Cite as 334 Ark. 561 (1998)
[3] We have held that the collateral-source rule applies unless the evidence of the benefits from the collateral source is relevant for a purpose other than the mitigation of damages. Par.rish v. Newton, 298 Ark. 404, 768 S.W.2d 17 (1989). The issue, then, is whether the forgiveness of a debt for medical services is a collateral source to be sheltered by the rule. There is no Arkansas authority dealing directly with that precise issue, but our cases explaining the policy behind the rule support the Trial Court's ruling.
The Trial Court relied on Green Forest Public Schools v. Herrington, 287 Ark. 43, 696 S.W.2d 714 (1985), and Bell v. Estate of Bell, 318 Ark. 483, 885 S.W.2d 877 (1994), in holding that the negotiated discount was a collateral source sheltered by the rule. Additionally, the Trial Court stated that the facts of the case did not come within the four exceptions to the collateral-source rule sei forth in Evans v. Wilson, 279 Ark. 224, 650 S.W.2d 569 (1983), and Nazarenko v. CTI Trucking Co., Inc., 313 Ark. 570, 856 S.W.2d 869 (1993), and that the rule therefore applied.
[4] Although those cases do not directly answer the question in this case, they deal with analogous situations and explain the policy behind the collateral-source rule. A trial court must "exclude evidence of payments received by an injured party from sources 'collateral' to . . . the wrongdoer, such as private insurance or government benefits . . . ." Bell v. Estate of Bell, 318 Ark. 483, 490, 885 S.W.2d 877, 880 (1994). See also Green Forest Public Schools v. Herrington, 287 Ark. 43, 696 S.W.2d 714 (1985); Patton v. Williams, 284 Ark. 187, 680 S.W.2d 707 (1984); Evans v. Wilson, 279 Ark. 224, 650 S.W.2d 569 (1983). Recoveries from collateral sources "do not redound to the benefit of a tortfeasor, even though double recovery for the same damage by the injured party may result." Bell v. Estate of Bell, 318 Ark. at 490, 885 S.W.2d at 880; Green Forest v. Herrington, 287 Ark. at 49, 696 S.W.2d at 718.
In the Bell case, we recognized that commentators had criticized the rule as being "incongruous with the compensatory goal of the tort system" and that some jurisdictions had modified or abrogated the rule. Bell, 318 Ark. at 490, 885 S.W.2d at 880. To refute that criticism, we quoted in the Bell case from F. HARPER,
