Tardif v. City of New York

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT D ELO EC CU TM RE ON NT IC ALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: __________________ -------------------------------------------------------X DATE FILED: 6/23/2022 MARY TARDIF, Plaintiff, 13-CV-4056 (KMW) -vORDER CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------X KIMBA M. WOOD, United States District Judge: Plaintiff raised objections to Defendant’s attempt to introduce several pages of a medical record resulting from Plaintiff’s January 5, 2021 visit to NYU Langone Health, included in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 42. These objections are overruled. Plaintiff contends that the medical record must be introduced, if at all, pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, because the author of that record, Dr. Alexander K. Allen, is “acting” as an expert. This is not so. Medical records are regularly admitted as records of a regularly conducted activity pursuant to Rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, without regard to the rules applicable to expert reports. See, e.g., M.C. v. County of Westchester, No. 16CV-3013, 2022 WL 1124920 , at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2022) (Román, J.). This record has sufficient indicia of trustworthiness to be considered reliable. See Potamkin Cadillac Corp. v. B.R.I. Coverage Corp., 38 F.3d 627, 632 (2d Cir. 1994). Plaintiff’s hearsay objection to the statements referenced in the medical record of other physicians and of Ms. Tardif is overruled. These underlying statements are admissible as statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment or as statements by an opposing party. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York June 23, 2022 /s/ Kimba M. Wood KIMBA M. WOOD United States District Judge