" ' Id. at 559, 396 S.E.2d 534. Under the ‘paying patient’ exception to the doctrine, ‘[a] charitable institution may not assert the immunity against a person who "(1) enters the hospital under an agreement to pay for services, (2) is able to pay for services, and (3) does pay for services." ’ " Bagley v. Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth. , 216 Ga.App. 537, 539 (2), 455 S.E.2d 325 (1995) (citation omitted).In this case, viewing the evidence most favorably to Lewis as non-movant on summary judgment, the record discloses the following.

The court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the documents.See Bagley v. Fulton–DeKalb Hosp. Auth., 216 Ga.App. 537, 539(2), 455 S.E.2d 325 (1995) (“[a]n affidavit need not recite the words ‘true and correct copies' before the accompanying business records will be admissible”). See Ishak, supra.

See Vadde, supra at (1) (a); Ishak, supra. See Bagley v. Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth., 216 Ga. App. 537, 539 (2) ( 455 SE2d 325) (1995) ("[a]n affidavit need not recite the words `true and correct copies' before the accompanying business records will be admissible"). See Ishak, supra.

" In Bagley v. Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth., 216 Ga. App. 537 ( 455 S.E.2d 325) (1995) we recently held that, based on the evidence presented to us, it did not appear that the post- Ponder plan was intended to be retroactively applied to incidents happening in 1984 or 1986. ( Ponder was decided in 1987.) Contrary to the Authority's suggestion, however, this does not mean that a 1990 revision to the post- Ponder plan — a revision which the plan drafters explicitly made applicable to any occurrence after January 1, 1988 — cannot be applied by its terms to an occurrence, such as this one, which happened after January 1, 1988.