Kim Fisher v Sandara Rotheraine

Kim Fisher filed a claim against Sandara Rotheraine seeking damages for personal injuries sustained in a car accident. The dispute reached the court for determination of the admissibility of medical reports in the case. The legal issues at hand were whether the medical reports from medical practitioners to other medical practitioners and from medical practitioners to insurers or solicitors were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule and whether the reports were served in accordance with UCPR 31.28.

The court examined the nature of the reports and their admissibility. It found that medical reports from medical practitioners to other medical practitioners are generally admissible as they fall under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. These reports are created in the course of the medical practitioner's duty and are not hearsay because they are not being used to prove the truth of the contents but rather to show the condition of the patient at the time of the report. Conversely, the court held that medical reports from medical practitioners to insurers or solicitors are not admissible because they are not created in the course of the medical practitioner's duty and may be influenced by the interests of the insurer or solicitor. Additionally, the court found that the reports were not served in accordance with UCPR 31.28, which mandates the service of expert reports within 30 days before the trial.

The court ruled that the medical reports from medical practitioners to insurers or solicitors are inadmissible. Conversely, medical reports from medical practitioners to other medical practitioners are admissible. The court's decision hinged on the nature of the reports and their relevance to the case. The final orders reflect the court's ruling on the admissibility of the medical reports.