Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 16
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 16, § 357 (2026)

Hospital records and copies of records

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Records kept by hospitals and other medical facilities licensed under the laws of this State and records which the court finds are required to be kept by the laws of any other state or territory, or the District of Columbia, or by the laws and regulations of the United States of America pertaining to the Department of National Defense and the Veterans Administration, by hospitals and other medical facilities similarly conducted or operated or which, being incorporate, offer treatment free of charge, shall be admissible, as evidence in the courts of this State so far as such records relate to the treatment and medical history of such cases and the court shall admit copies of such records, if certified by the persons in custody thereof to be true and complete, but nothing therein contained shall be admissible as evidence which has reference to the question of liability. Copies of photographic or microphotographic records so kept by hospitals and medical facilities, when duly certified by the person in charge of the hospital and other medical facility, shall be admitted in evidence equally with the original photographs or microphotographs.   [PL 1973, c. 788, §66 (AMD).]
Notwithstanding this section, the result of a laboratory or any other test kept by a hospital or other medical facility that reflects an alcohol level, a detectable urine-drug level, a detectable blood-drug level or a drug concentration of either blood or urine may not be excluded as evidence in a criminal or civil proceeding by reason of any claim of confidentiality or privilege and may be admitted as long as the result is relevant and reliable evidence if the proceeding is one in which the operator of a motor vehicle, snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle or watercraft is alleged to have operated under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs and the court is satisfied that probable cause exists to believe that the operator committed the offense charged.   [PL 2011, c. 335, §1 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1969, c. 384 (NEW). PL 1973, c. 788, §66 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 791, §3 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 477, §26 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 63, §1 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 447, §17 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 335, §1 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2021 · leading case: State v. Jones, 203 A.3d 816 (Me. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Jones, 203 A.3d 816 (Me. 2019). · cites it 10× “Over Jones's objections at trial, the court, pursuant to 16 M.R.S. § 357 (2018), admitted a portion of a report of a sexual assault forensic examination (SAFE) performed on the adult female victim upon her arrival at Maine General Hospital.”
State of Maine v. Arthur J. Jones, 2019 ME 33 (Me. 2019). · cites it 5× “Jones argues that (1) the court erred or abused its discretion in admitting part of the SAFE report because the admitted portion did not satisfy the requirements of Maine Rule of Evidence 803(4) and (2) even if the report were admissible pursuant to a hearsay exception, the…”
State v. Caron, 2011 ME 9 (Me. 2011). · cites it 3× “Over Caron’s objection, the court also admitted certain redacted medical records of Caron and the victim, pursuant to 16 M.R.S. § 357 (2008). 2 [¶ 7] Following deliberation, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all three counts.”
Searles v. Trs. of St. Joseph's Coll., 695 A.2d 1206 (Me. 1997). “Although medical records kept by hospitals and other medical facilities licensed pursuant to the laws of Maine are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, see 16 M.R.S.A. § 357 (Supp.1996); State v. Francis, 610 A.”
In Re Elijah R., 620 A.2d 282 (Me. 1993). “The State offered the AMHI records in evidence pursuant to 16 M.R.S.A. § 357 (Supp.1992), which is in effect an exception to the hearsay rule.”
Robbie M. Nason v. Timothy Pruchnic, 2019 ME 38 (Me. 2019). · cites it 2× “[¶16] Section 357, in its relevant part, states that [r]ecords kept by hospitals and other medical facilities licensed under the laws of this State .”
State v. Francis, 610 A.2d 743 (Me. 1992). · cites it 2× “shall be admissible, as evidence in the courts of this State so far as such records relate to the treatment and medical history of such cases and the court shall admit copies of such records, if certified by the persons in custody thereof to be true and complete, but nothing…”
State v. Archer, 2011 ME 80 (Me. 2011). “See 16 M.R.S. § 357 (2010); M.R. Evid. 803(4), (6).”
State v. Harnisch, 607 A.2d 527 (Me. 1992). “Rather, the tests were administered as part of her hospital treatment, and the results were offered and admitted pursuant to 16 M.R.S.A. § 357 (Supp.1991). That section provides in pertinent part: Notwithstanding this section, the result of a laboratory or any other test kept by…”
Cyr v. Hurd, 554 A.2d 345 (Me. 1989). “Hospital records are admissible under 16 M.R.S.A. § 357 (1983) which provides in relevant part as follows: Records kept by hospitals and other medical facilities licensed under the laws of this State .”
State of Maine v. Goucher (Me. Super. Ct 2018). · cites it 6× “25 The State opposes the motion on the ground that the test results from CMMC are admissible in accordance with 16 M.R.S. §357, which provides in pertinent part: Notwithstanding this section, the result of a laboratory or any other test kept by a hospital or other medical…”
Robbie M. Nason v. Timothy Pruchnic, 2019 ME 38 (Me. 2019). · cites it 2× “Pruchnic asserts that the records were admissible in their entirety pursuant to 16 M.R.S. § 357 (2018), or, alternatively, as facts forming the basis of an expert’s opinion and statements made for medical diagnosis and treatment.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
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.