Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-174 (2026)

Admissibility of records and reports of certain expert witnesses as business entries

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In all actions for the recovery of damages for personal injuries or death, (1) if a physician, dentist, chiropractor, naturopath, physical therapist, podiatrist, psychologist, social worker, mental health professional, emergency medical technician, optometrist, physician assistant, advanced practice registered nurse, professional engineer or land surveyor has died prior to the trial of the action, or (2) if such physician, dentist, chiropractor, naturopath, physical therapist, podiatrist, psychologist, social worker, mental health professional, emergency medical technician, optometrist, physician assistant, advanced practice registered nurse, professional engineer or land surveyor is physically or mentally disabled at the time of the trial of the action to such an extent that such person is no longer actively engaged in the practice of the profession, the party desiring to offer into evidence the written records and reports of the physician, dentist, chiropractor, naturopath, physical therapist, podiatrist, psychologist, social worker, mental health professional, emergency medical technician, optometrist, physician assistant or advanced practice registered nurse concerning the patient who suffered the injuries or death, or the reports and scale drawings of the professional engineer or land surveyor concerning matters relevant to the circumstances under which the injuries or death was sustained shall apply to the court in which the action is pending for permission to introduce the evidence. Notice of the application shall be served on the adverse party in the same manner as any other pleading. The court to which the application is made shall determine whether the person is disabled to the extent that the person cannot testify in person in the action. Upon the court finding that the person is so disabled, the matters shall be admissible in evidence as a business entry in accordance with the provisions of section 52-180 when offered by any party in the trial of the action.

(b) In all actions for the recovery of damages for personal injuries or death, pending on October 1, 1977, or brought thereafter, and in all court proceedings in family relations matters, as defined in section 46b-1, or in the Family Support Magistrate Division, pending on October 1, 1998, or brought thereafter, and in all other civil actions pending on October 1, 2001, or brought thereafter, any party offering in evidence a signed report and bill for treatment of any treating physician or physician assistant, dentist, chiropractor, naturopath, physical therapist, podiatrist, psychologist, social worker, mental health professional, an emergency medical technician, optometrist or advanced practice registered nurse, may have the report and bill admitted into evidence as a business entry and it shall be presumed that the signature on the report is that of such treating physician, physician assistant, dentist, chiropractor, naturopath, physical therapist, podiatrist, psychologist, social worker, mental health professional, emergency medical technician, optometrist or advanced practice registered nurse and that the report and bill were made in the ordinary course of business. The use of any such report or bill in lieu of the testimony of such treating physician, physician assistant, dentist, chiropractor, naturopath, physical therapist, podiatrist, psychologist, social worker, mental health professional, emergency medical technician, optometrist or advanced practice registered nurse shall not give rise to any adverse inference concerning the testimony or lack of testimony of such treating physician, physician assistant, dentist, chiropractor, naturopath, physical therapist, podiatrist, psychologist, social worker, mental health professional, emergency medical technician, optometrist or advanced practice registered nurse. In any action to which this subsection applies, the total amount of any bill generated by such physician, physician assistant, dentist, chiropractor, naturopath, physical therapist, podiatrist, psychologist, social worker, mental health professional, emergency medical technician, optometrist or advanced practice registered nurse shall be admissible in evidence on the issue of the cost of reasonable and necessary medical care. The calculation of the total amount of the bill shall not be reduced because such physician, physician assistant, dentist, chiropractor, naturopath, physical therapist, podiatrist, psychologist, social worker, mental health professional, emergency medical technician, optometrist or advanced practice registered nurse accepts less than the total amount of the bill or because an insurer pays less than the total amount of the bill.

(c) This section shall not be construed as prohibiting either party or the court from calling the treating physician, dentist, chiropractor, naturopath, physical therapist, podiatrist, psychologist, social worker, mental health professional, emergency medical technician, optometrist, physician assistant or advanced practice registered nurse as a witness for purposes that include, but are not limited to, providing testimony on the reasonableness of a bill for treatment generated by such physician, dentist, chiropractor, naturopath, physical therapist, podiatrist, psychologist, social worker, mental health professional, emergency medical technician, optometrist, physician assistant or advanced practice registered nurse.

(1957, P.A. 414; February, 1965, P.A. 235; 1967, P.A. 656, S. 40; 848; 1969, P.A. 215; 1972, P.A. 24; P.A. 77-226; P.A. 78-140; P.A. 82-160, S. 78; P.A. 84-101; P.A. 89-153; P.A. 94-158, S. 1; P.A. 95-42; P.A. 98-81, S. 8; P.A. 99-102, S. 48; P.A. 01-15; P.A. 08-48, S. 1; P.A. 12-142, S. 3; P.A. 14-37, S. 1.)

History: 1965 act added provisions re professional engineers; 1967 acts added Subdiv. (2) re use of written records as testimony where physician, dentist or engineer has impairment of mental faculties which prevents him from testifying and specified evidence consisting of reports, records, etc. is admissible “as a business entry in accordance with the provisions of section 52-180”; 1969 act applied provisions to chiropractors, osteopaths and land surveyors; 1972 act applied provisions to naturopaths and revised provisions to allow use of records, etc. when person is either physically or mentally disabled “to such an extent that he is no longer actively engaged in the practice of his profession” and to make court responsible for determining if person is disabled so that he cannot testify where previously use of records allowed if person was judged mentally unfit to testify upon determination of hospital superintendent; P.A. 77-226 added Subsec. (b) re use of signed report and bill for services as evidence in actions for recovery of damages for personal injury or death; P.A. 78-140 restated Subsec. (b), specifying that report signature is presumed to be that of treating physician, dentist, etc. and the report and bill are presumed to have been made in ordinary course of business and deleting details re subpoena of medical expert; P.A. 82-160 amended Subsec. (a) by deleting provisions stating that the section was applicable to actions “pending on October 1, 1957, or which are thereafter brought”, designated the last sentence of Subsec. (b) as a new Subsec. (c), and made minor technical changes to the section; P.A. 84-101 applied provisions to podiatrists; P.A. 89-153 amended Subsec. (b) to add provision that the use of any report or bill in lieu of the testimony of a treating health care provider shall not give rise to any adverse inference re testimony or lack of testimony of such treating health care provider; P.A. 94-158 applied provisions to psychologists, emergency medical technicians and optometrists; P.A. 95-42 applied provisions to physical therapists; P.A. 98-81 amended Subsec. (b) making provisions of section apply to proceedings in family relations matters or in the Family Support Magistrate Division; P.A. 99-102 deleted obsolete references to osteopathy and made technical changes re gender neutrality; P.A. 01-15 amended Subsec. (b) by adding provision re all other civil actions pending on October 1, 2001, or brought thereafter; P.A. 08-48 applied provisions to physician assistants and advanced practice registered nurses and made technical changes; P.A. 12-142 amended Subsecs. (a) and (b) by adding chapter references applicable to licensing of health care providers and making technical changes and, in Subsec. (b), by adding provisions re total amount of bill generated by certain health care providers to be admissible in evidence re cost of medical care and re total amount not to be reduced when provider accepts less than total amount or insurer pays less than total amount, and amended Subsec. (c) by adding provision re certain health care providers may be called to provide testimony on reasonableness of a bill for treatment, effective October 1, 2012, and applicable to all actions pending on or filed on or after that date; P.A. 14-37 amended Subsecs. (a) and (b) by deleting chapter references re licensure or certification and adding references to social worker and mental health professional, and amended Subsec. (c) by adding references to social worker and mental health professional, effective October 1, 2014, and applicable to all actions pending on or filed on or after that date.

Cited. 159 C. 397; 177 C. 677; 211 C. 555; 225 C. 637.

Cited. 5 CA 629; 17 CA 684; 23 CA 468; 24 CA 276; 29 CA 519; 36 CA 737.

Subsec. (b):

Statute not limited to resident medical practitioners. 205 C. 542. Cited. Id., 623; 219 C. 324. Statute not extended to dissolution case. 247 C. 356. Summary process actions are “other civil actions” under Subsec. for purposes of application of the medical treatment records exception to the hearsay rule. 325 C. 394. Medical records that were created in the ordinary course of diagnosing, caring for and treating a patient are admissible under Subsec. even if there was no opportunity to cross-examine the records' author, and to the extent Rhode v. Milla, 287 C. 731, and Millium v. New Milford Hospital, 310 C. 711, suggest that an opportunity for cross-examination is absolute prerequisite for admission of medical records prepared for use in diagnosis, care and treatment of a patient, such proposition is disavowed. 339 C. 495.

Cited. 2 CA 167; 12 CA 632; 38 CA 628; 45 CA 165; Id., 248; 47 CA 46. No adverse inference concerning use of written medical reports is permitted in court's charge to the jury. 65 CA 776. Section does not require that bill for treatment accompany a medical report admitted into evidence; requirements under section re admissibility of report were met where there was evidence that the signatory psychologist had treated the patient and had signed the report. 80 CA 111. Subsec. applies to document on a physician's letterhead, signed by such physician, who is plaintiff's treating physician; plaintiff is not required to lay a foundation under the business record exception in Sec. 52-180. 84 CA 667. Where a party seeks to offer an expert's reports or records into evidence, it is improper for the court to assist in precluding the deposition of an expert. 129 CA 81; judgment affirmed, see 310 C. 711. Medical records authored by a primary care provider who was prohibited from providing any opinion or expert testimony by 38 CFR 14.808, and therefore unavailable for cross-examination at any time, should not have been admitted into evidence. 190 CA 449; judgment reversed, see 339 C. 495.

Cited. 39 CS 301.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 46 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1970–2022 · leading case: Struckman v. Burns, 534 A.2d 888 (Conn. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Struckman v. Burns, 534 A.2d 888 (Conn. 1987). · cites it 24× “The principal issue in this appeal is whether medical reports and bills may be admitted into evidence under General Statutes § 52-174 (b) without testimony from the medical practitioner who prepared them where the medical practitioner resides outside of this state, and,…”

Presidential Vill., LLC v. Phillips, 158 A.3d 772 (Conn. 2017). · cites it 14× “16 The plaintiff argues that the letter was not admissible pursuant to the medical treatment report exception to the hearsay rule provided by General Statutes § 52-174 (b) because that statute is limited to personal injury cases.”

Kilduff v. Adams, Inc., 593 A.2d 478 (Conn. 1991). · cites it 10× “The defendants challenge the admission of this document on two grounds: (1) the trial court improperly relied on General Statutes § 52-174 (b) 26 in admitting the document; *336 and (2) the report did not establish a causal connection based on reasonable medical certainty…”

Seperack v. Solaz, 556 A.2d 175 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989). · cites it 30× “I The plaintiff’s first claim is that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it could draw an adverse inference from the fact that he failed to call as witnesses his treating physicians, whose reports had been submitted into evidence pursuant to General Statutes §…”

Calcano v. Calcano, 777 A.2d 633 (Conn. 2001). · cites it 12× “Specifically, the plaintiff claims that: (1) the office notes and transcription were inadmissible hearsay evidence to which the business records exception; General Statutes § 52-180; 3 did not *233 apply; (2) the notes and transcription did not satisfy the admissibility…”

Doe v. Rapoport, 833 A.2d 926 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 18× “On appeal, the defendants claim that (1) the court improperly found that the affidavit on which the court based its judgment was sufficient to establish probable cause under General Statutes § 52-278d, (2) the court improperly admitted into evidence a medical report pursuant to…”

Marandino v. Prometheus Pharmacy, 986 A.2d 1023 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 9× “For purposes of convenience, references herein to § 52-174 are to the current revision of the statute.”

Bruneau v. Seabrook, 854 A.2d 818 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 17× “On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly (1) admitted into evidence a certain letter pursuant to General Statutes § 52-174 (b) and (2) denied their motion for remittitur with respect to the jury’s award of noneconomic damages.”

DeMaria v. Bridgeport, 339 Conn. 477 (Conn. 2021). · cites it 35× “Rosen filed a brief for the Connecticut Veter- ans Legal Center as amicus curiae. Opinion ROBINSON, C.”

Rhode v. Milla, 949 A.2d 1227 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 14× “3 On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly: (1) admitted into evidence bills from Richard Fogel, the plaintiffs chiropractor, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-174 (b); 4 and (2) precluded the defendants from introducing Fogel’s invocation of the fifth…”

Marandino v. Prometheus Pharmacy, 939 A.2d 591 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 12× “A The defendants argue that the medical report authored by Santoro in which he opined that the plaintiffs knee injury was causally related to her arm injury was not a medical report for purposes of General Statutes § 52-174 (b) and, as such, should not have been admitted into…”

Aspiazu v. Orgera, 535 A.2d 338 (Conn. 1987). · cites it 9× “Instead, the plaintiff sought to introduce the doctor’s report under General Statutes § 52-174 (b), 1 which permits the admission into *626 evidence of any “treating” physician’s report as a business entry.”

Show all 46 citing cases →

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-174(b) — 3 cases

Marandino v. Prometheus Pharmacy, 986 A.2d 1023 (Conn. 2010). “For purposes of convenience, references herein to § 52-174 are to the current revision of the statute.”

Marandino v. Prometheus Pharmacy, 939 A.2d 591 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008). “A The defendants argue that the medical report authored by Santoro in which he opined that the plaintiffs knee injury was causally related to her arm injury was not a medical report for purposes of General Statutes § 52-174 (b) and, as such, should not have been admitted into…”

Rhode v. Milla, 949 A.2d 1227 (Conn. 2008). “3 On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly: (1) admitted into evidence bills from Richard Fogel, the plaintiffs chiropractor, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-174 (b); 4 and (2) precluded the defendants from introducing Fogel’s invocation of the fifth…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.