 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kelly v. Baltimore County1/31/2005
testimony. Because of the report's inherent hearsay nature, opinions in the report would not have been admitted into evidence over objection at the circuit court trial. Proceedings before the Commission are relatively informal to allow the parties to present their positions without undue expense and delay, and exceptions to the rules of evidence are made in order to promote speed and economy. R.P. Gilbert and R.L. Humphreys, Jr., Maryland Workers' Compensation Handbook § 2.2-1 (2d ed. 1993). For example, instead of producing live medical testimony at Commission hearings, "medical reports are accepted into evidence as a matter of course despite their inherent hearsay nature." Id. at § 2.2-1. These reports, however, may not be admissible at a de novo proceeding conducted at the circuit court level, where the rules of evidence apply, including Rule 5-802 ("Except as otherwise provided by these rules or permitted by applicable constitutional provisions or statutes, hearsay is not admissible."). See Candella v. Subsequent Injury Fund, 277 Md. 120, 124 (1976) ("While...the commission is not to be bound by the usual common law or statutory rules of evidence, such evidence may be subject to rejection in the circuit court on a review de novo.").
This Court discussed, in Chadderton v M.A. Bongivonni, Inc., 101 Md. App. 472 (1994), the admissibility of hearsay medical evaluations. Applying the rationale used in Yates v. Bair Transport, Inc., 249 F. Supp. 681 (S.D.N.Y. 1965), we held that the circuit court committed reversible error by admitting the reports of two doctors who examined the claimant on behalf of the workers' compensation insurer and the employer, but who did not testify at the trial. We held that self-serving reports, introduced by the party who arranged for the reports, lacked the requisite trustworthiness needed to be admissible into evidence. Accordingly, we concluded: " doctor's report prepared in the regular course of business, is admissible `when offered by one other than the entrant or one for whom the entrant is then working.'... ` elf-serving' reports without any `counterbalancing force' were not admissible and ... the doctors had to testify in court." Chadderton, 101 Md. App. at 483 (quoting Yates, 249 F. Supp. at 690).
In the instant case, Dr. Matz was hired by the County to conduct an examination of Kelly and produce a report in anticipation of this litigation. Additionally, the County was the party who introduced the report at the Commission hearing, and relied upon it as evidence to support its motion for summary judgment. For these reasons, under the rationale of Chadderton and Yates, Dr. Matz's report is a self-serving report being offered by the party who prepared it, and, therefore, would not be admissible at trial. Consequently, the Matz report was not adequate to establish the lack of causation as a matter of law in any event.
In Vanhook v. Merchants Mutual Insurance Co., 22 Md. App. 22 (1974), this Court vacated the trial court's grant of summary judgment, holding that there were no facts in the record enabling the court to determine whether a genuine dispute as to any material fact existed. Concluding that " he record contains no affidavits, no depositions, no admissible documentary evidence, no interrogatories, no request for admission of facts, no stipulations by the parties, and no concessions of fact by the parties," id. at 24, we stated:
court cannot rule summarily as a matter of law until the parties have supported their respective contentions by placing before the court facts which would be admissible in evidence. Brown v. Suburban Cadillac, Inc., [260 Md. 251 (1971)]. Each opposing party is given ample opportunity to place before the c
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|