State v. Fox

Restitution is statutorily required when the defendant has been convicted of criminal activity, the victim suffered economic damages, and there exists a causal relationship between the criminal activity and the economic damages. State v. Aguirre-Rodriguez, 367 Or 641, 620 (2020). The burden of proof is on the state to present sufficient evidence that the bills were reasonable and necessary, however, under McClelland, medical bills alone are not sufficient to meet the standard for establishing restitution and the testimony provided regarding medical bills is analogous as they are not medical professionals.

Fox appealed an amended supplemental judgment that imposed $11,305.28 in restitution to the victim after a conviction of second-degree assault and third-degree assault. Fox contended that the State failed to establish that the restitution was reasonably and necessarily incurred from medical expenses and the attorney fees were reasonable and foreseeable. At the restitution hearing, the State called the Crime Victim Services Division (CVSD) and health insurance company, Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oregon, to testify about the charges paid on the victim's behalf for medical expenses. Restitution is statutorily required when the defendant has been convicted of criminal activity, the victim suffered economic damages, and there exists a causal relationship between the criminal activity and the economic damages. State v. Aguirre-Rodriguez, 367 Or 641, 620 (2020). The burden of proof is on the state to present sufficient evidence that the bills were reasonable and necessary, however, under McClelland, medical bills alone are not sufficient to meet the standard for establishing restitution and the testimony provided regarding medical bills is analogous as they are not medical professionals. Here, although CVSD is not a medical professional, there was some evidence provided that made the expenses obviously necessary to allow a court to rely on common sense because the victim was hit with a metal chain. However, the medical expenses for Blue Cross were not sufficient because the bills and testimony did not provide a breakdown of the procedures or elaborate on amounts for customary market rates. Therefore, without more information, the trial court could not conclude that restitution was reasonable. Reversed and remanded.