having the right of way in an intersection cut off a motorcycle which then collided with the car the driver in the passenger side lying on the road when the officer arrived both were taken to the hospital in obvious these distress and clearly injured after routine investigation that the accident scene in the car driver was ticketed and the officer went to the hospital when you're right there to interview the defendant james for the driver of the cycle he learned that a blood sample had been taken without his request now the blood sample taken at the hospital did reveal a blood alcohol content in excess of the statutory minimum of eight hundred years point zero eight the pres statutory requirement the first is that the blood alcohol the blood sample was taken in the regular course of providing emergency medical treatment and not is whether the blood was taken in the regular course of providing emergency medical treatment and the testimony is not compelling  individual karen miles who was call with the business records of the hospital that is records admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule with all the unusual business records requirements and th back seemed to avoid the issue miles admitted that she could not tell from reviewing the records specifically the blood alcohol simply looked at that part of the records as part of the larger role for all hospital records and she was asked to verify all of those this whole record i think of was somewhere around one hundred  pages is the sole record part of ospital records kept in the ordinary course of business and she thought they were and sent this money to the court and that was the basis of the court's admission of the  indicated that although the particular person requesting the blood alcohol or blood sample in the in the olson case wasn't in a fight it was clear from the was reviewed in use by a physician shortly after it was stated there's by the way no evidence in this record of any use of the blood sample other than blood alcohol or subsequent prosecution in the instant case so the response of the  detail of some particular part of the record which the court found to be admissible on the whole desires considering that argument that i wondered if  this massive stuff most of which looks of miscible can i get it in maybe maybe we're under really cynical to assume that a lawyer would try to slip something by in that fashion but it strikes me that that is what this kind of argument amounts to not necessarily by intention but of death something that's not admissible comes in as part of a greater  that that is these that it is the back of the action taken here the foundation was not matter of his particular item but it is part of a larger mass that most of did about the reasons for calling for those records and say well maybe they anticipated this surgery and maybe having that knowledge of blood alcohol was necessary better that that was a suggestion th kelly made during his discussion and we but when we're dealing with that this exception to the hearsay rule i submit that i we don't rehabilitate a defective foundation by speculating that there may have been a valid purpose for calling them there or it's in the regular course of hospital business something in the record not to suggest be a reason why a down here would want to use the blood alcohol results in order for it to be that particular of the blood tests at the well i don't  or we're clearly going to do something that requires that knowledge i don't think it it is that strict but i i think that saying it's not that strict doesn't get us away from a crash to be her provider which is basically people's exhibit to aid that these records provide a picture of the tests that will order during the course of defendant's treatment i think back testimony you know itself is enough to establish that were the historical these notes are made contemporaneously or shortly after and they reflect the treatment that was provided to the individual during his treatment at the hospital right yeah that's all they say and that's  it was done in the regular course of treatment that seems to be the argument if it's here part of the records obviously it was done in the regular course of treatment and nothing else is needed that's the way i hear  with the statute there has to be something indicating that it was done in the regular course of treatment in order for it to be admissible counsel has argued that it was being prepared obviously for surgery on the last record in the record does it say that we might infer we might guess we might speculate but someone who is familiar with the records and meets the requirements of a foundational witness and we have not questioned the ability of miss miles to be a foundational witness someone here to be able to tell us or to tell the trial for that they timely information and saw that this particular piece of evidence which is the particular piece which is earlier cases which all unfortunately construed earlier statutes and while i might like the language of those earlier cases which do require something like that some indication of who ordered it and what purpose and was it easy to use so earlier i'd say the answer is you know there's someone ordered it for a specific purpose and that had to be that had to be shown i don't think it's quite so strict here but i don't think it goes off i'm just saying that as the appellee are hears that if it was done it was obviously done in the ordinary course of treatment so i think the i think the quick answer is there has to be some indication that it was done in the ordinary well and then again this this comes to the point that i think best gets to the point of saying if it was done it's properly there and i think the statute requires more than that it's there and i think we need something more than is there to establish that it's part of a routine or that it is part of the regular course of treatment did there was prosecution but contrary to the representations of my argument i'm not asserting that it was taken for that purpose but all we know here is that the the record was