Are medical records, without the presence of a doctor, admissible as evidence in court?

Answer 1

yes they can be if you understand them and can explain them to the judge but a doc would help

Answer 2

For documents to be admissible in court you have to 'validate' them in some way first. That is to say, you either have to bring in someone from the doctor's office to testify that the records came from their files and they are a true and correct. But many times it only takes for the other side (plaintiff or defendant) to stipulate (agree) that the records are acceptable and not suspect, and this allows you to skip past the subpoena process for documents. Medical records in particular though are covered by privacy laws, and you'll need a subpoena for something like that. And either you attorney will assist you with it, or if your representing yourself, you will need a judge's approval to subpoena medical records. You just can't do it on your own unless it can be shown it's very relevant to the case.

Answer 3

It depends on the Court. If its a small claims court or general city court, then yes. If its a Supreme Court or general trial court...then probably not. You need to have someone who either prepared the document or is responsible for maintaining the document testify about what the document actually is. Its referred to as establishing a "foundation" for the document and is required by most rules of evidence. The foundation is not always established by a doctor.

Answer 4

All that is needed is a court order
You may want to check with your court system your state may be different
Each state has an information line with a real person to speak to or ask your Dr.

Answer 5

yep. but if he Dx is not straightforward, then you'll need a professional there to explain them.

Answer 6

yes, in some cases.

Answer 7

If they're subpoenaed, yes.