As to Exhibits A, F, G, J and K, employee offered each of these exhibits into evidence pursuant to the provisions of Section 287.210.7 RSMo. As to each of these exhibits, employer/insurer made several objections, to wit: that none of them satisfied the statutory requirements set forth in sections 287.210 .5 and 7 RSMo; there was not sufficient foundation established for their admissibility to overcome hearsay objections; none of the exhibits satisfied the provisions of section 287.140.7 RSMo concerning admission of certifying treating records of physicians; and none of these exhibits satisfied the business records provision of section 490.680 RSMo, permitting their admission into evidence.
Section 287.210.7 RSMo provides in part as follows:
"The testimony of a treating or examining physician may be submitted in evidence on the issues in controversy by a complete medical report and shall be admissible without other foundational evidence subject to compliance with the following procedures. The party intending to submit a complete medical report in evidence shall give notice at least sixty days prior to the hearing to all parties and shall provide reasonable opportunity to all parties to obtain cross-examination testimony of the physician by deposition. The notice shall include a copy of the report and all the clinical and treatment records of the physician including copies of all records and reports received by the physician from other health care providers."
Section 287.210.5 RSMo provides in part as follows:
"As used in this chapter the terms 'physician's report' and 'medical report' mean the report of any physician made on any printed form authorized by the division or the commission or any complete medical report. As used in this chapter the term 'complete medical report' means the report of a physician giving the physician's qualifications and the patient's history, complaints, details of the findings of any and all laboratory, X-ray and all other technical examinations, diagnosis, prognosis, nature of disability, if any, and an estimate of the percentage of permanent partial disability, if any. An element or elements of a complete medical report may be met by the physician's records."
The Commission is of the opinion that if a party complies with the statutory provisions of section 287.210 RSMo, the complete medical report offered is to be admitted into evidence without other foundational evidence, rendering additional objections as to foundation, authenticity, etc., moot.
Exhibit A is set forth on pages 188-241. It contains medical records of Dr. Marino and purports to be the complete medical report of Dr. Marino. The qualifications of Dr. Marino are not included in Exhibit A. The Commission finds that Exhibit A does not satisfy the statutory requisites of section 287.210 .5 and 7 RSMo, as being a complete medical report, and sustains the objection made by employer/insurer. The Commission has not relied on this exhibit in reaching any of its conclusions.
Exhibit A also contains an affidavit with a notarial seal dated April 16, 2002. However, the affidavit does not indicate the number of pages attached and there are several pages to the exhibit attached which are dated subsequent to April 16, 2002, thus, this exhibit can also not be admitted into evidence pursuant to the provisions of section 287.140.7 RSMo, concerning certified records of a treating physician. Exhibit A also does not meet the statutory requisites of business records pursuant to section 490.680 RSMo. Exhibit A is excluded from evidence in its entirety.
The Commission notes that the deposition of Dr. Marino was taken and introduced into evidence as Exhibit V. It was reviewed, considered and weighed, in reaching the Commission's final conclusions.
Exhibit F is set forth on pages 336-401. It contains medical records of Dr. Granberg and purports to be the complete medical report of Dr. Granberg. The qualifications of Dr. Granberg are not included in Exhibit F. The Commission finds that Exhibit F does not satisfy the statutory requisites of sections 287.210 .5 and 7 RSMo,
as being a complete medical report, and sustains the objection made by employer/insurer. It is not admissible pursuant to section 287.140.7 RSMo, as there was no certification attached. It is not admissible pursuant to section 490.680 RSMo as it was not authenticated as required by the statute. The Commission did not consider Exhibit F in reaching its conclusions.
Exhibit G is set forth on pages 403-546. It contains medical records of Dr. Granberg, the qualifications of Dr. Granberg, and purports to be the complete medical report of Dr. Granberg. The Commission finds the statutory requisites of sections 287.210 .5 and 7 RSMo were satisfied, and affirms its admission into evidence as determined by the administrative law judge. The Commission reviewed, considered and weighed this evidence in reaching its conclusions. Since it is admissible pursuant to the provisions of section 287.210 RSMo, objections that the exhibit was not authenticated as a business record pursuant to section 490.680 RSMo or not certified pursuant to section 287.140.7 RSMo, are moot.
Exhibit J is set forth on pages 561-592. It contains the medical records of Dr. Feinberg, the qualifications of Dr. Feinberg and purports to be the complete medical report of Dr. Feinberg. The Commission finds the statutory requisites of sections 287.210 .5 and 7 RSMo were satisfied and affirms its admission into evidence. Any objections that it was not authenticated as a business record pursuant to section 490.680 RSMo and not certified pursuant to section 287.140.7 RSMo are rendered moot due to its admissibility under sections 287.210 .5 and 7 RSMo. The Commission reviewed, considered and weighed this evidence in reaching its conclusions.
The Commission further notes the deposition of Dr. Feinberg was taken and submitted into evidence as Exhibit J. This evidence was reviewed, considered and weighed by the Commission in reaching its conclusions.
Exhibit K is set forth on pages 593-627. It contains medical records of Dr. Malik and purports to be the complete medical report of Dr. Malik. The qualifications of Dr. Malik are not included in Exhibit K. The Commission finds that Exhibit K does not satisfy the statutory requisites of sections 287.210 .5 and 7 RSMo , as being a complete medical report, and sustains the objection made by employer/insurer. Exhibit K is not admissible pursuant to section 287.140.7 RSMo as the custodial affidavit certifying the authenticity of the medical records is deficient. The certification attests to thirteen pages and Exhibit K consists of thirty-five pages. Exhibit K is not admissible pursuant to section 490.680 RSMo as it was not authenticated as required by statute. The Commission did not consider Exhibit K in reaching its conclusions.
Exhibit O-2 is a computerized billing statement from the office of Dr. Feinberg. Dr. Feinberg testified as to the reasonableness and the necessity of his treatment and the Commission finds this exhibit was properly admitted into evidence and the Commission has relied on this exhibit in reaching its determinations and conclusions.
Exhibit T, a computerized printout of the business records of Walgreen's, has an appropriate custodial affidavit attached and said exhibit was properly admitted into evidence pursuant to section 490.680 RSMo. The Commission has relied on this exhibit in reaching its determinations and conclusions.
Exhibit U is a hearsay document without proper foundation and or authentication, and objection to its admission into evidence is sustained. The Commission did not rely on this exhibit in reaching any conclusions or determinations in this case.
Exhibit W represents medical expenses in the amount of $\ 6,175.40 incurred under the auspices of Dr. Granberg. The treating records of Dr. Granberg were admissible in evidence and contained in Exhibit G, and the Commission also is of the opinion that the testimony of the wife of the employee, connecting these bills with the treatment received due to the accident, provides a sufficient basis for its admission into evidence. See Martin v. MidAmerica Farm Lines, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 105 (Mo. banc 1989).
As to Exhibit X as well as Exhibit Y, the Commission finds there was insufficient foundation for the admission of these two exhibits into evidence and the objections thereto are sustained. The Commission did not rely on either Exhibit X