Opinion ID: 2106213
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission Of Medical Report.

Text: The company contends that D.I.L.H.R. erred by admitting Dr. Christianson's medical report into evidence. This report was made in 1948, prior to the time that the deceased became a fire fighter. The report stated that the deceased's heart and cardiovascular system was normal. The company's claim of error is based on an interpretation of sec. 908.03 (6), Stats. 1975, part of the Wisconsin Rules of Evidence. [6] Sec. 908.03 (6), Stats., provides that the following records are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: . . . (6) RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED ACTIVITY. 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, all in the course of a regularly conducted activity, as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness. The Judicial Committee's Note provides that, . . . Opinions and diagnoses are specifically admissible, 59 Wis. 2d at R. 270. The company bases its argument on the same Judicial Committee comment, specifically language stating that hospital records are admissible. The company then goes on to note that Dr. Christianson's report is not a hospital record. This argument is unpersuasive. Dr. Christianson's report is admissible . . . unless the source of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness. Sec. 908.03 (6), Stats. There is no indication that the report is not trustworthy. The report, or diagnosis is certainly not any less trustworthy because it is the report of a single doctor rather than a a hospital record. The company also relies on Noland v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 57 Wis.2d 633, 205 N.W.2d 388 (1973) for the proposition that medical records or diagnoses are excluded by the hearsay rules if the . . . entry requires explanation or a detailed statement of the judgmental factors upon which the diagnosis or opinion is based. Noland at 57 Wis.2d 633, 641, 642. [2] The company's argument favors admission of Dr. Christianson's report in this case. The report was a summary of a routine examination that was conducted before fire fighters started their employment for the city. There is no showing that the diagnosis was complex, or required explanation, or a statement of judgmental factors.