of the reports themselves into evidence but, rather, challenged the introduction of the “subjective findings or anything that may have been said to the examiner” as well as the “comments that are in the report[s] which are attributed to the children” during the examinations that appear in the reports. The trial court permitted the reports to be admitted pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 803(6) as a record of regularly conducted activity. The trial court concluded that “the subjective findings of the examiner are admissible” because they were recorded “for a business purpose and it’s part of a regularly conducted activity.” The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the trial court’s analysis in this respect, as do we. See, e.g., State v. Cannon, 254 S.W.3d 287, 303 (Tenn, 2008) (<HOLDING>). We also note for the record that during oral
holding that gun shop records kept pursuant to government requirements are admissible business records holding that records relating to a student court were not education records holding that driving records were nontestimonial holding that episodic multiple sclerosis is categorized as an impairment  that will consistently meet the definition of disability and a ministroke is categorized as an impairment that may be disabling for some individuals but not for others holding that to the extent medical records may be properly categorized as business records such records are properly categorized as nontestimonial