Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Robert A. Bouchie & Another vs. Harriet E. Murray
October 10, 1978376 Mass. 524
Summary
The court held that portions of a hospital consultation record recounting a third party's statements were inadmissible hearsay because they were not shown to concern diagnosis or treatment and did not otherwise qualify under a hearsay exception. Because liability evidence was conflicting, the erroneous admission was not harmless, requiring reversal and a new trial. The court also articulated criteria for determining when hospital-record information is admissible. Braucher, J., concurring in the result, agreed that reversal was required but rejected parts of the court's broader hearsay analysis.
Holding
- Admissibility of third-party statements in hospital records. Statements attributed to Mrs. Bouchie that Bouchie was enraged and out of control and had the accident instead of suffering a nervous breakdown were inadmissible because they were second-level hearsay, did not relate to diagnosis or treatment, and did not qualify under another hearsay exception.
- Harmlessness of the evidentiary error. The erroneous admission was not harmless because the evidence concerning liability was sufficiently conflicting; therefore, the judgments for the defendant had to be reversed and a new trial ordered.
- General criteria for admissibility of hospital-record material. Hospital-record material is admissible when the record is of the statutory type, the information concerns treatment or medical history, and the information was recorded from the entrant's personal knowledge or compiled from persons under a medical obligation to transmit it; voluntary third-party statements require a non-hearsay purpose or another applicable hearsay exception.
Cited authorities
- 48 Colum. L. Rev. 920
- 48 Colum. L. Rev. 920
- 31 Tul. L. Rev. 49
- 46 Iowa L. Rev. 276
- 48 Colum. L. Rev. 920