Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly UpdatesCASE FACTS: The issue as to the discoverability and eventual admissibility of a hospital's records (as well as those of physicians and other health care providers), arose in the context of a motor vehicle accident case. In the case, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff seeking to have the plaintiff's case dismissed. The plaintiff, in turn, sought the discovery of the hospital records of the hospital at which the plaintiff was treated for injuries, which allegedly were incurred as a result of the motor vehicle accident. The defendant sought to prevent the discovery of the hospital records. The plaintiff contended that the hospital records were, in effect, records kept in the ordinary course of the hospital's business, and thus, were admissible as 'business records.' The court found that the defendant produced evidence from physicians' medical reports that the plaintiffs sustained no injuries in the motor vehicle accident. Conversely, the plaintiffs sought to introduce copies of the 'business records' of the hospital to show that they did, in fact, sustain injuries in the accident, and that they were treated at the hospital for those injuries.
COURT'S OPINION: The Supreme Court of the State of New York affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The court held, inter alia, that the records were admisssible. The court observed that generally, "a physician's office records are admissible in evidence as business records. "A report made in the ordinary course of a doctor's medical practice is admissible in evidence as a business record once the requisite statutory foundation ha[s] been laid." The court observed that the lower court appeared to preclude "the doctor's records. The court ruled that the preclusion does not apply, however, where a medical opinion is found in a hospital record. The court noted that there was a distinction between a doctor's report specifically prepared for litigation, as opposed to the doctor's 'business records,' which are those records kept in the ordinary course of business, without regard to whether or not litigation is involved. The court determined that the respective submissions of the plaintiffs to be to be sufficient without consideration of the incorporated records or reports of third-party providers. It found it unnecessary to attempt to resolve any apparent inconsistencies. Finally, the court noted that the party opposing a motion for summary judgment need only "produce evidentiary proof in admissible form." The court concluded that it was aware of no requirement, either generally or for threshold motions, that "admissible form" be limited to sworn statements or affirmations. In short, the court found there was no impediment to a plaintiffs successfully opposing a threshold motion in whole or, as in this case, in part with properly-admitted 'business records.' Carter v. Rivera, 2009-NY-0507.198 (5/26/2009)--NY
Meet the Editor & Publisher: A. David Tammelleo, JD, is a nationally recognized authority on health care law. Practicing law for over 40 years, he concentrates in health care law with the Rhode Island finn of A. David Tammelleo & Associates. He has presented seminars on medical, nursing and hospital law throughout the United States. In addition to his writings as Editor of Medical Law's, Nursing Law's & Hospital Law's Regan Reports, his legal articles have been published in the most prestigious health law journals. A prolific writer, his thousands of articles, as well as his achievements as an attorney and lecturer, have won him recognition in Martindale-Hubbell's Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, Marquis Who Who in American Law, Who's Who in America and Who's Who in the World.
FEED