A. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the written reports or records of blood alcohol tests conducted upon persons receiving medical treatment in a hospital or emergency room are admissible in evidence as a business records exception to the hearsay rule in prosecutions for any violation of § 18.2-266 (driving while intoxicated) or a substantially similar local ordinance, § 18.2-36.1 (involuntary manslaughter resulting from driving while intoxicated), § 18.2-36.2 (involuntary manslaughter resulting from boating while intoxicated), § 18.2-51.4 (maiming resulting from driving while intoxicated), § 18.2-51.5 (maiming resulting from boating while intoxicated), § 29.1-738 (boating while intoxicated), or § 46.2-341.24 (driving a commercial vehicle while intoxicated).
B. The provisions of law pertaining to confidentiality of medical records and medical treatment shall not be applicable to reports or records of blood alcohol tests sought or admitted as evidence under the provisions of this section in prosecutions as specified in subsection A. Owners or custodians of such reports or records may disclose them, in accordance with regulations concerning patient privacy promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, without obtaining consent or authorization for such disclosure. No person who is involved in taking blood or conducting blood alcohol tests shall be liable for civil damages for breach of confidentiality or unauthorized release of medical records because of the evidentiary use of blood alcohol test results under this section, or as a result of that person's testimony given pursuant to this section.
2002, c. 749; 2005, c. 801; 2007, cc. 379, 679.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2023 · leading case:
Stevens v. Commonwealth, 616 S.E.2d 754 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
Stevens v. Commonwealth, 616 S.E.2d 754 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 8× “Appellant concedes that Code § 19.2-187.02 [10] addresses the hearsay nature of the hospital records, but contends that it does not overcome or eliminate the requirements that admission of scientific evidence must be based on a proper foundation.”
Stevens v. Commonwealth, 603 S.E.2d 642 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 12× “Appellant concedes that Code § 19.2-187.02 [7] addresses the hearsay nature of the hospital records, but that it does not overcome or eliminate the requirements for admission of scientific evidence on a proper foundation.”
Stevens v. Com., 634 S.E.2d 305 (Va. 2006).
· cites it 4× “Moreover, Stevens' conduct and statements showed that he was highly intoxicated at the time of the collision. Therefore, we conclude that any error in permitting Dr.”
Commonwealth v. Freeman, 80 Va. Cir. 554 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 17× “Poston This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Declare Va. Code § 19.2-187.02 Unconstitutional. The question before the Court is whether Virginia Code § 19.”
Vatter v. Woodson (W.D. Va. 2022).
· cites it 2× “He notes that Virginia Code § 19.2-187.02 authorizes admission, under the business records exception, of blood alcohol tests conducted by a hospital for purposes of treating the patient, but this statute only applies in cases charged under seven different statutes related to…”
Commonwealth v. Parks, 79 Va. Cir. 376 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 3× “Defendant cites Va. Code § 19.2-187.02(B) in support of his motion.”
Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-187.02(A): 2 cases
Stevens v. Com., 634 S.E.2d 305 (Va. 2006).
“Moreover, Stevens' conduct and statements showed that he was highly intoxicated at the time of the collision. Therefore, we conclude that any error in permitting Dr.”
Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-187.02(B): 1 case
Commonwealth v. Parks, 79 Va. Cir. 376 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2009).
“Defendant cites Va. Code § 19.2-187.02(B) in support of his motion.”
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.