Conn. R. Evid. 4-9
Evidence of furnishing or offering or promising to pay medical, hospital or similar expenses occasioned by an injury is inadmissible to prove liability for the injury.
Conn. Code. Evid. 4-9
COMMENTARY
Section 4-9 is consistent with Connecticut law. Danahy v. Cuneo, 130 Conn. 213, 216, 33 A.2d 132 (1943); see Prosser v. Richman, 133 Conn. 253, 257, 50 A.2d 85 (1946); Sokolowski v. Medi Mart, Inc., 24 Conn. App. 276, 280, 587 A.2d 1056 (1991).
The two considerations upon which Section 4-9 is premised are similar to those underlying Sections 4-7 and 4-8. First, such evidence is of questionable relevancy on the issue of liability because an offer to pay or actual payment of medical or similar expenses may be intended as an "act of mere benevolence'' rather than an admission of liability. Danahy v. Cuneo, supra, 130 Conn. 216; accord Murphy v. Ossola, 124 Conn. 366, 377, 199 A. 648 (1938). Second, the rule fosters the public policy of encouraging assistance to an injured party by eliminating the possibility that evidence of such assistance could be offered as an admission of liability at trial. See Danahy v. Cuneo, supra, 217.
Section 4-9 covers the situation addressed by General Statutes § 52-184b(c), which provides that evidence of any advance payment for medical bills made by a health care provider or by the insurer of such provider is inadmissible on the issue of liability in any action brought against the health care provider for malpractice in connection with the provision of health care or professional services. Section 4-9 's exclusion goes further by excluding offers or promises to pay in addition to actual payments.
Section 4-9, by its terms, excludes evidence of a promise or offer to pay or a furnishing of medical, hospital or similar expenses, but not admissions of fact accompanying the promise, offer or payment. Furthermore, nothing in Section 4-9 precludes admissibility when such evidence is offered to prove something other than liability for the injury.
Unlike Section 4-8, Section 4-9 does not expressly require the existence of a disputed claim as to liability or damages when the offer or promise to pay, or actual payment, is made, for the exclusion to apply.