## Facts

- A World War I veteran held a war risk life insurance policy that lapsed on January 30, 1919, shortly after his discharge on December 31, 1918.
- The veteran died of pulmonary tuberculosis on July 6, 1922; coverage depended on whether he was totally and permanently disabled when the policy lapsed.
- The veteran consulted a physician at some point in 1919, but that physician had died before trial.
- In December 1920, the veteran consulted a second physician (who testified at trial), and the disease was found to be “moderately advanced.”
- By April 1921, the veteran entered a sanatorium and remained there until January 1922.
- At trial, the court allowed the second physician to testify about examinations and findings but excluded testimony about what the veteran said regarding the “history of the case” (onset and earlier symptoms).
- The jury returned a verdict dismissing the beneficiary’s claim, and judgment was entered for the United States.

## Issues

1. Whether a patient’s statements to a physician describing past symptoms and medical history are admissible notwithstanding the hearsay rule when offered as substantive proof of the facts stated.
2. Whether the appellant preserved error despite not making a formal offer of proof under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(c).
3. Whether exclusion of the medical-history testimony affected substantial rights (harmless error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 61).

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the judgment for the United States.
- The court held the trial court erred by excluding the physician’s testimony recounting the insured’s medical history statements.
- The court rejected the argument that review was barred by the lack of a formal offer of proof, given counsel’s clear explanation of the excluded evidence’s importance and unavailability from another source.
- The exclusion was not harmless because the onset and early severity of the disease bore directly on disability at the lapse date and could be determinative.

## Legal Principles

- Statements made by a patient to a physician for purposes of diagnosis or treatment may be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, including narrative statements and statements describing past symptoms.
- Failure to make a formal offer of proof does not necessarily forfeit appellate review where the record sufficiently discloses the substance and importance of the excluded evidence.
- Erroneous exclusion of evidence warrants reversal when it likely affected substantial rights and cannot be treated as harmless under Rule 61.

## Conclusion

The court ordered reversal because the insured’s statements to his physician about prior symptoms and onset, though hearsay in form, fell within the medical-diagnosis/treatment exception and were central to proving disability at the time the policy lapsed, making their exclusion prejudicial.


Meaney v. United States, 112 F.2d 538 (2d Cir. 1940)