Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 79C (2026)

Statements of fact or opinion in scientific publication; notice of intention to use

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 79C. Statements of facts or opinions on a subject of science or art contained in a published treatise, periodical, book or pamphlet shall, in so far as the court shall find that the said statements are relevant and that the writer of such statements is recognized in his profession or calling as an expert on the subject, be admissible in actions of contract or tort for malpractice, error or mistake against physicians, surgeons, dentists, optometrists, hospitals and sanitaria, as evidence tending to prove said facts or as opinion evidence; provided, however, that the party intending to offer as evidence any such statements shall, not less than thirty days before the trial of the action, give the adverse party or his attorney notice of such intention, stating the name of the writer of the statements, the title of the treatise, periodical, book or pamphlet in which they are contained, the date of publication of the same, the name of the publisher of the same, and wherever possible or practicable the page or pages of the same on which the said statements appear.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 20 cases, 1960–2018 · leading case: Brusard v. O'Toole, 429 Mass. 597 (Mass. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brusard v. O'Toole, 429 Mass. 597 (Mass. 1999). · cites it 11× “387, 396 (1992); and (2) in his refusal to admit the chart under G. L. c. 233, § 79C. Brusard also alleged error in the judge’s exclusion of Brockton Hospital’s written policies and procedures in effect at the time of Kaileigh’s birth.”

Mazzaro v. Paull, 363 N.E.2d 509 (Mass. 1977). · cites it 5× “The plaintiffs did not present evidence bearing on negligence through the testimony of expert witnesses; they rather sought to obtain such evidence by examining the defendant, and also intended to submit statements from various medical treatises or textbooks under G. L. c. 233,…”

Simmons v. Yurchak, 551 N.E.2d 539 (Mass. App. Ct. 1990). · cites it 4× “Admissibility of videotape under G. L. c. 233, § 79C. Precisely what was inducing the fever and aches which afflicted Simmons for some four weeks had not been isolated when his stroke occurred.”

Jasper v. Tomaiolo, 479 N.E.2d 705 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985). · cites it 3× “Moreover, despite the existence of G. L. c. 233, § 79C, a statute allowing the admission of medical treatises, their use in Massachusetts is “significantly restricted.”

Commonwealth v. Reese, 781 N.E.2d 1225 (Mass. 2003). “Similarly, the articles are not admissible as “learned treatises” under G. L. c. 233, § 79C, which only provides for the admission of treatises or periodicals “in actions of contract or tort for malpractice, error or mistake against physicians, surgeons, dentists, optometrists,…”

Commonwealth v. Sneed, 597 N.E.2d 1346 (Mass. 1992). “803 (18), which allows the admission of certain learned treatises, although hearsay, in certain circumstances.”

Salem Orthopedic Surgeons, Inc. v. Quinn, 386 N.E.2d 1268 (Mass. 1979). “69; G. L. c. 233, § 79C; G. L. *517 c. 260, § 4.”

Brusard v. O'Toole, 697 N.E.2d 1000 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 5× “The plaintiffs contend that the portion of the text itself was admissible under G. L. c. 233, § 79C, and that, in any event, pursuant to Proposed Massachusetts Rule of Evidence 803(18), they should have been permitted to use the text portion to cross-examine Dr.”

Fall River Sav. Bank v. Callahan, 463 N.E.2d 555 (Mass. App. Ct. 1984). “See also G. L. c. 233, § 79C. Of the many areas of law practice, conveyancing is one which lends itself particularly to formulation through decisional law and commentary as to what are appropriate procedures.”

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 794 N.E.2d 1214 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003). “The book was also “never established as reliable or authoritative, contain[ed] nothing but inadmissible hearsay, and [did] not satisfy any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.”

Rice v. James Hanrahan & Sons, 482 N.E.2d 833 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985). “Massachusetts does not currently recognize that exception, see Liacos, Massachusetts Evidence at 352-353, except as authorized under G. L. c. 233, § 79C, in medical malpractice cases.”

Kace v. Liang, 36 N.E.3d 1215 (Mass. 2015). “§ 803(18)(B), and do not consider G. L. c. 233, § 79C, or Mass. G. Evid. § 803(18)(A), both of which permit admission of qualifying treatises and periodicals in medical malpractice actions so long as a party gives notice of the intent to offer such evidence at least thirty days…”

Show all 20 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.