i o n had e x p e n s e s on b e h a l f o f 2 seeking during trial, had Bunting. 2100985 The jury returned a verdict i n favor of Bunting and a w a r d e d h i m damages i n t h e amount o f $ 2 7 , 1 8 1 . 0 3 ; on M a r c h 11, 2011, the verdict. alter, that trial On court April 11, amend, o r v a c a t e the trial entered court 2011, a McCormick the t r i a l had judgment on filed the a motion c o u r t ' s judgment, improperly excluded jury's 1 to arguing evidence of c o l l a t e r a l - s o u r c e payments i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f § 1 2 - 2 1 - 4 5 ( a ) , Ala. 20, Code 1 9 7 5 . 2 The 2011, r e a s o n i n g superseded § trial court denied t h a t t h e Alabama 12-21-45 and had t h a t m o t i o n on Rules revived of Evidence the May had common-law T h e 3 0 t h day a f t e r t h e j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d was S u n d a y , A p r i l 10, 2011. T h e r e f o r e , M c C o r m i c k h a d u n t i l t h e Monday, A p r i l 11, 2011, t o f i l e h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . See R u l e 6, A l a . R. C i v . P. 1 2 Section 12-21-45 p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "(a) I n a l l c i v i l a c t i o n s where damages f o r any m e d i c a l o r h o s p i t a l expenses a r e c l a i m e d and a r e l e g a l l y recoverable f o r personal i n j u r y or death, evidence t h a t the p l a i n t i f f ' s medical or h o s p i t a l e x p e n s e s h a v e b e e n o r w i l l be p a i d o r r e i m b u r s e d s h a l l be a d m i s s i b l e as c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e . ... " 3 2100985 collateral-source rule. on June 30, McCormick f i l e d h i s n o t i c e of a p p e a l 3 2011. Discussion In h i s b r i e f to sole issue refusing to presenting paid on apply a (Ala. § court, source Sept. 2011), t h i s at 9, the court p. held 3.) In So. that "the erred McCormick amounts 2011] court that medical b i l l s and brief trial precluding that [Bunting's] 2090957, C i v . App. the 12-21-45 and (McCormick's [Ms. McCormick s t a t e s i s whether collateral payments." Grammer, appeal evidence by this by from had been of those Crocker 3d v. , the l e g i s l a t u r e had m o d i f i e d t h e common-law c o l l a t e r a l - s o u r c e r u l e i n o r d e r to a l l o w A l a b a m a j u r i e s t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r an a w a r d o f damages should be hospital plaintiff. 403 reduced expenses This as a made court r e s u l t of payments by parties third of on medical behalf f u r t h e r h e l d t h a t R u l e s 401, of the Alabama R u l e s of E v i d e n c e d i d not and of 402, c o n f l i c t with a and or T h e common-law c o l l a t e r a l - s o u r c e r u l e p r e v e n t e d r e d u c t i o n o f t h e amount o f damages r e c o v e r a b l e in a personal-injury a c t i o n b a s e d on a p l a i n t i f f ' s r e c e i p t o f b e n e f i t s " f r o m a s o u r c e w h o l l y c o l l a t e r a l t o and i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e w r o n g d o e r " and r e n d e r e d any e v i d e n c e o f t h e r e c e i p t o f s u c h b e n e f i t s i r r e l e v a n t and i n a d m i s s i b l e . W i l l i s t o n v. A r d , 611 So. 2d 274, 278 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . 3 4 2100985 supersede § modification rule. ___ and So. specifically trial 12-21-45 court so as to r e v i v e the 3d a t ___ . f o l l o w e d the i n Crocker, doing, the t r i a l McCormick from to that common-law In this exact which undo collateral-source case, the trial same r e a s o n i n g this court court u s e d by rejected. the In so c o u r t e r r e d as a m a t t e r o f l a w i n p r e c l u d i n g i n t r o d u c i n g evidence of the collateral-source p a y m e n t s f o r B u n t i n g ' s m e d i c a l and h o s p i t a l That legislative error was returned a verdict expenses Bunting not harmless for less claimed than at simply the expenses. because the amount o f t h e trial. McCormick jury medical defended B u n t i n g ' s c l a i m f o r m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s l a r g e l y by c o n v i n c i n g t h e jury t h a t those the automobile e x p e n s e s had accident. 1188 ( A l a . C i v . App. that certain not been p r o x i m a t e l y caused See 2003) W e l l s v. Mohammed, 879 (holding that a jury claimed medical e x p e n s e s were c a u s e d by t h e n e g l i g e n c e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t such medical evidentiary expenses). ruling by trial court, can 2d decide proximately and d e c l i n e t o a w a r d However, b e c a u s e the not So. by of the McCormick erroneous was not a l l o w e d t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e of the c o l l a t e r a l - s o u r c e payments or to argue that the damages a w a r d 5 should be reduced even 2100985 f u r t h e r to account f o r those payments. As n o t e d i n C r o c k e r , i f the c o l l a t e r a l - s o u r c e payments had been a d m i t t e d , the " j u r y [might have] decide[d] that [Bunting] ... would receive an undue w i n d f a l l i f t h e damages were n o t r e d u c e d t o a c c o u n t f o r the compensation [ B u n t i n g ] had a l r e a d y r e c e i v e d i n t h e form o f t h i r d - p a r t y payments." ___ So. 3d a t ___ . By removing t h e j u r y t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o a d j u s t t h e damages a w a r d on of the evidence trial court relating "probably substantial rights." we to c o l l a t e r a l - s o u r c e injuriously r e v e r s e the judgment o f the t r i a l case f o r a new trial P. the [McCormick's] Consequently, c o u r t , and we i n conformity with § account payments, affected R u l e 45, A l a . R. App. from remand t h e 12-21-45. M c C o r m i c k a l s o a r g u e s t h a t he s h o u l d be a l l o w e d t o p r o v e that Bunting's medical providers discounted t h e i r b i l l s accepted as full payment for their services the and/or amounts t e n d e r e d by t h e c o l l a t e r a l s o u r c e s , " w r i t i n g o f f " any b a l a n c e . Because the introduce trial any court evidence ruled of that McCormick collateral-source could not payments, M c C o r m i c k d i d n o t a t t e m p t t o i n t r o d u c e any f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e o f the effect obligations of those payments on to h i s medical providers. 6 Bunting's The trial financial court thus 2100985 never ruled on t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r that a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r § 12-21-45 o r o t h e r w i s e . M c C o r m i c k r e c e i v e s an a d v e r s e remand, t h i s ruling evidence would be U n l e s s and u n t i l from t h e t r i a l issue i s not r i p e f o r our review. c o u r t on See C r o c k e r , s u p r a a t n.5. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH Thompson, P . J . , and INSTRUCTIONS. Pittman, concur. 7 Bryan, a n d Thomas, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.