"In modern medicine, diagnosis and treatment is frequently a complex matter requiring the physician to consult with physicians in other specialties. After distilling the information from these consulting physicians, the treating physician comes to his conclusion as to the diagnosis and/or treatment to be rendered. The reports of these consultants are typically contained in the treating physician's filed." Thomas A. Moore, "The Admissibility of Physician's Office Records," NYLJ, June 6, 1995, p. 3, col. 1.

This observation was made in the context of a thoughtful discussion of case law discussing the admissibility of the contents of a physician's office records, including his discussion of the First Department's decision in Freeman v. Kirkland, 184 A.D.2d 331 (1^st Dep't 1992) ("Freeman I"). As attorney Moore concludes, this decision holds that when a treating physician's file containing reports from the consultants is admitted into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, CPLR 4518(a), those reports are admissible as well, provided only that the reports were germane to diagnosis and treatment to the patient. Judicial commentators have agreed with this observation, albeit while questioning the correctness under New York evidence law of the Freeman holding. See, Hon. Marcy S. Friedman, "Clarifying Evidentiary Rules on Contents of Reports by Physicians Could Give Jurors More Information," NYSBA Journal, January 2002, p. 33, 36-37; Hon. John M. Curran, "Issues Involving Medical Records as Evidence at Trial," NYSBA Journal, November/December 2014, p. 36, 38-39. (I acknowledge that these two commentaries, and that of attorney Moore, have greatly informed this column.)