WASHINGTON COCA-COLA BOTTLING WORKS, Inc., Appellant, v. Eula A. TAWNEY, Appellee

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit1956-05-24No. No. 13115

233 F.2d 353

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the jury verdict, holding that medical records documenting a physician's observations of objective physical facts may be admitted under the Federal Shop Book Rule when identified and authenticated by another physician with access to the records and familiarity with the group practice's record-keeping procedures, even if the examining physician does not testify.

A plaintiff recovered a jury verdict of $5,500 for injuries caused by glass fragments from a Coca-Cola bottle. At trial, the defendant challenged the admission of medical records documenting the plaintiff's condition, including findings from rectal examinations showing glass fragments and fissures. These records were admitted under the Federal Shop Book Rule even though the examining physician who created them did not testify; instead, another physician in the group practice identified the records and authenticated the group's record-keeping procedures.

The appellate court upheld the admission of these medical records, distinguishing them from hospital records containing medical opinions or diagnoses where qualified experts might reasonably disagree. The court reasoned that the physician's direct observations of physical facts—comparable to identifying a compound fracture—are the type of objective, verifiable findings that competent physicians would consistently recognize and record similarly, making them admissible business records despite the creating physician's absence from trial.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Admissibility of medical records under the Federal Shop Book Rule without testimony from the examining physician
Distinction between objective physical observations and subjective medical conclusions for business record exception
Authentication of group medical practice records by a physician other than the examiner

Procedural posture

The appellant bottling company appealed a jury verdict awarded to the appellee for personal injuries, challenging the trial court's admission of medical records documenting the plaintiff's condition.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

BURGER, Circuit Judge.

Appellee was awarded a jury verdict of $5,500 for personal injuries, and special damages incurred and anticipated, caused by fragments of a coca-cola bottle introduced into appellee’s system while she was drinking a beverage bottled and sold by the appellant.

The trial court admitted in evidence under the so-called Federal Shop Book, Rule, entries in the medical records kept by a group of physicians, which concerned appellee’s condition as observed by one of the physicians subsequent to the time when appellee drank the beverage. These entries included statements as to the presence of fragmented glass and fissures discovered during rectal examinations of appellee.

The only substantial question presented by this appeal is whether the records of examinations made by one of several physicians engaged in group practice may be received in evidence under the Federal Shop Book Rule upon being identified by a physician having access to the records and familiar with the procedures by which they were regularly kept. The physician who made the examination and the entries was not called as a witness.

Appellant’s reliance on New York Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 1944, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 66, 147 F.2d 297, is misplaced. The case at bar does not present the issue involved in the Taylor case which dealt with the application of the Shop Book Rule to a hospital record containing an expression of opinion as to the existence of a psychoneurotic condition—a medical conclusion based on observation and in a field where competent experts very often disagree.

Although it was held in Taylor that the Shop Book Rule did not apply to a record of such a nature, this court also stated “Regularly recorded facts as to the patient’s condition or treatment on which the observations of competent physicians would not differ are of the same character as records of sales or payrolls.” 79 U.S.App.D.C. 66, 72, 147 F.2d 297, 303. The present case concerns the recording by a physician of his observations of physical facts as plain to the trained eye as a compound fracture, 3 and upon which competent physicians would not be likely to disagree.

Appellant has requested that appellee be taxed the cost of the portions of the stenographic transcript, prepared pursuant to appellee’s counter-designation of the record in the trial court, which are not relevant to the issues on appeal, and which appellee did not seek to make a part of the Joint Appendix. We feel that the cost of transcribing these additional proceedings should be taxed against the appellee, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 75(e), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C., and it will be so ordered.

We have examined the other contentions of the appellant and find no error affecting substantial rights.

Affirmed.

. 28 U.S.C. § 1732 (1952).

. Wickman v. Bohle, 1938, 173 Md. 694, 196 A. 326. See Ulm v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 2 Cir., 1940, 115 F.2d 492, certiorari denied 1941, 313 U.S. 567, 61 S.Ct. 941, 85 L.Ed. 1525 (record admitted showing a deviation of the nasal septum); Adler v. New York Life Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 1929, 33 F.2d 827 (record admitted showing ulcers); cf. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 1946, 81 U.S.App. D.C. 331, 158 F.2d 328.