In Michigan, there is a strong chance that the insurance company’s medical exam report, also called an independent medical exam (IME), might not be admissible in court. Oftentimes, these exams are completed with a lawsuit in mind, rather than focusing solely on your medical care.
Our law firm understands the importance of a fair outcome for car accident victims. We have extensive experience filing motions to ask the judge to exclude these reports from evidence. This helps ensure the jury bases its decision on reliable information while reducing the risk of bias.
In Michigan car accident cases, the hearsay rule plays a significant role in determining what evidence can be presented in court. This rule prevents the use of out-of-court statements offered as truth, meaning you cannot repeat what someone else, such as a witness, told you as evidence of what actually happened.
Hearsay is defined as a written or oral statement made in an out-of-court setting that is portrayed as truth.
Double Hearsay is defined by two things, someone telling a person information about an event or situation (hearsay), and then repeating that information as truth to another party (double hearsay).
Defense medical exam (DME) reports are inadmissible because they are based on hearsay and double hearsay, such as referring to other records. DME reports should also be excluded from evidence given that the exam was scheduled for reasons other than treatment purposes.
Independent medical exam (IME) reports are based upon hearsay and double hearsay, which is inadmissible and unreliable. This includes information told to you by someone other than your doctor.
Experts are hired by the defense specifically in anticipation of litigation, meaning the defense expert is not seeing the injured person for purposes of “care or treatment.” This generally qualifies as an exception to the hearsay rule.
Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court erred by allowing the State to utilize, in its prosecution, an expert witness report of the doctor they arranged to conduct an examination of the victim of a sex crime. Because this report was prepared for the purpose of litigation, the Court believed it lacked trustworthiness of a record generated exclusively for business purposes.
The Supreme Court agreed that forensic expert reports are the antithesis of the business records addressed by the Maine version of Rule 803(6) and the fact that they are prepared in anticipation of litigation is a common reason for finding that they lack trustworthiness.
The Florida Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion as the cases above. Defendants’ insurance medical exams report(s) (IME) and other expert reports are not admissible under the business record exception either.
Justice Nigro of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania perceptively wrote, "Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. An out-of-court declaration containing another out-of-court declaration is double hearsay."
Justice McCormick of the Supreme Court of Iowa noted, "We have long held that medical and hospital records are admissible, upon proper foundation, as an exception to the hearsay rule. We have recognized, however, that this does not necessarily make everything in the records admissible.... Hearsay statements in medical and hospital records which are not germane to physical condition or medical treatment are inadmissible unless non-prejudicial……
“This is referred to by commentators as the double hearsay rule. The hospital record is hearsay. It is admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule. But it may include recitals of statements of others, including the patient. This included hearsay is the subject of the double hearsay rule. Included hearsay is inadmissible, upon proper objection, unless it independently comes within a recognized exception to the hearsay rule."
Justice Denman of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York used these words to exclude evidence, “Murfitt's testimony as to what Stevens told him that decedent had told Stevens would be double hearsay, incapable of verification or cross-examination, and we can think of no basis on which it should have been admitted."
Personal injury attorneys should argue, the defense medical exam reports should be excluded from evidence under MRE 403.
Michigan Rule of Evidence (MRE) 403 allows courts to exclude relevant evidence if its potential to mislead the jury or be unfairly prejudicial outweighs its value as evidence. A lawyer can argue that DME reports often contain biased opinions and should be excluded under MRE 403.
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s should argue that the DME reports would be unfairly prejudicial, wasting time, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Don’t let the defense attorney get away with admitting the independent medical exam report(s), because it will likely destroy your client’s case.
If you’ve been injured in a car accident, and are looking for an experienced car accident lawyer in Michigan, we are here to help you. Call and speak to a top auto accident lawyer today at (248) 352-2110 or visit us online!
