{
  "id": 8725279,
  "name": "SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE Company v. J. M. PUMPHREY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance v. Pumphrey",
  "decision_date": "1974-06-24",
  "docket_number": "74-51",
  "first_page": "818",
  "last_page": "820",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "256 Ark. 818"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "510 S.W.2d 570"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "255 Ark. 485",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8721804
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/255/0485-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "235 Ark. 758",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1684865
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/235/0758-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 236,
    "char_count": 3259,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.895,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0057427425947674e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5406786264372943
    },
    "sha256": "0654b543508c13752895ab1f601f5471794468aaa8d6aed5ef12f3c2b3983e2a",
    "simhash": "1:db2f4b61412f999a",
    "word_count": 515
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:14.527021+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE Company v. J. M. PUMPHREY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nAppellant issued to appellee its automobile liability insurance policy which included uninsured motorist coverage. Appellee was injured when his car collided with one driven by an uninsured motorist. A jury awarded appellee damages and on appeal the only contention for reversal is that the trial court erred in permitting appellee\u2019s treating physician to testify that nothing in a written report of an examination made by another doctor was inconsistent with the treating physician\u2019s testimony as to appellee\u2019s injuries.\nThe treating physician, a general practitioner, referred appellee to a bone specialist who made the requested examination and forwarded his written report to his fellow doctor. At trial the court properly sustained appellant\u2019s objection tc the treating doctor\u2019s testimony as to what the specialist\u2019s report \u201cstated.\u201d Neither the communication to the treating physician nor its contents were admissible in evidence since the specialist was not present to testify and subject to the test of cross-examination. New Empire Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 235 Ark. 758, 362 S.W. 2d 4 (1962). However, even though what the written report \u201cstated\u201d was held to be inadmissible, the treating physician was then permitted to testify that the written report forwarded to him concerning appellee\u2019s injuries was not inconsistent with his own testimony. Unquestionably it would be hearsay had the witness attempted to testify that, based upon what the specialist told him, the specialist\u2019s report was not inconsistent with his own. We are constrained to hold that the approach allowed at trial is impermissible inasmuch as it was doing indirectly what could not be done directly, i.e., a circumvention of the hearsay evidence rule. Robinson v. State, 255 Ark. 485, 500 S.W. 2d 929 (1973). In the case at bar, the procedure denied the appellant the right to subject the absent doctor to cross-examination as to his written report to the physician-witness. Furthermore, the testimony that the specialist\u2019s written examination report was not inconsistent with the treating physician\u2019s finding made it possible to present that argument to the jury which would bolster and corroborate the opinion of the physician-witness. As was said in New Empire Ins. Co. v. Taylor, supra, \u201c*** there was nothing to prevent [appellee] from either taking the deposition of the [absent doctor] or having him present in the court room to testify\u201d which would have given the jury the benefit of his expert opinion. As indicated, we must agree with the appellant that the procedure was impermissible and prejudicial.\nNeither can we agree with the appellee that the written report made by the specialist and forwarded to the treating physician comes within the purview of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 28-928 (Repl. 1962) which permits the admissibility of writings when made in the regular course of a business. We do not interpret the business record statute as being intended by the legislature to encompass such a communication as in the case at bar.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Laser, Sharp, Haley, Young & Boswell, for appellant.",
      "John W. Cole, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE Company v. J. M. PUMPHREY\n74-51\n510 S.W. 2d 570\nOpinion delivered June 24, 1974\nLaser, Sharp, Haley, Young & Boswell, for appellant.\nJohn W. Cole, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0818-01",
  "first_page_order": 854,
  "last_page_order": 856
}