## Facts

- Andrew Yates sued Bair Transport, Inc., related entities, and an individual defendant for negligence arising from a truck accident that injured him.
- Before trial, the parties jointly sought rulings on admissibility of (1) a police blotter accident report and (2) physicians’ medical reports from examinations connected to a prior workers’ compensation claim stemming from the same accident.
- The police officer who prepared the blotter report was not an eyewitness and lacked personal knowledge of how the accident occurred; the report reflected information obtained from others.
- The parties stipulated that the blotter report was made and kept in the regular course of police duties and that the copy offered was authentic.
- The medical reports were authentic, but the physicians were not expected to testify live.
- Plaintiff sought to admit medical reports prepared by doctors retained on his behalf; defendants sought to admit the police blotter report and medical reports prepared at the instance of defendants or their insurer.

## Issues

1. Whether a police blotter accident report is admissible as a business record to prove the truth of its recorded facts when the officer lacked firsthand knowledge and relied on statements from persons under no duty to report accurately.
2. Whether medical reports prepared by doctors retained on behalf of the offering party, in connection with a compensation claim or anticipated litigation, are admissible under the business-records exception without live testimony.
3. Whether medical reports prepared at the request of the opposing party (including an insurer) are admissible as business records based on their circumstances and indicia of reliability.

## Decision

- The court excluded the police blotter report as proof of the facts stated in it under the business-records exception.
- The court excluded medical reports prepared on behalf of the party offering them (plaintiff’s own doctors) under the business-records exception.
- The court admitted medical reports prepared on behalf of the opposing party (defendants/insurer) as business records.

## Legal Principles

- A record’s routine creation in the regular course of business does not, by itself, justify admission for the truth of all contained assertions under the business-records exception.
- Business records cannot be used to admit embedded hearsay when the information originates from individuals who are not acting under a duty to report accurately; such records are not a permissible conduit for third-party statements.
- Litigation-oriented medical reports prepared for the offering party may be excluded as insufficiently reliable because they function as a substitute for testimony prepared for that party’s claim.
- Medical reports commissioned by an adversary may be admissible where the adversarial context supplies added guarantees of trustworthiness.
- Trial courts may assess trustworthiness and exclude proffered business records when their source, purpose, or preparation undermines reliability.

## Conclusion

The court applied a reliability-based limit on the business-records exception: it barred a police accident blotter report grounded in third-party statements and excluded self-sponsored medical reports prepared for the proponent’s claim, but admitted medical reports generated for the opposing party because their circumstances supported greater trustworthiness.


Yates v. Bair Transp., Inc., 249 F. Supp. 681 (S.D.N.Y. 1965)