issue is immediately followed in the record with, "Pt in no acute stress at triage with very anxious
family member at bedside." Of course, at trial Plaintiff is free to question the reliability of the
statement with his own testimony or that of his "significant other."
Defendants oppose any redactions from the Maimonides records on the ground that all
references to Plaintiff's drug use were germane to his diagnosis and treatment; Defendants
support their opposition with the affirmations of Alvin Katz, M.D., an otolaryngologist, and
Stuart Young, M.D., an allergy and immunology specialist. But there seems little, if any, real
dispute on that issue, and the questions at trial will be whether, when, and to what extent Plaintiff
used cocaine or injected drugs into his neck, and the relationship of any such use to his claimed
injuries.
Rather, the issue on this motion is the source of the information as to cocaine use and IV
injection, and, except for the notation, "admits to drug use recently," attributed to Plaintiff,
Defendants fail to even address the issue. (See Affirmation in Opposition to Motion in
Limine ¶ 32.) It may be that someday the courts will recognize a broad hearsay exception
for all statements made for diagnosis and treatment, with or without attribution, but that
day has yet to arrive.
Notwithstanding Plaintiff's assertion that "all references to cocaine use stem from [the] initial
history provided by the significant other' rather than plaintiff himself (see Reply [*8]Affirmation ¶ 3), only the notation that specifies the source as
Plaintiff's "significant other" will be admitted.
The Court has noted Plaintiff's argument in reply that cocaine use is not relevant to the