Barbara and Clarence Ridley brought a personal injury action against Jesse Lott to recover for damages allegedly resulting from an automobile collision. After trial, a Glynn County jury awarded the Ridleys $16,398.68 for medical expenses and $38,000 in compensatory damages. Lott appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting narrative medical testimony and allowing the jury to consider future medical expenses. Because we agree that the trial court erred in admitting certain medical testimony, we reverse. 1. Lott contends that the trial court should not have admitted reports from two of Barbara Ridley’s doctors because they did not comply with the medical narrative requirements set forth in OCGA § 24-3-18. Subject to certain requirements, OCGA 24-3-18 a provides an exception to the hearsay rule and authorizes the admission of written medical reports without requiring the doctor’s testimony at trial.1 The statute “applies to reports which set forth, in story form, the author’s assessment of the patient’s history, examination, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, or interpretation of tests or examinations, including the basis therefor.”2 However, records which would require an expert to explain them are still subject to a hearsay objection, as “the law authorizes the admission of only those reports which, rather than consisting of unexplicated medical terms and uninterpreted scientific test results, set forth the relevant information in prose language that is more readily understandable to laymen.”3 We review a trial court’s decision on the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.4
Lott asserts that two of the doctors whose reports were tendered at trial made no attempt to use lay language or to explain any of the medical terms they used. Counsel for the Ridleys read into the record reports by three doctors, including Dr. Halverson, a chiropractor, and Dr. Shenkman, a neurologist. Dr. Halverson’s report is in a narrative form and summarizes Barbara Ridley’s injuries and treatment. It presents the relevant aspects of her injury, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis in a logical form. While it contains medical terms, it attempts to explain those terms in the context of the report. Thus, based on our review of the record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Dr. Halverson’s medical narrative into evidence.5
