Medical expense evidence after Georgia's 2025 tort changes

Reasonable value of medically necessary care under O.C.G.A. 51-12-1.1(a) and (b)

Section 51-12-1.1(a) sets the reach of the Code section. It applies in "any civil action to recover damages resulting from injury or death to a person," and in such an action special damages for medical and healthcare expenses are recoverable "only as provided in this Code section." A lawsuit over a truck accident is subject to subsection (a) when it is a civil action of that kind and, as Section 9(b) of the Act provides, its cause of action arose no earlier than April 21, 2025. The same wording applies to a suit against a truck driver or a trucking company, provided the action seeks damages for injury or death to a person and the cause of action did not arise before the Act's effective date of April 21, 2025.^[1]

Section 51-12-1.1(b) limits those special damages to "the reasonable value of medically necessary care, treatment, or services." It also states that "the amount of such special damages shall be determined by the trier of fact." Under subsection (b), care counts toward these damages only at its reasonable value and only if it was medically necessary. In a truck crash case, the trier of fact sets that amount when the claim is an action over a person's injury or death. Medical bills of truck accident plaintiffs in such an action are measured under subsection (b) at reasonable value and only for medically necessary treatment if the cause of action arose on or after April 21, 2025. Prior law governs causes of action that arose before that date.^[1]

Health insurance and workers' compensation payment evidence under O.C.G.A. 51-12-1.1(c)

Section 51-12-1.1(c) applies when the plaintiff in such a civil action "has any form of public or private health insurance, including benefits under a governmental workers' compensation program." In that situation, evidence relevant to determining reasonable value under subsection (b), which measures special damages for medically necessary care, includes both the amounts charged for "past, present, or future" medical and healthcare expenses and the amounts actually necessary to satisfy those charges under the insurance contract or the applicable governmental workers' compensation program. The same evidence rule covers a truck crash plaintiff with health insurance when the case is a civil action for a person's injury or death and, under the Act's Section 9(b), the cause of action is one arising on or after April 21, 2025.^[1]

Subsection (c) applies "regardless of whether the health insurance has been used, is used, or will be used to satisfy such charges." When a plaintiff in a truck accident lawsuit over a person's injury or death has public or private health insurance, the payment evidence described in subsection (c) is relevant even if that insurance never paid for the treatment, provided the cause of action arose no earlier than April 21, 2025. For a cause of action that arose before that date, Section 9(b) of the Act leaves prior law in place. Because subsection (c) includes benefits under a governmental workers' compensation program, the same evidence rule reaches a truck driver who brings such a claim while receiving those benefits, so long as the claim's cause of action did not arise before April 21, 2025, the date the Act took effect.^[1]

Section 51-12-1.1(f) preserves the other side of the inquiry. Nothing in the Code section limits the right of a plaintiff or defendant to present evidence or testimony "challenging the reasonableness of medical and healthcare expenses, whether incurred or projected future expenses, or the medical necessity of any treatment." In a truck crash suit for injury or death to a person, subsection (f) leaves that right with both the plaintiff and the defendant, next to the payment evidence under subsection (c). A truck driver or trucking company sued as a defendant in such an action holds that right under subsection (f).^[1]

Letter of protection disclosures under O.C.G.A. 51-12-1.1(d)

Section 51-12-1.1(d) addresses any claim for medical and healthcare expenses rendered under a letter of protection. It also covers "any other arrangement by which a healthcare provider renders treatment in exchange for a promise of payment" for the plaintiff's expenses from any judgment or settlement of a civil action over injury or death to a person. The subsection applies "regardless of how such arrangement is referred to." A treating provider's arrangement with a plaintiff after a truck accident is subject to subsection (d) when it matches that description and the underlying case is a civil action over a person's injury or death. Under Section 9(b) of the Act, subsection (d) reaches such an arrangement only if the cause of action arose on or after April 21, 2025.^[1]

For those claims, Section 51-12-1.1(d) makes the following "relevant and discoverable." The list includes a copy of the letter of protection. It also includes all charges for the plaintiff's medical and healthcare expenses, "which shall be itemized and, to the extent applicable, coded according to generally accepted medical billing practices." Another item applies when the healthcare provider sells the accounts receivable for the plaintiff's expenses to a third party at less than the invoice price. In that case, the name of the third party and the dollar amount for which the third party purchased those accounts receivable are discoverable. The list further includes whether the claimant was referred for treatment under a letter of protection or other similar arrangement and, if so, the identity of the person who made the referral. In truck accident litigation, subsection (d) makes these items relevant and discoverable for a claim of expenses rendered under a letter of protection or a similar arrangement if the claim rests on a cause of action arising on or after April 21, 2025.^[1]

In a truck crash case, these discovery provisions in Section 51-12-1.1(d) reach treatment provided under such an arrangement only when the claim seeks medical and healthcare expenses in a civil action brought because a person was injured or killed, and only for a cause of action that arose on or after April 21, 2025, under Section 9(b) of the Act. The receivables item depends on a sale to a third party below the invoice price. The referral item asks whether a referral occurred and, if it did, who made it. For truck drivers treated under such an arrangement, subsection (d) applies on those same conditions, and the Section 9(b) date limit applies to them exactly as it applies to every other claimant.^[1]

Collateral source rule, jury instructions and reasonableness challenges under O.C.G.A. 51-12-1.1(e) and (f)

Section 51-12-1.1(e) states the intent of the General Assembly that "this Code section abrogates the common law collateral source rule to the extent necessary to introduce the evidence described in this Code section." The abrogation reaches only as far as introducing the evidence the Code section describes, such as the payment evidence in subsection (c) and the letter of protection material in subsection (d). In a truck crash lawsuit over a person's injury or death, the collateral source rule gives way only to the extent necessary to introduce that evidence, and only for causes of action arising on or after April 21, 2025, under Section 9(b) of the Act. Prior law governs causes of action that arose before that date, and the subsection (e) abrogation does not apply to them.^[1]

The same subsection adds a proviso: nothing in the Code section "shall be construed or applied to prevent the court from issuing appropriate jury instructions to clarify the role of collateral source payments." Under subsection (e), those instructions may also prevent potential jury confusion regarding the effect of collateral source payments on the plaintiff's recovery. In a truck accident lawsuit brought over a person's injury or death, the court keeps that power to instruct the jury. The proviso applies equally when truck accidents involving such claims are tried to a jury.^[1]

Section 51-12-1.1(f) works alongside subsection (e). It provides that nothing in the Code section limits the right of a plaintiff or defendant to present evidence or testimony that challenges whether medical and healthcare expenses are reasonable, covering incurred expenses and projected future expenses alike. The same right extends to evidence or testimony that challenges the medical necessity of any treatment, including treatment of truck drivers or others injured in a crash, when the case is a civil action over injury or death to a person.^[1]

Effective date and applicability under Ga. L. 2025, p. 19, section 9(b)

The history line on the official code page states that Section 51-12-1.1 was enacted by Ga. L. 2025, p. 19, Section 7 (SB 68), effective April 21, 2025. The notes on that page repeat that the Code section became effective April 21, 2025, and point to the editor's notes for applicability.^[1]

The editor's note quotes Section 9(b) of the Act, which was not codified by the General Assembly: "Sections 6 and 7 of this Act shall apply only with respect to causes of action arising on or after the effective date of this Act." The same provision states that "any prior causes of action shall be governed by prior law." Section 51-12-1.1 therefore governs a truck accident claim for injury or death to a person only if the cause of action arose on or after April 21, 2025, and prior law governs a claim whose cause of action arose before that date.^[1]

The editor's note also records the General Assembly's intention that all other provisions of the Act apply to causes of action pending on the effective date, unless such application would be unconstitutional. That pending-case rule concerns the Act's other sections, not Section 51-12-1.1. Court decisions decide when a cause of action arises for purposes of Section 9(b), including in a truck crash case, and this entry does not cover those decisions.^[1]

See also: Flanagan Law truck accident practice

See also

On related publications

• Georgia truck-crash law notes (truckaccidentlawyer.wiki)
• Liability and comparative fault in Georgia (caraccidentlawyers.wiki)