The hospital record admission is admissible (not necessarily as a business record)

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.

Hospital records present unique evidentiary challenges because they contain multiple types of information serving different purposes. Some entries directly relate to patient diagnosis and treatment—describing symptoms, documenting examinations, recording test results. Other entries capture contextual information about how injuries occurred, which may be relevant to litigation but not to medical care. The traditional business records exception to hearsay only covers entries germane to diagnosis or treatment, creating potential problems when parties seek to introduce accident-related statements that hospitals recorded.

Case Background

Robles brought a personal injury action against Polytemp, Inc. following a workplace accident. During the damages trial, the defendants sought to introduce hospital records containing entries indicating that Robles was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident. Robles moved to redact these entries, arguing they were not germane to his diagnosis or treatment and therefore constituted inadmissible hearsay.

The trial court denied the redaction request, allowing the hospital records to be introduced in their entirety. Robles appealed, contending that the seatbelt entries should have been excluded as hearsay not falling within the business records exception. The Second Department would need to determine whether hospital entries about accident circumstances can be admitted even when not germane to medical treatment.

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”.

Legal Significance

The Robles decision establishes an important alternative pathway for admitting hospital record entries that don’t qualify under the business records exception. When a party’s trial position contradicts statements in hospital records, those contradictory statements become admissible as party admissions regardless of whether they relate to diagnosis or treatment. This dual admissibility framework—business records exception plus party admission exception—ensures that relevant evidence reaches factfinders.

The party admission pathway serves critical truth-seeking functions. It prevents parties from cherry-picking favorable portions of medical records while excluding unfavorable parts. When plaintiffs introduce hospital records to establish injury severity, defendants can point to inconsistent statements in those same records to challenge credibility or liability theories. The requirement of “evidence connecting the party to the entry” ensures reliability—courts won’t admit statements unless proof establishes the party actually made them.

This evidentiary principle has particular significance in personal injury litigation involving comparative negligence. Seatbelt usage directly affects liability apportionment in many accidents. If plaintiffs claim defendants caused all their injuries, but hospital records document that plaintiffs weren’t wearing seatbelts, those records become highly relevant. The party admission exception allows defendants to introduce this evidence even though whether plaintiffs wore seatbelts isn’t germane to their medical diagnosis or treatment.

Practical Implications

For plaintiffs and their counsel, Robles counsels against making trial arguments that contradict statements in hospital records. Before trial, attorneys should carefully review all medical records their clients produced, identifying potentially damaging statements. If plaintiffs claim they wore seatbelts but hospital records say otherwise, counsel must address this contradiction—either by acknowledging it, explaining it, or reconsidering the litigation position.

Plaintiffs cannot avoid this problem through redaction requests. Courts will not allow parties to exclude unfavorable evidence simply because it’s inconvenient to their case theories. The party admission exception specifically targets such selective disclosure. Better practice involves confronting unfavorable evidence head-on, either through explanation at trial or realistic case evaluation leading to settlement.

For defendants, Robles provides a powerful tool for introducing contradictory hospital record statements. Defense counsel should scrutinize plaintiffs’ medical records for entries that conflict with litigation positions. Common examples include statements about how accidents occurred, whether safety equipment was used, or whether symptoms existed before the accident. When such contradictions exist, defendants can introduce them as party admissions even if they don’t relate to medical treatment.

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.

Related Articles

• The Court offers some guidance as to the business records exception
• Plaintiff’s medical records are admissible by defendant absent dispute regarding accuracy or veracity
• Hearsay – business records