Source: https://www.schollelaw.com/objection-to-medical-narrative.html
Timestamp: 2019-05-24 13:24:47
Document Index: 781517020

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24']

Objection to Medical Narrative | Georgia Personal Injury Lawyers
Plaintiff's Objections to Defendant's Notice of Intent to Introduce Medical Narratives Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18 and Third Notice of Intent to Introduce Medical Narratives Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18
"Admissibility Of Medical Reports; Qualifications Of Person Signing Reports; Right Of Adverse Party To Cross-Examine Person Signing Reports
(b) The medical narrative shall be presented to the jury as depositions are presented to the jury and shall not go out with the jury as documentary evidence."
Because all of Defendant's submissions fail to meet the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18, this Court should not allow the introduction of these narratives at trial. In support thereof, Plaintiff respectfully shows this Court as follows:
All the documents submitted by Defendants include information outside the scope of O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18. Under Georgia law, a narrative must be in prose language that is understandable to a jury. In the case of Bell v. Austin, 278 Ga. 844, 607 SE 2d 569, the Georgia Supreme Court held that "the law authorizes the admission of only those reports which, rather than consisting of unexplicated medical terms and uninterpreted scientific test results, set forth the relevant information in prose language that is more readily understandable to laymen. Other medical records which would require an expert analysis to demonstrate their import are still subject to a hearsay objection." See John Crane, Inc. v. Jones, 262 Ga. App. 531, 535 (2) (586 SE2d 26) (2003).
Because all the documents, particularly the MRI diagnostic documents submitted by Defendant, contain "unexplicated medical terms" and are not in a prose style that is understandable to a layman, none are admissible and should be excluded. The information in each of these reports was interpreted by a medical doctor for another medical doctor and requires a medical background to understand. It would be unfair to allow the attorney for Defendant to interpret the language inappropriately and argue this flawed interpretation to the jury.
All submitted medical records are also insufficient and improper pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18 to the extent they are not in "narrative form." These are simply short bullet points for interpretation by from one medical professional to another. Moreover, the radiologists who generated the MEI reports, Hugo Falcon and Garrett Ward, never examined, met, or even saw the Plaintiff.
This is to certify that I have this day served opposing counsel for Defendant Barbara Hampton with the attached PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE MEDICAL NARRATIVES PURSUANT TO O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18 AND THIRD NOTICE OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE MEDICAL NARRATIVES PURSUANT TO O.C.G.A. § 24-3-18 by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail with adequate postage affixed thereon addressed as follows: