Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Evidence Authentication topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Department objects to respondent's email exhibits; respondent says authentication can follow testimony
Summary
The Department objected to two emails submitted by the respondent as unauthenticated hearsay; respondent's counsel said administrative practice allows courtesy admission and the respondent can later authenticate the documents under oath, so the emails were admitted for identification only pending testimony.
Respondent submitted two emails dated March 16, 2026, attributed to Linda Dinkel, RN, and Steve Vachniak, RN, as part of the respondent's proposed exhibits. Department counsel objected on the ground that the signatories were not present to confirm authorship: "The department objects in so much as these statements are not being provided directly by the signatories," counsel said on the record.
Respondent's counsel, Attorney Richard Brown, responded that this is an administrative hearing and that such matters are often admitted as courtesy evidence with an opportunity for later cross-examination and authentication under oath: "routinely, these... types of proceedings, courtesy evidence is admitted," he said. The hearing officer ruled respondent exhibits 2 and 3 admitted for identification only until the respondent can testify to their origin and veracity; respondent exhibit 1 (a letter dated July 17) was entered as a full exhibit and sealed because it contains protected medical information.
