In an action by the plaintiff against the defendant, one of the issues is whether the defendant is a licensed physical therapist. Normally, the names of all licensed physical therapists are registered with the office of the state Department of Professional Registrations. The plaintiff wishes to introduce a certified document, signed by the chief registrar of the department (who cannot be located), stating that an examination of the department's rolls does not disclose the defendant's name. Should the document be admitted?
A. Yes, because a statement of absence from public record is admissible.
B. Yes, because the chief registrar is unavailable.
C. No, because the document is hearsay not within an exception.
D. No, because the document is not self-authenticating.

This merely suggests that it is acceptable under the law and that it is used to determine the truth in a legal procedure, particularly with regard to a matter of fact. Unless specifically stated otherwise by law or these regulations, the scope of evidence is often the same in all courts, during all trials, and during all hearings.

Only evidence that is significant or pertinent to the dispute at hand and is not prohibited by law is admitted.

The plaintiff should be allowed to use the aforementioned document. The Federal Rule of Evidence 803(10) states that given that an evidence in the form of a certification or testimony from the custodian of public records stating that she has diligently searched and failed to find a record is admissible to prove that a matter was not recorded, or, inferentially, that a matter did not occur. This is in relation to the exception to the hearsay rule for public records and other official writings. Here, the records of the department would ordinarily disclose the defendant's position as a certified physical therapist. The paperwork in question can be used to show that the defendant does not actually have a license.

Learn more about Federal Rule of Evidence here:

https://brainly.com/question/10457384

#SPJ4