## Facts

- Shirley Anderson was injured after falling while shopping in a Montgomery Ward store.
- At Montgomery Ward’s direction, Anderson received medical treatment at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS).
- UAMS billed approximately $24,512.45 for Anderson’s treatment.
- Anderson and UAMS agreed to a 50% discount, effectively forgiving half of the charges.
- Montgomery Ward sought to limit proof of medical expenses to the discounted amount via a motion in limine.
- The trial court denied the motion and permitted Anderson to introduce the full, undiscounted UAMS bill.
- After trial, Montgomery Ward moved for a new trial based on the evidentiary ruling; the motion was denied, and Montgomery Ward appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the collateral source rule bars evidence that a medical provider discounted or forgave part of a plaintiff’s medical bill.
2. Whether a plaintiff may introduce the full, undiscounted amount billed as proof of recoverable medical expenses when the plaintiff’s obligation was reduced by a provider discount.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed.
- The court held that UAMS’s discount/forgiveness was a benefit from a source collateral to Montgomery Ward.
- The trial court properly excluded evidence of the discount and allowed Anderson to present the full billed amount as evidence of medical expenses.
- None of the recognized exceptions permitting collateral-source evidence applied.

## Legal Principles

- Under the collateral source rule, a defendant may not introduce evidence of benefits received by the plaintiff from sources collateral to the defendant to reduce damages.
- Collateral-source benefits may include not only third-party payments (such as insurance) but also a provider’s discount or partial forgiveness of medical charges, where the defendant did not procure the benefit.
- Public policy favors giving any resulting “double recovery” to the injured plaintiff rather than reducing the tortfeasor’s liability due to third-party generosity or billing decisions.
- Evidence of collateral-source benefits may be admissible only for limited purposes, including: rebutting claims of financial necessity affecting work or treatment decisions; showing attribution of the condition to another cause; impeaching claims that the plaintiff personally paid the expenses; or showing continued work despite claimed wage loss.

## Conclusion

The court upheld exclusion of evidence of a negotiated medical-bill discount and allowed recovery to be proved using the full amount billed, treating the discount as a collateral-source benefit that could not be used to mitigate the defendant’s liability.


Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Anderson, 334 Ark. 561, 976 S.W.2d 382 (Ark. 1998)