This, too, then will have to be addressed at the final pre-trial conference. Each party should
be prepared to identify those documents marked for identification at the hearing, or delivered to
the Subpoenaed Records Room at the party's instance, that the party offers as evidence, and each
party should be prepared with any objection to the admission of any document offered by the
other.
As noted above, Plaintiff seeks to preclude "all references to illegal drug use in plaintiff's
medical records," but he only attaches, or refers to, items found in the August 2009 records of
Maimonides Medical Center. The items are of three types: the results of toxicological screening
of Plaintiff's urine, showing "positive" for benzodiazepine, cocaine, and opiate; statements on a
history of cocaine and other drug use; and various notations as to IV drug use or abuse "with
neck injection."
It seems clear that, even without further foundation, the toxicology results are admissible as
part of the certified hospital record. (See CPLR 4518 [c]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Progressive Cas.
Ins. Co., 51 AD3d 1014, 1018 [2d Dept 2008]; Rodriguez v Triborough Bridge &
Tunnel Auth., 276 AD2d 769, 770 [2d Dept 2000]; Martin v City of New York, 275
AD2d 351, 353 [2d Dept 2000].) It may well be that, as Plaintiff contends, the test results as to
benzodiazepine and opiate are explained by the medications he was administered at the hospital,
but some expert other than Plaintiff's counsel must testify to that, and/or that the results are
irrelevant to Plaintiff's alleged injuries. As to cocaine, Dr. Grant, Plaintiff's expert, testified at the
evidentiary hearing as to the relationship between cocaine use and certain injury Plaintiff is
alleging.
[*6]