State v. J. M. E.

“For hospital or medical expenses to qualify as recoverable economic damages, the state must prove that the cost of such services was reasonable.'” See State v. Campbell, 296 Or App 22, 27, 438 P3d 448 (2019). "Submission of a hospital bill, without more, is insufficient proof for recovery of 'reasonable' hospital or medical services. Some additional testimony or evidence is required to support the reasonableness of the bill for the hospital or medical services." State v. McLelland, 278 Or App 138, 144, 372 P3d 614 (2016).

Youth appealed a supplemental judgment ordering him to pay restitution damages in the amount of the hospital bill incurred to the victim he assaulted. Youth assigned error to the juvenile court in finding for an order of restitution in the absence of any evidence that the bill incurred was reasonable. On appeal, Youth reiterated that the imposition of restitution for the hospital bill was in error because the State failed to make a showing of the reasonableness of the bill, outside the presentation of the bill itself. In response, the State argued that because the Crime Victim Compensation Program (CVCP) chose to pay the bill, this “presumptively establishes” reasonableness of the charges. “For hospital or medical expenses to qualify as recoverable economic damages, the state must prove that the cost of such services was reasonable.'” See State v. Campbell, 296 Or App 22, 27, 438 P3d 448 (2019). "Submission of a hospital bill, without more, is insufficient proof for recovery of 'reasonable' hospital or medical services. Some additional testimony or evidence is required to support the reasonableness of the bill for the hospital or medical services." State v. McLelland, 278 Or App 138, 144, 372 P3d 614 (2016). The Court found that although CVCP appears to be statutorily obligated to provide reasonable compensation for medical bills, there are no governing legal provisions as to how CVCP determines what medical fees are reasonable. Therefore, the Court held that because there was no witness testimony as to the reasonableness of the charges, the trial court erred in its imposition of the supplemental judgment because the state did not provide evidence of the medical bills being reasonable. Supplemental judgment vacated and remanded.