State v. Ragibov

Under OEC 803(4), hearsay statements contained in medical records are admissible in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted if three requirements are met: (1) the statement must be made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment; (2) the statement must describe medical history, symptoms, pain or sensations, or the cause or eternal source of the injury; and (3) the statement must be reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.

Defendant appealed convictions of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), reckless driving, and two counts of criminal mischief, arguing that the trial court erred by excluding evidence that Defendant’s wife, not Defendant, was driving at the time of the motor vehicle collision resulting in the subsequent criminal charges. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to admit evidence from three separate medical reports containing statements by Defendant’s wife that she was driving at the time of the collision. The trial court declined to admit the evidence as hearsay, despite Defendant’s argument that the “business records” exception to the rule against hearsay applied. On appeal, the Court determined that, while the medical records were hearsay, the business records exception did apply, and that the trial court had failed to provide adequate reasoning for excluding the evidence, given the legislative history of the business records exception. The Court held that the exclusion of evidence was not harmless, and remanded the case to determine whether the Defendant’s wife’s statements contained in the medical records were reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment, thereby satisfying the business records exception to the rule against hearsay. Vacated and remanded.