Motion to Rely Upon Requests for Admissions
Requests for Admissions under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 36 must be responded to within 30 days. If your opponent fails to respond to a request for admission, technically the facts are deemed admitted. To rely on the admission, however, Tennessee Dept. of Human Servs. v. Barbee, 714 S.W.2d 263 (Tenn. 1986) says that you need to bring the admission to the court's attention through a special motion. Not much should be required to establish your opponent simply never responded, so this form motion should take care of it. Download file
Barbee needs to be overruled - the requirement that this type of motion be filed makes little sense. In the meantime, however, this motion should be of some help to you.
Can the reasonablness and necessity of medical bills be required to be admitted under Rule 36 in light of Brooks v. United Uniform Co., 682 S.W.2d 913 (Tenn 1984) which states expert opinion is not subject to discovery under Rule 36 because it is not fact? Doesn't Rule 36 say that the request can be for the truth of and "statements or opinions of fact?" If opposing counsel will not agree to stipulate or admit to the reasonableness of the charges, is the only method for proving bills through a deposition of each medical provider (assuming the treating physician will not or cannot testify about the other provider's bills)?
Brooks is a problem. It is flat wrong, but it is still current law.
Even a deposition won't work - you may have to call all of them as witnesses. Very few of the witnesses needed to establish the reasonableness of the charges will be exempt from attendance at trial.
Sorry.
In light of the above comments, does the recent amendment to Tenn. Rule 36.01 and the accompanying advisory committee note render the holding of Brooks overruled when dealing with an admission on the reasonableness and necessity of medical bills?