What are the reasons why a treating physician’s narrative is admissible in a trial?

The reasons in Bruce v. Munroe, also speak to the underlying rationale at play: 11 It must be recalled, that at trial, treating physicians narratives stand essentially as the direct evidence of the physician. They are available for cross-examination by the other party. However, the reality is that physician’s chart notes, and similar notations are made for use in medical circles, not for purposes of litigation. They are largely written in a manner that is very informal, brief and intended to be private, and primarily for the purposes of the treating physician. Understandably, physican’s attempt to be efficient in their time, particularly in relation to taking any unnecessarily long time to complete notations of their observations, findings, and provisional diagnosis regarding their patients. 12 CPR 55.14 was intended to be a compromise between unduly requiring treating physician’s to attend at trials and comply with the formalities regarding preparation and filing of expert opinion reports, yet still having the benefit of their findings, observations and to some extent expert opinion evidence available by virtue of making admissible narratives that properly conform to CPR 55.14 as treating physician’s narratives. Thus, apart from their testimonial confirmation of the content in the treating physician’s narrative, they need only be present for cross-examination thereon (CPR 55.14(5)).