federal Evidence § 803.11[7][a] (2d. ed.1999). Furthermore, the official comment to M.R.E. 803(6) provides that the rule “specifically includes diagnoses and opinions as proper subjects of admissible entries.... ” ¶ 17. It is undisputed that Dr. Lindsey had first-hand knowledge of the contents of the letter, as he was Ireland’s treating physician. Moreover, he was acting in the course and scope of his business as a physician in preparing a letter discussing the diagnosis and treatment of his patient. This kind of correspondence may be regularly kept in the course of a physician’s business. Higgins v. Martin Marietta Corp., 752 F.2d 492, 497 (10th Cir.1985). ¶ 18. Other jurisdictions have found that a physician’s letter falls within the ambit of Rule 803(6). Higgins, .S.2d 658 (1992) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 19. Finally, we note that Gilbert’s
recognizing physician assistant as agent of the supervising physician holding that an employers awareness of plaintiffs past medical problems does not establish that it regarded her as disabled holding employer justified in relying upon plaintiffs physician holding that the trial court properly dismissed the lossofconsortium claim brought by the plaintiffs wife where it was derived from the plaintiffs emotional distress claim and involved no bodily injury to the plaintiff holding letter from plaintiffs father a physician to plaintiffs psychiatrist describing her emotional problems was properly admitted as a business record