Georgia Medical Records Rule: 2026 Trial Shift

A recent legislative update fundamentally reshapes how medical records are introduced in Georgia personal injury claims, a change with deep implications for cases ranging from minor fender-benders to severe incidents like an Uber Eats moped colliding with a semi-truck in Philadelphia. This shift demands immediate attention from anyone involved in litigation where medical evidence is paramount.

Understanding the New Evidentiary Standard for Medical Records

Effective January 1, 2026, Georgia’s evidentiary field for medical records in civil actions saw a significant overhaul with the implementation of O.C.G.A. Section 24-9-90.1, “Admissibility of medical records and certain other records.” This new statute directly addresses the often-cumbersome process of authenticating medical bills and records, aiming to simplify trials while still safeguarding due process. Previously, proving the authenticity and admissibility of medical records frequently required the live testimony of a records custodian or medical professional, a process that could be costly and time-consuming. The new rule provides a clear pathway for admitting these critical documents without such testimony, provided specific procedural requirements are met. The statute specifies that medical records, bills, and certain other health care provider records are admissible as evidence if accompanied by a sworn affidavit from the records custodian or other qualified person. This affidavit must attest to several key points: that the records were made at or near the time of the treatment by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge. That the records were kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity. And that it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the records. This is an important shift, as it places the burden on the party offering the records to prepare this foundational evidence well in advance of trial.

Impact on Personal Injury Litigation: What Changed?

The primary impact of O.C.G.A. Section 24-9-90.1 is the establishment of a strict timeline and documentation requirement for the admission of medical records. Under the new rule, a party intending to offer medical records into evidence must serve opposing counsel with copies of the records and the accompanying affidavit at least 90 days before trial. This is not a suggestion. It’s a hard deadline. Missing this window can jeopardize the admissibility of vital medical evidence, potentially undermining a case, particularly in complex injury claims arising from incidents such as a severe Uber Eats moped collision with a tractor-trailer. Consider a case where a moped driver sustains multiple fractures and internal injuries after being struck by a semi-truck on I-76 near the Philadelphia Museum of Art. The medical records from institutions like Hahnemann University Hospital or Jefferson University Hospital would be extensive, detailing emergency treatment, surgeries, rehabilitation, and ongoing care. Under the old system, securing a records custodian from each facility to testify could be a logistical nightmare. The new rule simplifies this, provided the attorneys adhere to the 90-day notice. The statute also includes an objection mechanism. If the opposing party intends to object to the admission of these records or bills without live testimony, they must file a written objection within 15 days of receiving the notice. This objection must be specific, detailing the grounds for challenging admissibility. A general objection is insufficient. Failure to object within this 15-day window waives the right to insist on live testimony from the records custodian, effectively allowing the records to be admitted solely based on the affidavit. This tight timeframe means legal teams must be vigilant in reviewing incoming discovery and responsive to deadlines.

Who Is Affected and Why It Matters

Every party involved in civil litigation in Georgia where medical treatment is relevant is affected by O.C.G.A. Section 24-9-90.1. This includes plaintiffs seeking compensation for injuries, defendants challenging the extent or cause of those injuries, and even workers’ compensation claimants and employers working through medical treatment claims. For instance, in a workers’ compensation claim arising from a delivery driver’s injury on the job, the medical records from the treating physicians are central to establishing the nature and extent of the injury and the need for ongoing care. The Georgia State Board of Workers’ Compensation will expect adherence to these evidentiary standards in hearings. Attorneys are perhaps the most directly impacted. This rule necessitates a strategic shift in discovery and trial preparation. Waiting until the eve of trial to gather certified medical records and affidavits is no longer a viable option. Proactive engagement with medical providers to secure these documents early in the litigation process has become a critical component of case management. Plus, understanding the nuances of what constitutes a “qualified person” for the affidavit and ensuring the affidavit’s contents meet the statutory requirements is paramount. An improperly drafted affidavit, even if served on time, could still lead to the exclusion of critical evidence. For plaintiffs, this rule can simplify the presentation of their damages evidence, potentially reducing litigation costs associated with securing live testimony. For defendants, it means they must diligently review served medical records and affidavits within the 15-day objection window. Overlooking this deadline could mean waiving a legitimate objection to flawed medical evidence. The goal, from a judicial perspective, is to make trials more efficient without compromising the integrity of the evidence. However, efficiency often comes with increased procedural strictness, and this rule is no exception.

Steps for Compliance and Strategic Considerations

Compliance with O.C.G.A. Section 24-9-90.1 requires careful planning and execution. Here are concrete steps legal professionals should take: First, identify all relevant medical providers early in the case. This includes emergency responders, hospitals, urgent care centers, primary care physicians, specialists, physical therapists, and any other entity that generated records related to the injury. Request certified copies of all medical records and bills, along with a sworn affidavit from the records custodian, as soon as possible. Many medical providers have specific procedures for handling such requests, and understanding these can prevent delays. Second, track the 90-day and 15-day deadlines rigorously. Calendar these dates from the moment a trial is set. For cases in Fulton County Superior Court, for example, where trial calendars can be unpredictable, this means being ready to serve these documents as soon as a trial date solidifies. Missing the 90-day deadline can be fatal to the admissibility of records without a live witness, a situation no attorney wants to face. Third, scrutinize every affidavit received. Ensure it fully complies with the statutory language of O.C.G.A. Section 24-9-90.1. Does it clearly state that the records were made at or near the time of the treatment? Does it confirm they were kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity? Any deviation could be grounds for a valid objection. If an affidavit is deficient, you have 15 days to object, preserving your right to demand live testimony. This is not just about procedural boxes. It’s about ensuring the reliability of the evidence presented. Fourth, prepare your objections thoughtfully. If you receive medical records and an affidavit that you believe are problematic, your objection must be specific. Simply stating “objection, lack of foundation” will likely be insufficient. You need to articulate precisely why the affidavit or records fail to meet the statutory requirements. This might involve identifying missing elements in the affidavit, pointing out discrepancies in the records themselves, or arguing that the records are not relevant to the issues in dispute. Fifth, consider the practical implications for settlement negotiations. The ability to admit medical records efficiently can strengthen a plaintiff’s position by clearly demonstrating damages. Conversely, a defendant’s ability to effectively challenge questionable medical records or bills can reduce potential liability. The clarity provided by this rule can lead to more informed settlement discussions, as both sides will have a better understanding of what medical evidence will likely be admissible at trial. This new rule is a practical illustration of how legislative changes directly influence daily legal practice. It demands a higher level of preparedness and procedural exactness from attorneys in Georgia. We’ve certainly seen an uptick in pre-trial motions related to medical record admissibility since this rule took effect, underscoring the need for careful adherence.

Working through Complexities: Multi-Jurisdictional Incidents

While O.C.G.A. Section 24-9-90.1 applies specifically to Georgia courts, the principles it embodies highlight the broader challenges of medical evidence in cases spanning multiple jurisdictions. An incident like an Uber Eats moped driver from Georgia being involved in a significant truck crash in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, presents layered legal complexities. Although the Georgia statute wouldn’t directly govern the admissibility of evidence in a Pennsylvania court, the underlying need for authenticated medical records remains universal. In such a scenario, the injured party might seek treatment in Pennsylvania hospitals and then continue rehabilitation in Georgia. Records from both states would be essential. While Pennsylvania’s rules of evidence would dictate admissibility in a Pennsylvania court (e.g., Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 803(6) for business records), the Georgia rule would apply if the case were filed in a Georgia court, even if some of the records originated out-of-state. This means attorneys must be conversant with the evidentiary rules of all relevant jurisdictions, and often, the process of obtaining certified records and affidavits from out-of-state providers can be even more challenging. On top of that, the sheer volume of medical records generated in severe injury cases, especially those involving catastrophic injuries from a truck collision, can be immense. Organizing, reviewing, and preparing these records for submission under the new Georgia rule requires significant administrative and legal resources. It is not uncommon for a single complex case to involve thousands of pages of medical documentation, each needing review for relevance, privilege, and compliance with O.C.G.A. Section 24-9-90.1. This is where experience truly matters. Understanding how to effectively manage this flow of information is key to avoiding last-minute crises. The new statute reflects a judicial desire to reduce the burden on medical professionals who are frequently subpoenaed to testify about routine record-keeping. By allowing affidavits to substitute for live testimony, the legal system attempts to balance the need for reliable evidence with the practical realities of court dockets and the availability of medical personnel. However, this balance places a greater onus on legal teams to ensure their documentation is impeccable and timely. The changes brought by O.C.G.A. Section 24-9-90.1 are more than just procedural tweaks. They demand a fundamental shift in how medical evidence is prepared and presented in Georgia civil litigation. Attorneys must adapt their practices to these new requirements to effectively represent their clients and ensure that critical medical evidence is properly admitted.