OPINION

CLABORNE, Judge.

This appeal is from a jury verdict in a personal injury action brought against the estate of a driver involved in an automobile accident. The central issue concerns that relic called the Dead Man’s Statute.

BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs obtained judgment in a personal injury action against the estate of the driver of a vehicle involved in an auto accident in which the plaintiff Kathy Trout-man was injured. Mabel Feick made a left hand turn at an intersection and collided with a vehicle driven by Kathy Troutman. Kathy Troutman and her husband sued Mabel Feick and her husband for damages arising out of that accident. Both Mr', and Mrs. Feick died of unrelated causes before trial and their personal representative, Valley National Bank, was substituted as the defendant.

The defendant wished to exclude a statement which Mabel Feick allegedly made to Kathy Troutman when the two were being taken in the same ambulance to a hospital. The trial court denied the defendant’s request and permitted Kathy Troutman to testify that Mabel Feick had said:

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Troutmans and found that Mabel Feick was 90% at fault. Valley National Bank appealed the judgment. Because we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the statement in evidence, we affirm.

DISCUSSION

The trial court admitted the alleged statement based upon Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. (“A.R.S.”) section 12-2251. That statute provides:

Put simply, when a lawsuit is by or against a personal representative of any estate (or a guardian of an incompetent), neither party can testify to statements made by the decedent or the incompetent. However, the statute’s literal wording has been softened by case law in Arizona. First, the application of the statute is discretionary with the trial court. E.g., Condos v. Felder, 92 Ariz. 366, 371-72, 377 P.2d 305, 308 (1962); Mahan v. First Nat’l Bank, 139 Ariz. 138, 140, 677 P.2d 301, 303 (App.1984). Second, the trial court’s exercise of its discretion to admit the statement will be upheld if there is independent corroborating evidence or injustice would re-

suit by the rejection of the testimony.1 Estate of Calligaro v. Owen, 159 Ariz. 498, 503, 768 P.2d 660, 665 (App.1988); Cachenos v. Baumann, 25 Ariz.App. 502, 505, 544 P.2d 1103, 1106 (1976). Corroboration is an indicator of whether justice has been accomplished by the admission or rejection of statements covered by the statute. In re Estate of Mustonen, 130 Ariz. 283, 285, 635 P.2d 876, 878 (App.1981).

Here, the primary focus of the trial court was on whether the deceased’s statements were corroborated by other evidence. The facts show that Alan Hutchings, a witness to the accident, could testify that when Mabel Feick approached the intersection, she turned left into the path of the plaintiff’s vehicle. He could not say anything about what Mrs. Feick was doing or whether she was wearing glasses. The court also learned during the argument on the motion in limine that the ambulance attendant had not been contacted and interviewed by either party. After hearing argument, the court made the following ruling on the motion in limine:

The appellant contends that the trial judge placed the burden of proof concerning an exception to the statute (corroboration) on the wrong party, and that there was no corroboration for the statements and they were, therefore, inadmissible.

Arizona decisions which discuss corroboration for alleged statements by the decedent do not expressly address which party has the burden of proof. However, one case implies that the burden is on the party seeking to avoid the application of the statute. In In re Estate of Mustonen, the court upheld the trial court’s determination

that there had been insufficient corroboration of a decedent’s statements. 130 Ariz. at 285, 635 P.2d at 878. The trial court concluded that “no substantial or convincing corroborative evidence” was presented to support the claim of the party [appellant] who sought to avoid application of the deadman statute. Id. at 284, 635 P.2d at 877. On appeal, the court disagreed with appellant’s argument that the standard imposed “places too onerous a burden on the party seeking to avoid the dead man statute.” Id.

The result in In re Estate of Mustonen is consistent with the general laws of evidence with respect to burden of proof. The burden of proof never shifts, although the burden of going forward with evidence may shift. See Palicka v. Ruth Fisher School Dist. No. 90, 13 Ariz.App. 5, 9, 473 P.2d 807, 811 (1970). The party who asserts a fact has the burden to establish that fact. Yeazell v. Copins, 98 Ariz. 109, 116, 402 P.2d 541, 546 (1965); Black, Robertshaw, Frederick, Copple, & Wright, P.C. v. United States, 130 Ariz. 110, 114, 634 P.2d 398, 402 (App.1981).

Initially, the estate had the burden on the motion in limine to prove that A.R.S. section 12-2251 (1991) was applicable. The statute itself does not require proof of the absence of exceptions. As stated in McCormick on Evidence § 337,

Edward W. Cleary et al., McCormick on Evidence § 337 at 951 (3rd ed.1984).

Arizona decisions place the burden of showing exceptions to an otherwise inapplicable statute on the party asserting that exception. For example, when a defendant asserts the statute of limitations as a defense, the defendant has the burden of proving that the complaint falls within the statute. However, the burden of proving that the statute was tolled or that the defendant is estopped from relying on the statute falls on the plaintiff. See Engle Bros., Inc. v. Superior Court, 23 Ariz.App. 406, 408, 533 P.2d 714, 716 (1975); Anson v. American Motors Corp., 155 Ariz. 420, 421, 747 P.2d 581, 582 (App.1987).

The Troutmans faced a similar situation when the estate produced evidence demonstrating the applicability of the statute. Although the estate had the burden of proof on the motion in limine to show that the testimony in question was excluded by the statute, if it established a prima facie case that the statute was applicable, the burden of going forward shifted to the Troutmans to show that they fell within a recognized exception to the statute.

Although the burden of proof may have been misplaced by the trial court, the central issue is the exception: Was there “corroboration” of the statement sufficient to allow the statements of the deceased to go to the jury?

The trial court ruled that there was corroboration for the statements made by the deceased Mrs. Feick. The trial judge said, “What I am saying what I think corroboration is, not that somebody else heard the dead man make the statement, but there is independent evidence sufficient to suggest the way in which one party said the other party says it happened is actually true.” (Emphasis added.) The argument is also made that corroborative evidence was also in the form of a telephone conversation between Hutchings and Mrs. Feick. That testimony is as follows:

We agree that corroboration is not limited to evidence that the statement was made by the deceased. To be corroborative the evidence must, at a minimum, be the kind that strengthens or confirms that either the statement was made or that the statement was true. Cf. State v. Turner, 92 Ariz. 214, 220, 375 P.2d 567, 571 (1962);

State v. Kennedy, 122 Ariz. 22, 26, 592 P.2d 1288, 1292 (App.1979) (concluding that corroborative evidence tends to corroborate or confirm).

The testimony by Hutchings concerning what he saw and what the decedent told him strengthens the statement by Mrs. Feick. Here, defendant’s act of turning into the path of plaintiff’s car without any apparent perception of its presence, together with her statements to Hutchings that she did not see the other vehicle, support the contested statement that “I didn’t see her coming ... I went to the beauty shop. I didn’t have my glasses on. I was reaching on the floor to get my purse.” Although there may be other explanations for not seeing the other vehicle, the testimony does tend to corroborate the statement. Whether this evidence is sufficient corroboration is left to the discretion of the trial court. We should not intervene unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion, which means no substantial evidence on which to base the conclusion. “Substantial evidence” is defined as any “relevant evidence from which a reasonable mind might draw a conclusion.” Matter of Estate of Mustonen, 130 Ariz. 283, 285, 635 P.2d 876, 878 (App.1981).

We feel that the evidence presented by Hutchings was substantial enough for the trial judge to be within his discretion in admitting it. The admission of the evidence did not produce an unjust result.

THE THERMOGRAM TEST

During the course of the trial, a neurologist called by the plaintiff testified concerning his care and treatment of the plaintiff Kathy Troutman. The doctor testified that in order to properly treat her, she should have some diagnostic tests, one of which was a thermogram. The record reflects that a voir dire examination of the doctor was done to determine the general medical acceptance in Arizona of such a test. The pretrial statement pursuant to Rule VI, Uniform Rules of Practice, stipulated into evidence the thermogram test results. Even so, the appellant felt that on the basis of the voir dire and the statement made by counsel, the thermogram test results should not have been admitted into evidence based on Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (1923).2 We said in State v. Harris, 152 Ariz. 150, 152, 730 P.2d 859 (App.1986):

In this case, there was nothing other than assertions by counsel concerning the general medical acceptance of a thermogram test. Furthermore, the doctor clearly stated during his testimony that the thermo-gram was only one of the diagnostic tools which he used to come to his conclusions concerning the medical condition of his patient. Speaking of the thermogram, the doctor said:

that is sensitive for. It doesn’t tell you which nerve or exactly where it is or what is doing it. It just suggests that nerve tissue is irritated.

If there is individualized foundation for the use of testimony and there is no proof of a lack of general acceptance, a trial court, after determining that no undue prejudice will result, has the discretion to admit the evidence if relevant. See, State v. Roscoe, 145 Ariz. 212, 700 P.2d 1312 (1984). There is nothing in this record to suggest that the diagnosis of the condition of the doctor’s patient was solely based on the results of the thermogram. The trial judge was well within his discretion in admitting the evidence, and we find no error. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

TAYLOR and VOSS, JJ., concur.