“Unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness and subject to the provisions of Chapter 7 of this title, a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, if (A) made at or near the time of the described acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses; (B) made by, or from information transmitted by, a person with personal knowledge and a business duty to report; (C) kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity; and (D) it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness or by certification that complies with paragraph (11) or (12) of Code Section 24-9-902 or by any other statute permitting certification. The term “business” as used in this paragraph includes any business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit…”
OCGA § 24-9-902(11) provides that “[t]he original or a duplicate of a domestic record of regularly conducted activity that would be admissible under paragraph (6) of Code Section 24-8-803 if accompanied by a written declaration of its custodian or other qualified person certifying that the record … was made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of such matters; [w]as kept in the course of the regularly conducted activity; and [w]as made by the regularly conducted activity as a regular practice.”
The Court of Appeals held that medical records and opinions are admissible under 803(6) citing the identified Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) as held in Manocchio v. Moran, 919 F.2d 770, 780(I)(D)(2) (1st Cir.1990); see also United States v. Hall, 419 F.3d 980, 987(II)(A) (9th Cir.2005) (holding that medical records from a hospital visit were kept in the ordinary course of business and are “classic exceptions” to the hearsay rule under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6)). Cf. Corbett v. State, 266 Ga. 561, 565, 468 S.E.2d 757 (1996) (noting that under Georgia’s former business exception rule, (3) which unlike OCGA § 24-8-803(6) did not expressly permit opinions, hospital records were admissible to the extent they were made in the regular course of business but would constitute hearsay to the extent they contained opinions of third parties not before the court).