with [the patient's] prior medical history" would be admissible (see id. at 676.) And in
Crisci v Sadler [*7](253 AD2d 447 [2d Dept 1998]), the
Second Department admitted a statement made by a parent of a 26-month-old infant as to the
infant's medical history without noting any question about it (see id. at 448-49.)
Judge Robert Smith recently commented that developing caselaw had "implicitly
recognize[d] . . . another hearsay exception, for statements made for purposes of medical
diagnosis or treatment." (See People v Ortega, 15 NY3d at 621 [Smith, J., concurring].)
More recently, the full Court of Appeals held that a "child's statement was germane to his
medical
diagnosis and treatment and therefore was properly admitted under that
exception to the hearsay rule." (See
People v Duhs, 16 NY3d 405, 408 [2011] [emphasis added].) One consequence might
be avoidance of the "business duty" limitation on the admissibility of third-party statements
under the business-records exception (see Hockhauser v Electric Ins. Co., 46 AD3d 174, 179-83 [2d Dept
2007].)
"Statements to one's own doctor or other health care professional have an intrinsic guarantee
of reliability, for only a foolish person would lie to his or her own doctor when seeking medical
help." (People v Ortega, 15 NY3d at 621 [Smith, J., concurring]; see also People v
Duhs, 16 NY3d at 405.) The same must be said about a person accompanying a patient for
medical diagnosis or treatment, where that person has a close familial relationship (see
Braschi v Stahl Assoc. Co., 74 NY2d 201, 211-13 [1989]) to the patient, and the subject of
the statement is something the person would be expected to know. Indeed, here, the statement at