[brief] Defense counsel then asks whether he can ask the witness “if she was cited or if there’s any fines as a result of that complaint. ”  The trial court unequivocally states that he cannot ask those questions because that would “basically” be “bringing in the determination by the State,” the “result of the investigation and there is no one coming in here to testify as to the investigation that was performed. ”  3T188:16-25.  Defendant claims it was justified in its carte blanche use of the hearsay because both [...] and [...] were generally “familiar” with annual and complaint “surveys. ”  Db at 12-13.  Once again, defendant created the issue it sought to rebut.  8T86:20-21 (on cross, defense counsel asked [...] “and what do surveyors do at the facility?”); 7T134:4-8 (on cross, defense counsel asked [...] about the “basis for surveys. ”).  Defendant created the issue it sought to rebut as a pretext to place the hearsay survey evidence before the jury for the truth of the matter asserted.  Notwithstanding the trial court’s prior rulings, defense counsel was then permitted to quote the documents chapter and verse and ask the witness if that is what the document said.  Pb20-26.  Even defense counsel had acknowledged that he could not ask a witness about what the document says “because that’s someone else speaking. ”  2T149:22-25.  Counsel had no problem, however, asking what the document said to plaintiff’s witnesses and the trial court ultimately, unbelievably, allowed it.  Defendant tries to distinguish Manata v. Pereira, 436 N.J. Super. 330 (App. Div. 2014).  It cannot.  This case is on all fours with Manata.  Like Manata, defendant here got in every word of the DOH investigation’s findings without ever having to produce a witness who could attest to the authenticity of the documents, whether the documents were complete or whether they were produced in the ordinary course of business.  There was no testimony regarding what actually was done.  No one testified about what records, if any, were reviewed, who, if anyone, was interviewed, or how the conclusion was reached.  Plaintiff was left powerless to refute the findings of the investigation because there was no one to cross-examine.  Instead of seeking to introduce the police report, plaintiff’s counsel engaged in a form of ‘phantom impeachment. ’  See James McElhaney, Phantom Impeachment, 77 A.B.A.J. 82 (Nov. 1991) (describing “phantom impeachment” as the contradiction of a witness on “key testimony—by someone who never takes the stand and who never says a word in court”).  Plaintiff’s counsel, over defense objection, presented to the jury the substance of the police report, which was represented to reflect the omission of defendant's version of the collision.  Counsel accomplished that by asking defendant himself what the report stated.  Id. at 347 (emphasis supplied).  Defendant, by its own admission, used [...]’s opinions to contradict the findings of plaintiff’s experts that defendant’s negligence caused [...]’s death.  Counsel accomplished that by asking the experts what the report stated.  There can be no legitimate debate that that was phantom impeachment.  The only argument defendant could potentially have for using the hearsay documents to impeach or to rebut plaintiff’s expert witnesses is if the witness testified that the DOH conducted no investigation or if the witness testified that the DOH found a violation of [...]’s rights.  No such testimony was given.  Permitting the phantom cross-examination was error.  **POINT II**