Rehabilitation After Contradiction

Action for damages arising out of an automobile collision on June 1. Liability is conceded. The issue is whether P sustained neck and back injuries in the accident or whether the injuries are feigned. At trial, on direct examination, P testified that he did not go to see a doctor until two months after the collision because he did not have the money to pay a doctor. On cross-examination it was brought out that P had a health and accident insurance policy that would have covered the cost of seeing a doctor and also that Pwas receiving a Veterans' Administration pension of $90 a month that could have been used to defray at least some of the cost. In rebuttal, P offered the testimony of a witness to testify to P's good reputation for truth and veracity. On D's objection, what ruling and why?