Appeals panel questions whether forensic MRI reports qualify as §79G examinations in Son Trem case

In 25P100, Son Trem v. Michael Shea and others, counsel debated whether an MRI report prepared by SimonMed and offered by the plaintiff should have been admitted under Massachusetts General Laws c.233, §79G.

Plaintiff counsel Andrew Abraham argued that an MRI and the radiologist’s interpretation constitute an examination and thus are admissible under §79G even when the imaging was obtained for litigation. He said exclusion of the SimonMed report prevented meaningful cross-examination of defense experts and prejudiced a close brain-injury case in which the jury explicitly asked during deliberations for expert reports.

Defense counsel Jacob Lantree (Walmart) and others emphasized the trial court's discretion, noting the statute's attestation/subscription requirement and arguing many hospital imaging records were introduced under proper certifications while the SimonMed report lacked the required physician attestation; they also said Dr. O'Shanek testified at length about the findings and showed images, limiting any prejudice.

The panel examined whether radiology reports and imaging can fit §79G's "treatment or examination" language and whether late procedural irregularities were waived; the matter was submitted for decision.