NY Ruling on Medical Record Evidence Makes Admission Easier

A new NY ruling on medical record evidence could make it easier for defendants and insurers to admit accident-related medical record entries in court. The New York Appellate Division, Second Department, issued a decision on July 30, 2025, in Pillco v. 160 Dikeman St. LLC, that clarified when statements in hospital or medical records are admissible as evidence.  

This ruling is rather significant because medical records often contain details that contradict the plaintiff’s claims. Such entries can play a crucial role in defense strategies; however, that would only be if the courts allow them into evidence.  

Why the NY Ruling on Medical Record Evidence Matters 

Usually, statements in hospital records are blocked as “hearsay.” For quite a few years, New York courts only allowed them in if they were directly tied to diagnosis or treatment. The problem however, was that judges disagreed on what “tied to treatment” really meant.  

This new NY ruling on medical record evidence clears things up. The court explained that: 

• Details about how an accident happened can matter to a doctor’s treatment decisions. 
• If it’s not clear, expert testimony may be needed to prove why the statement was important for treatment. 
• If the record itself makes it obvious the patient gave the information, that’s usually enough. 

The Pillco Case Example 

In the case of Pillco, the plaintiff had claimed that he fell off a ladder. However, his medical records showed another story, which said that he felt a pull in his back and shoulder while on the ladder.  

The defense took the opportunity to use this record to challenge his claim. According to the court, the statement was admissible because it helped doctors understand the injury and decide how to treat it. This ruling gave the defense a stronger position in the case.  

Different Courts, Different Rules 

Not all of the New York courts agree on the process.  

• Second Department (Pillco case): If the record clearly shows the plaintiff made the statement, it can be admitted without extra testimony. 
• First Department (Mosqueda case): Always requires testimony from the person who wrote the recorded entry. 

Due to this split, the New York Court of Appeals might step in at some point to set one rule for everyone.  

Why This Ruling Matters for Attorneys and Insurers 

The NY ruling on medical record evidence is nothing less than a win for defendants. This means:  

• Medical records that contradict a plaintiff’s story are more likely to be allowed in court. 
• Defense attorneys can use these records to challenge credibility. 
• Insurers gain leverage in settlement talks if the plaintiff’s medical records weaken their case. 

Bottom Line 

The Second Department’s decision in Pillco v. 160 Dikeman St. LLC makes it easier to admit key medical record evidence in New York. While the split between departments needs to be resolved by the state’s highest court, this case gives defense lawyers and insurers stronger tools to fight injury claims.