Court Opinion

ID: 9752315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:57:21.188285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:13.563446
License: Public Domain

POMEROY, Justice
(concurring).
Largely for the reasons set forth in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice ROBERTS, I am of the opinion that diagnoses contained in hospital records may be admitted under the Business Records Act, Act of May 4, 1989, P.L. 42, § 2,' 28 P.S. § 91b. I join in the Court’s affirmance of appellant’s conviction because I, too, believe that the error involved in the trial court’s refusal to admit the hospital records in question for the purpose of showing diagnoses of the patient’s injuries was harmless. I add this statement for the purpose of pointing out that, under the terms of the Business Records Act, a record is admissible “if, in the opinion of the court, the sources of information, method and time of preparation were such as to justify its admission.” Thus, the trial judge has *462discretion in deciding whether business records are admitted into evidence, and his decision is reviewable only for an abuse of that discretion. The trial judge in this case, however, did not purport to exercise this discretion, but rather limited the admission of the hospital records because he believed them to be per se inadmissible for diagnostic purposes. In my view this was error, albeit harmless error.