Opinion ID: 1057637
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Business Record Exception

Text: We next consider whether the trial court erred by admitting Dr. Thurman's report pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 803(6). The Tennessee Rules of Evidence define hearsay as a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Tenn. R. Evid. 801(c). Hearsay evidence is not admissible except as provided by [the Tennessee Rules of Evidence] or otherwise by law. Tenn. R. Evid. 802. Dr. Thurman's report clearly constitutes hearsay evidence that is not admissible unless it satisfies an exception provided in the Rules of Evidence or some other law. The trial court allowed Ms. Arias to introduce the report into evidence pursuant to Rule 803(6). The determination of whether a hearsay statement is admissible through an exception to the hearsay rule is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Stout, 46 S.W.3d 689, 697 (Tenn.2001); State v. Stinnett, 958 S.W.2d 329, 331 (Tenn.1997). We will not reverse the ruling of the trial court absent a showing that this discretion has been abused. Stout, 46 S.W.3d at 697. Rule 803(6) defines the prerequisites for admission as follows: A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses made at or near the time by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge and a business duty to record or transmit if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness . . ., unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. The term business as used in this paragraph includes business, institution, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit. The foregoing exception rests on the premise that records regularly kept in the normal course of business are inherently trustworthy and reliable. Alexander v. Inman, 903 S.W.2d 686, 700 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1995), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. July 3, 1995). The purpose of this hearsay exception is to permit the use of inherently trustworthy business records at trial by eliminating the expense and inconvenience that would result from requiring the testimony of everyone involved in the preparation and maintenance of such records. Id. The rule is modeled after the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-7-111 (1980), repealed by 1991 Tenn. Pub. Acts 273. To avoid interpretive mistakes . . ., the proposal specifically requires that the declarant have `a business duty to record or transmit' information. Without that duty, a business record would lack the trustworthiness necessary to carve out a hearsay exception. Tenn. R. Evid. 803(6) advisory comm'n cmt. The Tennessee Court of Appeals has explained that Rule 803(6) includes the following five criteria that must be satisfied for a document to be admissible under the business records exception: 1. The document must be made at or near the time of the event recorded; 2. The person providing the information in the document must have firsthand knowledge of the recorded events or facts; 3. The person providing the information in the document must be under a business duty to record or transmit the information; 4. The business involved must have a regular practice of making such documents; and 5. The manner in which the information was provided or the document was prepared must not indicate that the document lacks trustworthiness. Alexander, 903 S.W.2d at 700. Having considered Dr. Thurman's report, we conclude that the trial court erred by admitting the report pursuant to Rule 803(6). Dr. Thurman generated this report for the purpose of litigation in the course of his business as an evaluating expert. He was not a treating physician, and his opinion was sought solely for the purpose of establishing causation and impairment in this workers' compensation litigation. An extraordinary report prepared for an irregular purpose, particularly when prepared with litigation in mind, may not be made in the regular course of business and may be inadmissible as a business record under Rule 803(6). Neil P. Cohen, et al., Tennessee Law of Evidence § 8.11[6] at p. 8-113 (5th ed. 2005); see State v. Goldston, 29 S.W.3d 537, 542 (Tenn.Crim.App.1999) (Hospital records kept daily for medical purposes and not prepared for the purpose of litigation are typically deemed reliable.). This view is consistent with the language of Rule 803(6) declaring that business records should not be admitted if the circumstances of [their] preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. This view is also consistent with the reason for the rule excluding hearsay evidence, that the trier of fact will not be able to hear cross-examination of the declarant. Cohen, et al., Tennessee Law of Evidence § 8.01[3][a] at 8-11. Finally, this view is consistent with the rationale supporting recognition of the various exceptions to the hearsay ruleto admit only hearsay evidence that exhibits inherent trustworthiness and indicia of reliability. See id. § 8.01[3][c] at 8-12. Were we to hold that Dr. Thurman's medical report meets the requirements of Rule 803(6), litigants would be free to present expert opinion on any subject by merely introducing an expert's written report through a records custodian without ever subjecting the expert to cross examination. We decline to so broadly interpret the exception provided in Rule 803(6).