Information From GPS System Found Not to be Hearsay (Criminal Court Decision)

 

In the case of Commonwealth v. Wallace, No. 93 MAP 2021 (Pa. Feb. 22, 2023)(Op. by Todd, C.J.)(Wecht, J. Concurring), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a global positioning system (GPS data) is not inadmissible hearsay under Pa. R.E. 803 (setting forth hearsay exceptions).

Such information was found not to be hearsay because that information does not constitute a statement made by a declarant as outlined in Pa. R.E. 801 and/or is not an assertion (or the nonverbal conduct) by a person.

As this decision may prove useful in a civil litigation matter, it is highlighted here on Tort Talk.    

Here is a LINK to the Court's Majority Opinion.  The Concurring Opinion by Justice Wecht can be viewed HERE,

Source of image:  Photo by Tamas Tuzes-Katai on www.unsplash.com.

Court Addresses Hearsay Within Hearsay Issues

Is that hearsay?

In response to a post-trial motion filed in the case of Huertas v. El Bochinche Restaurante, Oct. Term, No. 02851 (C.P. Phila. Co. 2022 Hill, J.), the court addressed hearsay issues that arose during the course of a premises liability trial.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff attended a party at a restaurant where she was allegedly attacked in a bathroom.

The Plaintiff was subsequently seen at an emergency room for a facial fracture and other injuries. The records from that visit indicate that the Plaintiff informed the treating physician that she was “punched in the face while walking down a street.”

The Plaintiff later visited a different hospital, stating there that she was injured in the restaurant.

The Plaintiff eventually brought a lawsuit against the restaurant for negligence.

As the case proceeded to trial, the Plaintiff had filed a Motion In Limine requesting the trial court to exclude any possible statements the Defendant would make regarding other claims the Plaintiff had filed.

As to the statements from the hospital records, the court held that the statements were properly admitted under several exceptions to the hearsay rule. 

First, under Pa.R.E. 803.4, hearsay statements “made for diagnoses or treatment" are allowed. The court found that the Plaintiff’s statements at the hospital clearly fell within this exception.

Also, the court referenced precedent holding that statements made by an opposing party are allowed, which was the case with the statements at issue in this matter.  More specifically, the Defendant was seeking to enter statements by the Plaintiff, who was the party opponent.

The court additionally held that the statement at issue was admissible under the business records exception in Rule 803.6. In this regard, the court found that the statement was made and recorded during a regularly conducted activity by the hospital, was recorded contemporaneously close to the time of the alleged incident, and was maintained during the normal course of business.

On a separate but related issue, the Plaintiff argued that the court erred at trial by denying her request to admit the statement by the Plaintiff at the second hospital visit that she had been injured in the restaurant.  The Plaintiff felt that she should have been allowed to introduce that statement in an effort to rehabilitate her testimony and credibility. However, the court clarified that the Defendant had not impeached the Plaintiff, but rather had offered their evidence as substantive evidence excluded from the rules of hearsay.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 6, 2022).

A Nice Primer on the Hearsay Rule

Here's a decision that gives a nice reminder of how the rules of hearsay work in a trial setting.

In the case of Nitkin v. Main Line Health, No. 2:20-CV-04825-KSM (E.D. Pa. Oct. 26, 2021), the Federal District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that notes taken by the medical director of the Plaintiff’s former employer were non-hearsay and, as such, were deemed to be admissible as they fell within the party-opponent exclusion found under F. R.E. 801(d)(2)(D).

The Court noted that F.R.E. 801(d)(2)(D) allows for the admission of statements made by an employer’s agent or employee on matters within the scope of that relationship and while that relationship existed.

With regards to some other out-of-court statements, the Court rejected the argument that such statements were not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted within the statements and, therefore, were admissible.  In reviewing the potential evidence within the context of the case, the Court ruled that it appeared that the statements would be offered for the truth of the matter and were, therefore, inadmissible as hearsay.

Based upon this ruling, the court denied in part, and granted in part, the Defendant’s Motion In Limine.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 18, 2021).

Hearsay Exceptions Addressed in Context of Med Mal Case

In the case of Delguercio v. Tio, No. 19-CV-3604 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Aug. 19, 2021 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas denied a certain Defendants’ Motion In Limine to preclude hearsay testimony in a medical malpractice action.

According to the Opinion, the Defendant generally filed a Motion In Limine to preclude the Plaintiffs from introducing hearsay testimony at trial unless such testimony fell within one of the enumerated exceptions to the hearsay rule. The Plaintiff filed a response asserting that the testimony at issue was admissible under the hearsay exceptions set forth under Pa. R.E. 803(3) and (4).

This case involved a malpractice action under which the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff allegedly received negligent treatment in the emergency room relative to a deep vein thrombosis condition and/or a stroke condition.

The disputed hearsay statements involve statements made by the Plaintiff’s husband to the attending physician as well as the statements contained in the Plaintiff’s husband’s deposition testimony regarding the Plaintiff’s symptoms and complaints during the course of her treatment. Some of the statements by the husband involved statements that the Plaintiff had made to her husband as to why she reported to the emergency room for the subject treatment.

After reviewing the law of hearsay and the relevant exceptions, Judge Nealon found that the statements by the Plaintiff’s husband were admissible pursuant to the hearsay exception under Pa. R.E. 803(4) which is entitled “Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment.” 

The court noted that it was the longstanding law of Pennsylvania that the medical treatment exception to the hearsay rule provides that testimony repeating out-of-courts statements which were made for the purpose of receiving medical treatment are admissible as substantive evidence.  In order for such a statement to qualify for admission under the “medical treatment exception,” it must be made “for the purpose of receiving medical treatment” and be "necessary and proper for a diagnosis and treatment.” See Op. at 6.

The court found that the statements at issue made by the Plaintiff’s husband to the Plaintiff’s treating doctor were clearly made for and relevant to the Plaintiff’s diagnosis and treatment. The court noted that it was inconsequential that the pertinent medical history was provided by the husband rather than the Plaintiff herself, since statements need not be made by the incapacitated patient in order to be admissible pursuant to the medical treatment exception. The court also noted that there is no requirement of corroboration of the information provided before the offered statement is admissible. Nor is the admissibility of the evidence disqualified where the person offering the evidence is an interested party.

The court also found that the statements made by the Plaintiff’s husband regarding the Plaintiff’s complaints of pain, tingling, and other symptoms was admissible as a statement of her physical condition and pain at the time in question. The court noted that Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence No. 803(3) establishes a hearsay exception for any “statement of the declarant’s then-existing….emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health)….”  See Op. at 7. 

The court noted that, in order to be admissible, such statements must overtly describe or relate to a mental, emotional, or physical condition that then exist and must be made contemporaneously with the mental or physical condition, regardless of when, why, or how the condition was caused or produced. Id. at 7-8.

After applying this law to the statements in question, the court found that additional statements were admissible as well.

As noted above, the Defendant’s pre-trial Motion In Limine in this medical malpractice action was denied.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source of image:  Photo by Tingley Law Firm on Unsplash.com.

Pennsylvania Superior Court Offers Lessons on Hearsay Exception (Statements Made for Medical Diagnosis and Treatment)

In the case of Adams v. Rising Son Med. Ctr., No. 2020 Pa. Super. 298 (Pa. Super. Dec. 29, 2020) (Op. by Bowes, J.), the court addressed the applicability of the medical treatment hearsay exception found under Pa. R.E. 803(4).

This matter arose out of a medical malpractice action. At issue was the Plaintiff’s argument that the trial court had erred in precluding the Plaintiff from testifying as to what the Plaintiff’s decedent told medical providers in the emergency room regarding her family history of deep vein thrombosis.  This case involved an allegation that the medical providers failed to diagnose the Plaintiff’s own deep vein thrombosis which allegedly caused or increased the decedent’s risk of death due to a pulmonary embolism.

While the Plaintiff conceded that such testimony was hearsay, they argued that the testimony by the Plaintiff regarding what her deceased family member had told the medical providers was admissible under the hearsay exception for statements made for purposes of diagnosis and treatment.

The Defendants argued at the trial court level that a statement made for purposes of medical treatment qualifies for the hearsay exception under Pa. R.E. 803(4) only if it is proffered by a healthcare provider.

The Superior Court disagreed. The Superior Court noted that there were only two (2) requirements for a hearsay statement to come within the exception set forth at Pa. R.E. 803(4). First, the declarant must take the statement for purposes of receiving medical treatment. Second, the statement must be necessary and proper for the diagnosis and treatment.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court found no legal support for the defense argument that only a healthcare provider can testify as to statements made for purposes of medical treatment or any requirement for corroboration before the proffered statement is admissible.

The Superior Court additionally reasoned that this exception to the hearsay rule was created because statements made for the purpose of receiving medical treatment are typically stated in circumstances where the reliability of the declarant’s out-of-court statement is inherently trustworthy and where there is little motive to fabricate any information.

In the end, the Superior Court found that the trial court erred in excluding such testimony and that the exclusion of this testimony was highly prejudicial to the Plaintiff.  As such, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the Plaintiff was granted a new trial.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Weekly Law (Jan. 12, 2021).