State v. Smartt

In a restitution proceeding under ORS 137.106(1)(a), “the state can demonstrate the reasonable value of medical expenses by offering evidence that the medical expenses reflect the usual and customary rate for those services in the market wherein they occur.” State v. Campbell, 296 Or App 22, 31, 438 P3d 448 (2019).

Defendant appealed the trial court's imposition of $84,046.58 in restitution following a conviction for Assault in the Third Degree.  Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s order of $52,000 in restitution for future prosthetic eyes needed over his lifetime because Victim lost his eye in the assault. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State failed to prove the amount was reasonable because “submission of a medical bill, without more, is insufficient proof” and without a professional familiar with the injury, “the trial court…could not be presumed to know the reasonableness of a charge.” In response, the State argued the record had legally sufficient evidence to support the restitution. In a restitution proceeding under ORS 137.106(1)(a), “the state can demonstrate the reasonable value of medical expenses by offering evidence that the medical expenses reflect the usual and customary rate for those services in the market wherein they occur.” State v. Campbell,296 Or App 22, 31, 438 P3d 448 (2019). The Court found that the State provided more information than medical bills could have provided because the State's witness quoted two different providers for the prosthetic eye, including the only provider in Oregon. The Court has held testimony of a medical professional is not the only method to prove reasonableness of medical expenses. Affirmed.