Opinion ID: 1356921
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Ambulance Report and Medical Records

Text: The two paramedics who treated Ellis and transported him to the hospital testified at trial. One of the paramedics, Greg Randall, testified that after Ellis was transported, he (Randall) filled out an Ambulance Run Report required by the Department of Health and Environmental Control. A copy of the report was marked for identification and, without objection, the trial court allowed Randall to use the report to refresh his memory about Ellis' accident. [8] Referring to the report, Randall testified as follows: A. ... I got down here he had a normal range of movement with no deformity found. Q. And based on the training you had had up to that point in time, what did a normal range of motion then mean to you, sir? A. That he had movement in his extremities, or some of the extremities had been moved. . . . . . Q. Would you have written the word norm n-o-r-m, or the acronym norm in your report if this man were paralyzed at the scene of the accident? A. No, ma'am. . . . . . Q. Was the ambulance run report that you filled out and that you signed did that report accurately reflect the observations you made between the time you got to the scene and the time you transported the patient to the hospital? A. As far as I can remember, yes, ma'am. . . . . . Q. Were these entries made at the time you saw the events you observed or contemporaneously with your seeing those events, or shortly thereafter? A. Shortly thereafter, I would imagine. Thereafter, over appellant's objection, the trial court allowed respondent to introduce the entire ambulance report into evidence under the business record exception to the hearsay rule. Appellant argues that admitting the entire report was error because the notation in the report indicating Ellis had normal range of motion was a subjective opinion or judgment of the paramedic and was therefore inadmissible. Appellant also argues the trial court erred in admitting an emergency room report which contained a physician's notation that Ellis had good rectal tone upon admission. We disagree. Initially, whether or not the ambulance report was admissible under the business record exception, it was admissible because the report was completed by the witness Randall contemporaneously with his observations of the accident and was properly used by him to refresh his memory regarding the accident. See Gwathmey v. Foor Hotel Co., 121 S.C. 237, 113 S.E. 688 (1922) (memorandum properly used to refresh witness' memory held admissible into evidence). [9] Further, in light of Randall's testimony, we fail to see any prejudice from the admission of the report itself. In any event, the notation in the report indicating Ellis had movement in his extremities, or some of [his] extremities had been moved, was merely an observation of Ellis' condition and not a subjective opinion or judgment. In addition, the notation in the emergency room report that Ellis had good rectal tone was also an observation of Ellis' condition and not a subjective opinion or judgment. Consequently, the trial court did not err in overruling appellant's objections to admitting the entire ambulance report or the emergency room report. See State v. Key, 277 S.C. 214, 284 S.E.2d 781 (1981) (medical report containing purely factual observations held admissible in its entirety). [10]