Noland, Respondent v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, Appellants (Wisconsin 1973)

Summary

The court held that a hospital record containing a patient's medical history and a physician's diagnosis or medical opinion may be admitted under the business-records exception when the record is properly authenticated and circumstances do not indicate unreliability. Because the record was adequately founded and its exclusion prevented the insurer from completing its proof that misrepresentation increased the insurance risk, the exclusion was prejudicial. The judgment was reversed and a new trial ordered.

Holding

Admissibility of hospital records containing diagnosis or medical opinion. A hospital record is not automatically excluded merely because it contains a physician's diagnosis or medical opinion. It may be admitted under the business-records exception when the record is properly authenticated, the entry was made in the regular course of hospital business, and the circumstances do not indicate a lack of trustworthiness; the trial judge retains discretion to exclude an entry requiring explanation or a detailed account of judgmental factors.

Adequacy of foundation and prejudice from exclusion. The foundation was adequate because the custodian identified the record, described its mode of preparation, and testified that it was made in the regular course of hospital business. Excluding the record was prejudicial because it prevented the insurer from completing its proof that the application misrepresentation materially increased the risk.

Summary

Holding

Cited by