Sarrio v. Reliable Contracting Co.

Morton, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This case arises out of an action instituted by the appellant in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained when the motorcycle he was operating collided with barricades alleged to have been improperly placed on the traveled portion of a highway by the appellee. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellee. The case reaches us on an agreed statement of facts.

Whether the presiding judge erred in admitting into evidence those portions of the hospital records containing notations relating to appellant’s sobriety shortly after his admission to the hospital is the single issue presented. ¹⁰¹ The agreed statement of facts provides, in part, as follows: “The injured Appellant was first seen in the Emergency Room of the hospital where the diagnosis was that the Appellant had a fractured right leg, a shoulder separation and a cerebral concussion. In the Emergency Room his right leg was placed in a cast; after this, a history and physical were taken by an intern who noted in the record that the Appellant was drunk and had been drinking. Elsewhere in the hospital records were other notations that the Appellant was drunk and had alcoholic breath.” The appellant concedes that the hospital records offered into evidence in the trial below were made in the regular course of business and that it was the regular course of the hospital’s business to make such records. He contends, however, that the notations therein relating to his condition of sobriety should have been excised since they were not “pathologically germane” to the physical condition which caused the patient to go to the hospital initially.

It is well established in this State that proper hospital records are admissible into evidence as records made in the regular course of business. Md. Code, Art. 35, § 59; Yellow Cab Co. v. Hicks, 224 Md. 563 ; Old v. Cooney Detective Agency, 215 Md. 517 ; Bethlehem-Sparrows Point Shipyard v. Scherpenisse, 187 Md. 375 . See also Powell, Hospital Records in Evidence, 21 Md.L.R. 22. However, it does not follow that the record as a whole is invariably admissible.

As stated by the Court of Appeals in Yellow Cab Co. at 570: “This Court has adhered to the rule that statements in a hospital record must be ‘pathologically germane’ to the physical condition which caused the patient to go to the hospital in the first place. Lee v. Housing Authority of Baltimore, 203 Md. 453 , 101 A. 2d 832 (1954) ; Shirks Motor Express v. Oxenham, 204 Md. 626 , 106 A. 2d 46 (1954). A ‘pathologically germane’ statement ‘must fall within the broad range of facts which under hospital practice are considered rele ¹⁰² vant to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s condition’. McCormick, Evidence, Ch. 32, § 290.” Appellant argues that “whether or not the appellant was drunk had nothing to do with his diagnosis or treatment.” While the precise issue raised by appellant does not appear to have been passed upon by the appellate courts of this State, we think it is clear, as a factual matter, that whether appellant was drunk or under the influence of alcoholic beverages at the time of his admission to the hospital was entirely relevant to the treatment of his condition as a patient in the hospital.

He had been involved in a serious accident from which he sustained injuries diagnosed as a fractured right leg, a shoulder separation and a cerebral concussion. Patently, the course of treatment to be accorded him could be influenced or acutely affected by his condition of intoxication. The notation could only have been intended to alert the treating physicians to a discernible condition of the patient which may not subsequently have been apparent but still could have had harmful residual effects ultimately. Not to have recorded such an observation would conceivably have constituted a dereliction of duty on the part of the intern.

Certainly, the failure to have made the recordation would have rendered a disservice to the appellant as a patient in the hospital. The cases in other jurisdictions where the issue here presented has been raised are collected and analyzed in Annot. 38 A.L.R.2d 778 (1954), Admissibility of Hospital Record Relating to Intoxication or Sobriety of Patient. We cannot agree with appellant’s additional assertion that because the hospital record was silent as to his condition of sobriety while in the “emergency room”, the notation after his admission to the hospital proper “had absolutely no bearing on the diagnosis made or the treatment given.” The notation as to appellant’s condition of intoxication was made when the “history and physical were taken by an intern.” This was a normal and logical ¹⁰³ time to record such observations in the records and, as we have indicated, could have had a bearing on his future treatment. Nor can we subscribe to the argument that the notations were inadmissible because “although this intern conducted a complete physical examination, nowhere in his recordation of same does he note any physical or objective fact as to intoxication, either in medical or scientific terminology.” The meaning of the terms “drunk” and “had been drinking” is