The routine practice of an organization is admissible to show conduct on a specific occasion.

Cf. Outley v. City of New York, 837 F.2d 587, 591-594 (2d Cir. 1988) (holding, in plaintiff's action against police officers for police brutality, that evidence of accused's litigiousness or history of bringing lawsuits against the police was inadmissible where it was not offered to show bias).A person's other crimes, wrongs, or acts are not barred by the character rule either if they are not offered to show that person's propensity or if they are not offered to show that that person engaged in conduct on a particular occasion because of his or her propensity to engage in that sort of conduct.

Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 139-140 (1954) ("The petitioners assail the refusal of the trial judge to instruct that where the Government's evidence is circumstantial it must be such as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than that of guilt. There is some support for this type of...Circumstantial evidence is not an inferior grade of evidence: it can be as strong as (or stronger than) any other kind of evidence, including eyewitness evidence, physical evidence, or scientific evidence.

Bucci v. Essex Insurance Co., 393 F.3d 285, 298-299 (1st Cir. 2005) ("Under Rule 803(4), there are three requirements for the admission of out-of-court statements: '(1) the statements must be made for purposes of diagnosis or treatment (2) about (i) medical history (ii) or past or present symptoms, pain,...Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment.