Bradley Wagman, Respondent, v. Ledford A. Bradshaw et al., Appellants., 292 A.D.2d 84

Summary

On appeal, the doctor contended that the trial court erred in permitting the doctor to testify as to the contents of an inadmissible written report interpreting magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) films, which was prepared by another healthcare professional who did not testify, when the MRI films were not in evidence, and without proof that, as out-of-court material, the written MRI report was reliable. The appellate court found that the patient was thus allowed to place in evidence, by way of the treating chiropractor, a subjective interpretation of MRI films, from an inadmissible report written by a non-testifying healthcare professional. This was prejudicial error, requiring the appellate court to reverse the judgment in the patient's favor, and grant a new trial. Specifically, the MRI report was not, and could not have been, properly admitted into evidence, since the proponent thereof advanced no claim that the original MRI films were lost or destroyed, and consequently, unavailable. ...