F.2d at 497. In Higgins, the plaintiffs sued both the United States and the manufacturer of a missile seeking damages for exposure to toxic gas which escaped into the air at a missile silo near their home. Id. at 494. During cross-examination of one of the plaintiffs, a letter written by his treating physician was read into evidence. The letter questioned that the toxic gas caused the injuries and rather might have been caused by aspiration of a piece of popcorn causing infection. Id. at 497. The plaintiff objected, contending the letter constituted inadmissible hearsay. The court overruled the objection, finding that the letter was admissible under Rule 803(6). Id. Other jurisdictions have reached similar results. Pineau v. Home Depot, Inc., 45 Conn.App. 248, 695 A.2d 14, 17 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Fanelli v. di Lorenzo, 187 A.D.2d 1004, 591
holding that where a treating physicians opinion is contradicted by a consulting physician the alj must explain on the record the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician holding letter from specialist to treating physician fell within business entry exception to the hearsay rule holding that shipping reports prepared by private citizen and submitted to the government pursuant to law fell within government records exception to hearsay rule holding that even if the trial court erred in excluding a letter from evidence that fell within an exception to the hearsay rule the error was harmless where admission of the letter would not have had a substantial effect on a partys rights holding florida drivers handbook hearsay and not within any recognized exception to hearsay rule