Opinion ID: 1881100
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Medical Record Exception MRE 803(4)

Text: Regardless of the availability of the declarant as a witness, MRE 803(4) allows admission of [s]tatments made for purposes of medical treatment or medical diagnosis in connection with treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably necessary to such diagnosis and treatment. This Court has noted that exceptions to the hearsay rule, including the medical records exception, are justified by the belief that the particular categories of hearsay covered by the exceptions are both necessary and inherently trustworthy. See Solomon v. Shuell, 435 Mich. 104, 119, 457 N.W.2d 669 (1990); People v. Meeboer (After Remand), 439 Mich. 310, 322, 484 N.W.2d 621 (1992). Specifically, this Court has explained that the supporting rationale for MRE 803(4) is the existence of (1) the self-interested motivation to speak the truth to treating physicians in order to receive proper medical care, and (2) the reasonable necessity of the statement to the diagnosis and treatment of the patient. Solomon, supra at 119, 457 N.W.2d 669. The trial court, relying on Bradbury v. Ford Motor Co., 123 Mich.App. 179, 187, 333 N.W.2d 214 (1983), modified on other grounds 419 Mich. 550, 358 N.W.2d 550 (1984), ruled that the contested portion of the medical record concerning the fight with a girlfriend was not admissible under this hearsay exception because it was not reasonably necessary for diagnosis and treatment. We agree. Bradbury involved a products liability claim brought by an individual who was injured after he got out of a parked car and it began to unexpectedly roll in reverse. His leg was pinned between the car and a light pole while he was attempting to reach the car's controls. The plaintiff had testified that he placed the gear selector in park before getting out of the vehicle. The Court of Appeals ruled that an excerpt in the medical record, which related that the plaintiff said he did not place the shift selector in park, was inadmissible under MRE 803(4). The Court reasoned that [w]hile a doctor may need to know that a leg was crushed, or was pinned between a moving car and a post, the plaintiff's actions in setting the shift selector are medically irrelevant and, therefore, do not fall within this hearsay section. 123 Mich.App. at 187, 333 N.W.2d 214. We agree with this reasoning and find it applicable here. The statement in the medical record relating that the plaintiff's injury resulted from his arm going through a plate glass window was information reasonably necessary for diagnosis and treatment. This statement carries with it the inherent indicia of trustworthiness in accordance with the rationale underlying the medical records exception. However, the statement in the medical record relating what occurred before the plaintiff's arm went through the window, i.e., he had a fight with his girlfriend, was not reasonably necessary for diagnosis and treatment and, thus, falls outside the rationale underlying the exception. Consequently, we find that the trial court correctly ruled that MRE 803(4) could not be the basis for admission of the contested portion of the medical record. [10]