Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay - Admissibility of Medical Reports - Not admissible As Business Records Where They Contain Doctor's Opinion or Expert Proof
Medical reports, as opposed to day-to-day business entries of a treating physician, are not admissible as business records where they contain the doctor's opinion or expert proof.[1]
A physician's office records, supported by the statutory foundations set forth in CPLR 4518 (a), are admissible in evidence as business records. However, medical reports, as opposed to day-to-day business entries of a treating physician, are not admissible as business records where they contain the doctor's opinion or expert proof. Moreover, a physician's office records may be received as evidence despite the fact that a physician is available to testify as to the substance and contents of the records. [2]
[1] In Bronstein-Becher v Becher, 25 A.D.3d 796, 809 N.Y.S.2d 140 (2d Dept., 2006) at the hearing, the father's attorney sought to introduce into evidence medical reports from the father's psychiatrist. While the reports were certified, the hearing court found them to be inadmissible, stating they were "not a medical record [and] not a hospital record. It's a letter. Therefore, it's hearsay." The Appellate Division held that the hearing court was correct in refusing to accept Dr. Stephen's medical reports into evidence. A physician's office records, supported by the statutory foundations set forth in CPLR 4518(a), are admissible in evidence as business records. However, medical reports, as opposed to day-to-day business entries of a treating physician, are not admissible as business records where they contain the doctor's opinion or expert proof. Here, Dr. Stephens' two "narrative reports" were simply letters summarizing his diagnosis, treatment, and opinion concerning the father's ability to return to work. No proper foundation was provided demonstrating that they were, in fact, business records. Their certification did not cure this defect as only hospital records, and not physician office records, are admissible by certification.
[2] Napolitano v. Banks, 141 A.D.2d at 705-706; see Clarke v. New York City Tr. Auth., 174 A.D.2d 268). Matter of Fortunato v Murray, 72 A.D.3d 817, 899 N.Y.S.2d 283 (2d Dept 2010).
In Matter of Fortunato v. Murray, 72 A.D.3d 817, 899 N.Y.S.2d 283 (2d Dept., 2010), the Appellate Division held that if any portion of a record is deemed illegible, the medical record as a whole is not inadmissible. Rather, only those entries or notations within the record that are illegible should be deemed inadmissible.
Medical reports, as opposed to day-to-day business entries of a treating physician, are not admissible as business records where they contain the doctor's opinion or expert proof.[1]
A physician's office records, supported by the statutory foundations set forth in CPLR 4518 (a), are admissible in evidence as business records. However, medical reports, as opposed to day-to-day business entries of a treating physician, are not admissible as business records where they contain the doctor's opinion or expert proof. Moreover, a physician's office records may be received as evidence despite the fact that a physician is available to testify as to the substance and contents of the records. [2]
[1] In Bronstein-Becher v Becher, 25 A.D.3d 796, 809 N.Y.S.2d 140 (2d Dept., 2006) at the hearing, the father's attorney sought to introduce into evidence medical reports from the father's psychiatrist. While the reports were certified, the hearing court found them to be inadmissible, stating they were "not a medical record [and] not a hospital record. It's a letter. Therefore, it's hearsay." The Appellate Division held that the hearing court was correct in refusing to accept Dr. Stephen's medical reports into evidence. A physician's office records, supported by the statutory foundations set forth in CPLR 4518(a), are admissible in evidence as business records. However, medical reports, as opposed to day-to-day business entries of a treating physician, are not admissible as business records where they contain the doctor's opinion or expert proof. Here, Dr. Stephens' two "narrative reports" were simply letters summarizing his diagnosis, treatment, and opinion concerning the father's ability to return to work. No proper foundation was provided demonstrating that they were, in fact, business records. Their certification did not cure this defect as only hospital records, and not physician office records, are admissible by certification.
[2] Napolitano v. Banks, 141 A.D.2d at 705-706; see Clarke v. New York City Tr. Auth., 174 A.D.2d 268). Matter of Fortunato v Murray, 72 A.D.3d 817, 899 N.Y.S.2d 283 (2d Dept 2010).
In Matter of Fortunato v. Murray, 72 A.D.3d 817, 899 N.Y.S.2d 283 (2d Dept., 2010), the Appellate Division held that if any portion of a record is deemed illegible, the medical record as a whole is not inadmissible. Rather, only those entries or notations within the record that are illegible should be deemed inadmissible.
The material on our website is from the New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook , by Joel R. Brandes of the New York Bar. It focuses on the procedural and substantive law, as well as the law of evidence, that an attorney must have at his or her fingertips when trying a New York matrimonial action or custody case. It is intended to be an aide for preparing for a trial and as a reference for the procedure in offering and objecting to evidence during a trial. There are numerous questions for the examination and cross-examination of witnesses.
Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc. publishes The New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook . It is available in Bookstores, and online in the print edition at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Goodreads and other online book sellers.
The New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook is available in Kindle ebook editions and epub ebook editions for all ebook readers in our website bookstore and in hard cover at our Bookbaby Bookstore.
The New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook is available in Kindle ebook editions and epub ebook editions for all ebook readers in our website bookstore and in hard cover at our Bookbaby Bookstore.
|
Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc.
2881 NE 33rd Court (At Dock) Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306. Telephone (954) 564-9883. email to:divorce@ix.netcom.com. Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc is a Florida corporation which is owned and operated by
Joel R. Brandes of The New York Law Firm of Joel R. Brandes. P.C. |
This website is published by Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc., and written by Joel R. Brandes of The Law Firm of Joel R. Brandes. P.C. Mr. Brandes has been recognized by the Appellate Division* as a "noted authority and expert on New York family law and divorce.” He is the author of the treatise Law and The Family New York, 2d (9 volumes),Law and the Family New York Forms 2d (5 Volumes), Law and the Family New York Forms 2019 Edition (5 volumes)(Thomson Reuters), and the New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook. Click here to visit New York Divorce and Family Law ™ the definitive site on the web for New York divorce and family law, presented by Joel R. Brandes of the Law Firm of Joel R. Brandes, P.C., 43 West 43rd Street, New York, New York 10036. (212) 859-5079.
|