Bruce-Bishop v. Jafar
This text of 302 A.D.2d 345 (Bruce-Bishop v. Jafar) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), entered September 18, 2001, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against them, dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Where a proper foundation is laid, a physician’s office records or hospital records, including medical opinion, are admissible as evidence at trial to the extent that they are germane to diagnosis and treatment (see Williams v Alexander, 309 NY 283, 287; Wilson v Bodian, 130 AD2d 221, 231; CPLR 4518 [a]). Thus, the office records of the plaintiff’s treating physicians were properly admitted into evidence.
In addition, the defendant’s experts were entitled to rely on the facts set forth in those records, as they did not base their expert opinions upon the conclusions contained in the records (see O’Shea v Sarro, 106 AD2d 435, 437; Borden v Brady, 92 AD2d 983). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
302 A.D.2d 345, 753 N.Y.S.2d 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruce-bishop-v-jafar-nyappdiv-2003.