Key Takeaway
Court rules hospital records admissible as party admissions even when not germane to medical treatment, expanding evidence rules beyond business records exception.
Hospital records play a crucial role in personal injury litigation, but their admissibility isn’t always straightforward. While medical records typically enter evidence under the business records exception, the Second Department’s decision in Robles v Polytemp, Inc. reveals an important alternative pathway for admission that practitioners should understand.
The case involved a plaintiff seeking to redact portions of hospital records indicating he wasn’t wearing a seatbelt during the accident. This scenario highlights a common tension in personal injury cases: medical records often contain information that may be damaging to a party’s case, yet courts have developed nuanced rules governing what can and cannot be excluded. Understanding these evidentiary principles is essential for effective case preparation and trial strategy.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Robles v Polytemp, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03341 (2d Dept. 2015)
“The plaintiff contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying his request, made at the outset of the trial on the issue of damages, to redact entries in his hospital records which indicated that he was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the subject accident. A hearsay entry in a hospital record is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule only if the entry is germane to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient (see Gunn v City of New York, 104 AD2d 848, 849). However, if the entry is inconsistent with a position taken by a party at trial, it is admissible as an admission by that party, even if it is not germane to diagnosis or treatment, as long as there is “evidence connecting the party to the entry”.
Key Takeaway
Hospital records can be admitted through two distinct pathways: the traditional business records exception (requiring the entry be germane to medical treatment) or as a party admission when the statement contradicts the party’s trial position. This dual approach ensures that relevant evidence reaches the jury even when it falls outside standard business records rules.
