CompFox AI Summary
This case interprets Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-5-113(a), which establishes a rebuttable presumption for the necessity and reasonableness of medical bills totaling $4,000 or less, if itemized and attached to a complaint. The Tennessee Supreme Court clarified that this presumption applies to the total amount of bills itemized and attached, not the total medical expenses incurred. However, the court ruled that plaintiffs cannot invoke this presumption if they have redacted medical bills to fall within the $4,000 limit, as redacted documents are not considered true copies of original bills. Consequently, the plaintiffs, Helen and Lekesa Borner, who had altered Dr. Heilman's medical bills, were deemed ineligible for the statutory presumption. The Court of Appeals' judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding the case for further proceedings.
Borner v. Autry is a workers' compensation case decided in Tennessee Supreme Court. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Tennessee Supreme Court.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case interprets Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-5-113(a), which establishes a rebuttable presumption for the necessity and reasonableness of medical bills totaling $4,000 or less, if itemized and attached to a complaint. The Tennessee Supreme Court clarified that this presumption applies to the total amount of bills itemized and attached, not the total medical expenses incurred. However, the court ruled that plaintiffs cannot invoke this presumption if they have redacted medical bills to fall within the $4,000 limit, as redacted documents are not considered true "copies" of original bills. Consequently, the plaintiffs, Helen and Lekesa Borner, who had altered Dr. Heilman's medical bills, were deemed ineligible for the statutory presumption. The Court of Appeals' judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding the case for further proceedings.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.