Court Opinion

ID: 9707500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:13:47.549904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:34.160571
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in the result reached by my colleagues in the majority opinion. The majority, however, contends that section 16 of the Act establishes a foundational requirement for the admission of any hospital records. I respectfully disagree. Section 16 provides: “The records kept by a hospital, certified as true and correct by the superintendent or other officer in charge, showing the medical and surgical treatment given an injured employee in such hospital, shall be admissible without any further proof as evidence of the medical and surgical matters stated therein, but shall not be conclusive proof of such matters.” 820 ILCS 305/16 (West 2000). The plain language of the statute does not require that hospital records be certified in order to be admitted. Although section 16 provides a mechanism for admission of certified hospital records without any further proof, there is no language stating that hospital records must be certified. The majority contends that admitting uncertified records that were otherwise reliable under the standards of Fencl-Tufo would bypass a certification requirement of section 16. I disagree that section 16 establishes a certification requirement, but agree that the hospital records in this case have not been shown to be reliable. Fencl-Tufo gives discretion to the Commission to admit records that would otherwise be inadmissible if they are trustworthy and accurate. Fencl-Tufo did not address section 16. The claimant in Fencl-Tufo specifically pointed out that the respondent was objecting to the hearsay nature of the evidence and not to a lack of proper certification under section 16. Fencl-Tufo, 169 Ill. App. 3d at 514, 523 N.E.2d at 929. The question of when uncertified hospital records would be reliable enough to be admitted was not discussed. The case at hand does not provide grounds for answering this question because the documents were presented in a jumbled manner that makes them untrustworthy. This does not mean that the Commission should be prevented from admitting uncertified records that it otherwise believes are authentic and trustworthy. In some situations, the Commission could find uncertified hospital records sufficiently reliable. As with other business records, medical and hospital records may be employed to refresh a witness’s recollection and for impeachment, or admissible as past recollection recorded and as admissions of a party opponent. See M. Graham, Cleary & Graham’s Handbook of Illinois Evidence Section 803.11 at 832 (7th ed. 1999). The majority provides no reason why uncertified hospital records that a court otherwise finds authentic and trustworthy should be automatically excluded. In essence, the majority would place a burden of certification for hospital records that is not required for other medical records. Although the majority suggests that the employer’s motive for objecting was out of concerns about the jumbled presentation of the documents, there may arise instances where a party objects to uncertified hospital records whose authenticity was not challenged prior to arbitration or otherwise in doubt. The determination of trustworthiness and authenticity should be in the discretion of the Commission. Section 16 allows for certified hospital records to be admitted without any further proof. The section does not require certification.