Association v. Sauceda
In Association v. Sauceda, 636 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1982, no writ), the insurance carrier contended that the trial court erred in excluding a doctor's letter offered to prove that the claimant's loss of use of his ankle was less than total. Id. at 496.
The claimant argued that the record had not been properly authenticated as a business record. Id. at 497. The court opined that its examination of the letter led it to believe that the letter was prepared in response to a request by a representative of the insurance carrier and that in the absence of the doctor's remaining records, the court was unable to ascertain the purpose for the letter. Id. at 499.
If the letter were written solely in response to a request by the carrier, it did not qualify as a routine entry in the claimant's medical history. Id.
The court concluded that the letter was not evidence of a routine entry made in the regular course of the doctor's business since on its face, the letter was an attempt to convey an opinion elicited by an outside interested source. Id.