ADVERTISEMENT
Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Law Blogs -> Showmeblawgs
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
State Law
: ShowmeblawgsBy John Ashcroft Institute for Constitutional Studies
ADVERTISEMENTS
Missouri court of appeals southern district affirms judgment for Newton County hospital in collection suit, and rejects challenge to medical records law. Lester E. Cox Medical Centers Springfield MO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Steve G. Richards and Toni Richards, Defendants-Appellants.: 28522 Section 490.525 allows an affidavit to be received into evidence as proof of the necessity of services rendered and the reasonableness of the charges made for such services if the affidavit is made "by the person or that person's designee who provided the service" and the affidavit includes an itemized statement of the services and charges. When opposing counsel has specifically stated the identity of the statute under which he is offering an exhibit that would otherwise be considered hearsay and simultaneously hands a copy of it to the judge, we hold that an objection of "[i]t's hearsy[,] I don't think it complies with the statute" is much like an objection of "lack of foundation;" it is too general to warrant the trial court's sustaining it and preserves nothing for reviewNemmers, 880 S.W.2d at 919. The objection was not sufficiently definite so as to draw the trial court's attention to the portion of the cited statute that was alleged to have not been satisfied. This is particularly true in this case where the trial court held open its ruling on the admission of the exhibit and gave Appellants' counsel the opportunity to submit his objections and rationale in support of them via a post-trial submission and he simply chose not to do so.Full post as published by Showmeblawgs on May 11, 2008 (boomark / email).
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.









