business records exception in Pennsylvania

2025See In re A.J.R.-H., 188 A.3d 1157, 1167-70 (Pa. 2018) (holding that documentary evidence was inadmissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, see Pa.R.E. 803(6), where an agency witness testified regarding the process of obtaining documents from third parties, but “[n]o witness stated that she was able to speak to the mode of . . . the documents’ preparation, [or] testify that the documents were created at or near the time of the documented event or conversation, or made in the regular practice of the activity”). [J-13A-2025 and J-13B-2025] - 2

2025See N.T., 1/28/25, at 20-21, 24-25; Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (providing for waiver of issues not first raised in lower court); see also Interest of T.M., 239 A.3d 193, 201 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“[O]ur Supreme Court has frequently stressed the necessity of raising claims at the earliest opportunity to eliminate the possibility that an appellate court will be required to expend time and energy reviewing claims on which no trial [court] ruling has been made.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis omitted). - 29 - J-A18010-25 In support of her argument, Mother relies upon A.J.R.-H., supr

2024Wicker involved the business records exception to the hearsay rule, which the Court stated generally requires the custodian to testify that the record was made “at or near the time of the event recorded and the record was kept in the regular course of business.” Id. at 483 (citation and footnote omitted).

2024The specific issue in Wicker was whether the trial court had abused its discretion by allowing a records custodian to “testify to exhibits which included information recorded by a prior loan servicer under the business records exception[.]” Id. at 482 .

2026To establish “circumstantial trustworthiness” of documents under the business records exception, the proponent needs to have an “authenticating witness [who] can provide sufficient information relating to the preparation and maintenance of the records to justify a presumption of trustworthiness of the business records of a company.” In re Indyk’s Estate, 413 A.2d 371, 373 (Pa. 1979).

2026For purpose of the business records exception, a “qualified person” is an individual who is able to “provide sufficient information relating to the preparation and maintenance of the records to justify a presumption of trustworthiness[.]” Keystone Dedicated Logistics, LLC v. JGB Enter., Inc., 77 A.3d 1, 13 (Pa. Super. 2013) (original quotation marks and citation omitted); see also In re Indyk’s Est., 413 A.2d 371, 373 (Pa. 1979).

2022Williams v. McClain, 1 Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, added by the Act of June 26, 1919, P.L. 642, 77 P.S. § 835. 520 A.2d 1374, 1376-77 (Pa. 1987) (citing Commonwealth v. DiGiacomo, 345 A.2d 605 (Pa. 1975)); see also Pa.R.E. 803(6), cmt. (noting that the business records exception “applies to records of an act, event or condition, but does not include opinions and diagnoses”).

2018In fact, several of the documents were ineligible for admission under the business records exception at all, as they contained statements of diagnosis and/or opinion, thus requiring the scrivener to testify. 17 See Williams v. McClain, 513 Pa. 300 , 520 A.2d 1374 , 1376-77 (1987) (records containing opinion evidence or statements of diagnoses are inadmissible under the business records exception); Pa.R.E. 803(6), Comment.

2018See also In re Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights (Jones), 449 Pa. 543 , 297 A.2d 117 , 121 (1972) (" Jones") (holding that the admission of a written statement prepared by a non-testifying physician regarding the mother's parental incapacity at a termination hearing was inadmissible hearsay and that the business records exception was inapplicable).

2018See also In re Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights (Jones), 449 Pa. 543 , 297 A.2d 117 , 121 (1972) (" Jones") (holding that the admission of a written statement prepared by a non-testifying physician regarding the mother's parental incapacity at a termination hearing was inadmissible hearsay and that the business records exception was inapplicable).

2023Kilgore v. State, 763 S.E.2d 685 (Ga. 2014) (addressing whether the trial court erred in admitting cell phone records pursuant to the business records exception, without addressing the threshold hearsay issue); Commonwealth v. McEnany, 732 A.2d 1263, 1273 (Pa. Super. 1999) (concluding that “the trial court properly exercised its discretionary power, within the Uniform Business Records Act, regarding the admission of the phone records” without addressing the threshold hearsay issue).; U.S. v. Bonomolo, 566 Fed.

2023See Kilgore, 763 S.E.2d at 687 (holding that cell phone records “were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule”); McEnany, 732 A.2d at 1273 (“[W]e are satisfied that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to justify a presumption of the trustworthiness of [the cell phone records] so as to offset the hearsay character of the evidence.”) (emphasis added); Bonomolo, 556 Fed.Appx. at 73 (“Rule 803(6) creates an exception to the hearsay rule”).

1995“A medical report is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule if the report: (1) was made contemporaneously with the events it purports to relate, (2) at the time the report was prepared, it was impossible to anticipate reasons which might arise in the future for making a false entry in the original, and (3) the person responsible for the statements contained in the report is known.” Isaacson v. Mobil Propane Corp., 315 Pa. Super. 42, 49 , 461 A.2d 625, 629 (1983).

1995“A medical report is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule if the report: (1) was made contemporaneously with the events it purports to relate, (2) at the time the report was prepared, it was impossible to anticipate reasons which might arise in the future for making a false entry in the original, and (3) the person responsible for the statements contained in the report is known.” Isaacson v. Mobil Propane Corp., 315 Pa. Super. 42, 49 , 461 A.2d 625, 629 (1983).

2022Commonwealth v. McCloud, [ 457 Pa. 310 ], 322 A.2d 653 (1974).[16] See also Commonwealth v. Carter, 861 A.2d 957 ([Pa.Super.] 2004)[17]- standing for the principle that opinions, diagnoses and conclusions contained in hospital or medical records are not admissible under the business records exception. *** ____________________________________________ 16 In McCloud, our Supreme Court held “that in a homicide prosecution, evidentiary use, as a business records exception to the hearsay rule, of an autopsy report in proving legal causation is impermissible unless the accused is afforded the opportu

2022Commonwealth v. McCloud, [ 457 Pa. 310 ], 322 A.2d 653 (1974).[16] See also Commonwealth v. Carter, 861 A.2d 957 ([Pa.Super.] 2004)[17]- standing for the principle that opinions, diagnoses and conclusions contained in hospital or medical records are not admissible under the business records exception. *** ____________________________________________ 16 In McCloud, our Supreme Court held “that in a homicide prosecution, evidentiary use, as a business records exception to the hearsay rule, of an autopsy report in proving legal causation is impermissible unless the accused is afforded the opportu

2024Appeal Bd. (USX Corp.), 737 A.2d 838, 841 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999).

2004Claimant contends several errors were committed by the WCJ: first, exhibits submitted by the Company during Claimant’s deposition were not properly authenticated; second, the sustained hearsay objections to portions of Claimant’s deposition testimony were in error; third, the WCJ erroneously failed to conclude the Decedent was an officer and employee of the Company by operation of law and fact. 4 Claimant contends that the two faxes dated May 30, 2000, and May 81, 2000 (Guthrie Exhibit D-1) submitted by the Company during Claimant’s deposition were hearsay because they were not properly authen

2024Pa.R.E. 902(11). - 13 - J-S42035-23 Under the business records exception, “hospital records are admissible to show the fact of hospitalization, treatment prescribed, and symptoms given.” Commonwealth v. DiGiacomo, 345 A.2d 605, 608 (Pa. 1975).

2022Williams v. McClain, 1 Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, added by the Act of June 26, 1919, P.L. 642, 77 P.S. § 835. 520 A.2d 1374, 1376-77 (Pa. 1987) (citing Commonwealth v. DiGiacomo, 345 A.2d 605 (Pa. 1975)); see also Pa.R.E. 803(6), cmt. (noting that the business records exception “applies to records of an act, event or condition, but does not include opinions and diagnoses”).

2023Sys., Inc. v. Smith, 15 A.3d 492, 499 (Pa. Super. 2011) (finding that computer-generated billing statements and account information were not admissible under the business records exception where the proponent of the evidence failed to “establish circumstantial trustworthiness”). 41 While the Majority suggests that “advancements in software systems may eventually call into question the efficacy of our hearsay and perhaps other evidentiary rules,” Maj.

2014Moreover, Appellant cited to Commonwealth Financial Systems v. Smith, 15 A.3d 492 (Pa. Super. 2011), wherein a panel from this Court refused “to adopt the federal ‘rule of incorporation[,]’ which provides that the record a business takes custody of is ‘made’ by the [acquiring] business” for purposes of the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

2023Accordingly, the GPS data here are more akin to the phone records that were admitted in McEnany37 than they are to, for instance, results from a state police crime lab. 38 34 Melendez-Diaz, 557 U.S. at 321-22 (cleaned up); see contra Commonwealth v. May, 898 A.2d 559, 565 (Pa. 2006) (admitting a police report under the business records exception). 35 Palmer, 318 U.S. at 114 . 36 Tr.

2004However, "[r]ecords prepared in anticipation of litigation traditionally have been deemed outside the reach of the business records exception." State of Wisconsin v. Williams, 253 Wis.2d 99 , 644 N.W.2d 919, 929 (2002) (citing Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 113-14 , 63 S.Ct. 477 , 87 L.Ed. 645 (1943)).

2022Commonwealth v. McCloud, [ 457 Pa. 310 ], 322 A.2d 653 (1974).[16] See also Commonwealth v. Carter, 861 A.2d 957 ([Pa.Super.] 2004)[17]- standing for the principle that opinions, diagnoses and conclusions contained in hospital or medical records are not admissible under the business records exception. *** ____________________________________________ 16 In McCloud, our Supreme Court held “that in a homicide prosecution, evidentiary use, as a business records exception to the hearsay rule, of an autopsy report in proving legal causation is impermissible unless the accused is afforded the opportu

2022Commonwealth v. McCloud, [ 457 Pa. 310 ], 322 A.2d 653 (1974).[16] See also Commonwealth v. Carter, 861 A.2d 957 ([Pa.Super.] 2004)[17]- standing for the principle that opinions, diagnoses and conclusions contained in hospital or medical records are not admissible under the business records exception. *** ____________________________________________ 16 In McCloud, our Supreme Court held “that in a homicide prosecution, evidentiary use, as a business records exception to the hearsay rule, of an autopsy report in proving legal causation is impermissible unless the accused is afforded the opportu

2010This Court noted that, in the criminal context, medical information may be admissible under the business records exception for the “legit *110 imate purpose of establishing the fact of hospitalization and the treatment given,” but not to prove medical opinion as to an essential element of a crime, such as the cause of death. 322 A.2d at 656 (quoting Commonwealth v. Mobley, 450 Pa. 431 , 301 A.2d 622, 624 (1973)).

2010This Court noted that, in the criminal context, medical information may be admissible under the business records exception for the “legit *110 imate purpose of establishing the fact of hospitalization and the treatment given,” but not to prove medical opinion as to an essential element of a crime, such as the cause of death. 322 A.2d at 656 (quoting Commonwealth v. Mobley, 450 Pa. 431 , 301 A.2d 622, 624 (1973)).

2025See Commonwealth v. Manivannan, 186 A.3d 472, 480 (Pa. Super. 2018) (recognizing that a document must first satisfy requirements of authentication prior to ruling on its admissibility under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay); see also Commonwealth v. Koch, 106 A.3d 705, 711 (Pa. 2014) - 18 - J-A18043-25 (plurality) (Opinion in Support of Affirmance) (“[I]f proffered evidence fails an authentication challenge, meaning that its proponent cannot prove that the evidence is what the proponent claims it to be, the evidence cannot be admitted, regardless of its potential rele

2025See Commonwealth v. Manivannan, 186 A.3d 472, 480 (Pa. Super. 2018) (recognizing that a document must first satisfy requirements of authentication prior to ruling on its admissibility under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay); see also Commonwealth v. Koch, 106 A.3d 705, 711 (Pa. 2014) (if proponent cannot ____________________________________________ (6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity.

2025Appellants argue the map was inadmissible hearsay and did not satisfy the business records exception to the hearsay rule.4 Rather, Appellants assert, EQT “created [the map] solely for this ____________________________________________ 4 “[A] motion for summary judgment cannot be supported or defeated by statements that contain inadmissible hearsay evidence.” Bezjak v. Diamond, 135 A.3d 623, 631 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2024Because we consider the nonsuit as a grant of summary judgment, we note that “a motion for summary judgment cannot be supported or defeated by statements that contain inadmissible hearsay evidence.” Bezjak v. Diamond, 135 A.3d 623, 631 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2025Folger v. Dugan, 876 A.2d 1049 , (Pa. Super. 2005), for the proposition that medical records are admissible under the business records exception to the general rule against the admission of hearsay to prove facts, though not medical opinions or diagnoses.

2025See Appellant’s Brief, at 23 (citing Dugan, 876 A.2d at 1055 ). ____________________________________________ 4 King argues the trial court erred in excluding Plaintiff Trial Exhibits 23 (Lackawanna Insurance Group Acknowledgment of a Workers’ Compensation Claim), 24 (King’s Medical Records), and 36 (King’s Petition for Appeal to Unemployment Compensation Board of Review).

2025See Commonwealth v. Manivannan, 186 A.3d 472, 480 (Pa. Super. 2018) (recognizing that a document must first satisfy requirements of authentication prior to ruling on its admissibility under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay); see also Commonwealth v. Koch, 106 A.3d 705, 711 (Pa. 2014) - 18 - J-A18043-25 (plurality) (Opinion in Support of Affirmance) (“[I]f proffered evidence fails an authentication challenge, meaning that its proponent cannot prove that the evidence is what the proponent claims it to be, the evidence cannot be admitted, regardless of its potential rele

2025See Commonwealth v. Manivannan, 186 A.3d 472, 480 (Pa. Super. 2018) (recognizing that a document must first satisfy requirements of authentication prior to ruling on its admissibility under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay); see also Commonwealth v. Koch, 106 A.3d 705, 711 (Pa. 2014) (if proponent cannot ____________________________________________ (6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity.

2023Accordingly, the GPS data here are more akin to the phone records that were admitted in McEnany37 than they are to, for instance, results from a state police crime lab. 38 34 Melendez-Diaz, 557 U.S. at 321-22 (cleaned up); see contra Commonwealth v. May, 898 A.2d 559, 565 (Pa. 2006) (admitting a police report under the business records exception). 35 Palmer, 318 U.S. at 114 . 36 Tr.

2021See Commonwealth v. May, 195, 898 A.2d 559 , 565 n.12 (Pa. 2006).

2010The plaintiff raised a number of grounds in the following respective paragraphs of its concise statement in contending error in the preclusion of the foregoing evidence, to wit: (b) that the evidence was admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule set forth in Pa.R.E. 803(6); 8 (c) that Mr. Venditti’s testimony regarding the plaintiff’s trial exhibits was that of a “witness with knowledge” pursuant to Pa.R.E. 901(b)(1); 9 (d) that the exhibits are self-authenticating pursuant to Pa.R.E. 902(7), 10 because they bear trademarks and inscriptions affixed by Citibank; and (e

2010The plaintiff raised a number of grounds in the following respective paragraphs of its concise statement in contending error in the preclusion of the foregoing evidence, to wit: (b) that the evidence was admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule set forth in Pa.R.E. 803(6); 8 (c) that Mr. Venditti’s testimony regarding the plaintiff’s trial exhibits was that of a “witness with knowledge” pursuant to Pa.R.E. 901(b)(1); 9 (d) that the exhibits are self-authenticating pursuant to Pa.R.E. 902(7), 10 because they bear trademarks and inscriptions affixed by Citibank; and (e

2010Also, in Commonwealth v. Kravontka, 384 Pa.Super. 346 , 558 A.2d 865 (1989), we held that admission of a blood test by way of the business records exception for the purpose of proving driving under the influence of alcohol did not violate the Confrontation Clause. 7 Carter and Kravontka *370 both turned aside Confrontation Clause challenges and admitted “testimonial” lab reports under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

2010Also, in Commonwealth v. Kravontka, 384 Pa.Super. 346 , 558 A.2d 865 (1989), we held that admission of a blood test by way of the business records exception for the purpose of proving driving under the influence of alcohol did not violate the Confrontation Clause. 7 Carter and Kravontka *370 both turned aside Confrontation Clause challenges and admitted “testimonial” lab reports under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

2004Karch, 502 A.2d at 1361 . ¶ 6 Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Kravontka, 384 Pa.Super. 346 , 558 A.2d 865, 866 (1989), we were confronted with an issue directly analogous to that articulated by the majority: whether admission of blood alcohol test results, pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule and without the presence of the lab technician who performed the blood analysis, violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.

2004Karch, 502 A.2d at 1361 . ¶ 6 Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Kravontka, 384 Pa.Super. 346 , 558 A.2d 865, 866 (1989), we were confronted with an issue directly analogous to that articulated by the majority: whether admission of blood alcohol test results, pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule and without the presence of the lab technician who performed the blood analysis, violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.

2026See In re Gillen, 344 A.2d 706, 525-26 (Pa. Super. 1975) (determining that estimates of repairs for cars were hearsay and did not fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule).

2002Schaefer argues that the hearsay estimates did not fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule, citing In re Gillen, 236 Pa.Super. 521 , 344 A.2d 706 (1975) (holding that estimates of costs to repair damaged automobiles, not authenticated by the authors or identified by those who requested them did not fall within business records exception), or any other exception under Pa. R.E. 803.

2026For purpose of the business records exception, a “qualified person” is an individual who is able to “provide sufficient information relating to the preparation and maintenance of the records to justify a presumption of trustworthiness[.]” Keystone Dedicated Logistics, LLC v. JGB Enter., Inc., 77 A.3d 1, 13 (Pa. Super. 2013) (original quotation marks and citation omitted); see also In re Indyk’s Est., 413 A.2d 371, 373 (Pa. 1979).

2019Keystone Dedicated Logistics, Inc. v. JGB Enters., Inc. , 77 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2013).

2023Kilgore v. State, 763 S.E.2d 685 (Ga. 2014) (addressing whether the trial court erred in admitting cell phone records pursuant to the business records exception, without addressing the threshold hearsay issue); Commonwealth v. McEnany, 732 A.2d 1263, 1273 (Pa. Super. 1999) (concluding that “the trial court properly exercised its discretionary power, within the Uniform Business Records Act, regarding the admission of the phone records” without addressing the threshold hearsay issue).; U.S. v. Bonomolo, 566 Fed.

2023Aug. 29, 2022) (non-precedential decision) (admitting cell phone records under the business records exception). 17 See Turner v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 899 A.2d 381 , 386- 87 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) 18 See Kilgore v. State, 763 S.E.2d 685, 687 (Ga. 2014) (holding that phone records were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule); Ga. Code Ann. § 24-8-801 (defining “statement” as the “oral or written assertion or nonverbal conduct of a person”) (cleaned up) (emphasis added); People v. McDaniel, 670 N.W.2d 659, 661 (Mich. 2003) (“The laboratory report at is

2023Kilgore v. State, 763 S.E.2d 685 (Ga. 2014) (addressing whether the trial court erred in admitting cell phone records pursuant to the business records exception, without addressing the threshold hearsay issue); Commonwealth v. McEnany, 732 A.2d 1263, 1273 (Pa. Super. 1999) (concluding that “the trial court properly exercised its discretionary power, within the Uniform Business Records Act, regarding the admission of the phone records” without addressing the threshold hearsay issue).; U.S. v. Bonomolo, 566 Fed.

2023Aug. 29, 2022) (non-precedential decision) (admitting cell phone records under the business records exception). 17 See Turner v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 899 A.2d 381 , 386- 87 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) 18 See Kilgore v. State, 763 S.E.2d 685, 687 (Ga. 2014) (holding that phone records were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule); Ga. Code Ann. § 24-8-801 (defining “statement” as the “oral or written assertion or nonverbal conduct of a person”) (cleaned up) (emphasis added); People v. McDaniel, 670 N.W.2d 659, 661 (Mich. 2003) (“The laboratory report at is

2019Similarly, in U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Pautenis , 118 A.3d 386 (Pa. Super. 2015), the Superior Court again considered application of the business records exception under Rule 803(6) and the Act and applied the test originally set forth in In re Indyk's Estate.

2017See U.S. Bank, N.A., 118 A.3d at 401 .