Petrocelli v. Gallison
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
679 F.2d 286 (1982)
After hernia surgery by Dr. Gallison (defendant), James Petrocelli (plaintiff) suffered persistent pain requiring two further corrective surgeries; he and his wife sued for malpractice, claiming Gallison severed a nerve during the first surgery. At trial, the court excluded two ambiguous statements in James's medical records referencing a severed or transected nerve, and the jury found for Gallison; the Petrocellis appealed, arguing the statements were admissible business records under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6).
Whether statements in a medical report are admissible under the business-records exception in FRE 803(6) if the statements do not clearly contain the opinions or diagnoses of the reporting physician, but instead appear to recount information provided by the patient.