Hansen v. Heath
852 P.2d 977, 211 Utah Adv. Rep. 16, 1993 Utah LEXIS 76 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statement made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment is admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule, even if it is self-serving, as long as it was made with the intent to facilitate medical care, was pertinent to diagnosis or treatment, and does not have substantial indicators of untrustworthiness.
Facts:
- James Woo, 78, was receiving ongoing treatment for lung and heart disease.
- On July 15, 1988, after a doctor's appointment at the VA hospital where he received no restrictions on driving, Woo's vehicle struck Gail Hansen's vehicle from behind.
- At the accident scene, paramedics independently concluded that Woo had possibly suffered a syncopal episode (sudden loss of consciousness).
- Shortly after the accident, Woo was transported to the VA hospital.
- Woo told his treating physician that he had suddenly lost consciousness without warning and remembered nothing about the accident until after the collision.
- His physician diagnosed his condition as 'syncope and CHF (coronary heart failure)' and admitted him to the hospital for six days of treatment.
- Woo died six months after Hansen filed her lawsuit and was never deposed.
Procedural Posture:
- Gail Hansen filed a negligence complaint against James Woo in a state trial court.
- Woo raised the affirmative defense of sudden and unforeseen loss of consciousness.
- Prior to trial, Hansen filed a motion in limine to exclude Woo's out-of-court statement to his physician as inadmissible hearsay.
- The trial court denied Hansen's motions, ruling the statement was admissible.
- A jury returned a verdict of no cause for action in favor of Woo's estate, represented by John Heath.
- Hansen (appellant) appealed the jury verdict to the Utah Supreme Court, challenging the trial court's evidentiary ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a deceased driver's self-serving statement to his treating physician, made shortly after an accident, that he suddenly lost consciousness without warning, fall under the hearsay exception for statements made for the purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment (Utah Rule of Evidence 803(4))?
Opinions:
Majority - Hall, Chief Justice
Yes. A deceased driver's statement to his physician that he lost consciousness falls under the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment. The court reasoned that such statements carry a 'guarantee of trustworthiness' because a patient has a strong motivation to be truthful to receive proper medical care. To be admissible under Utah Rule of Evidence 803(4), a statement must meet two criteria: (1) it must be made with an intent to facilitate medical diagnosis or treatment, and (2) it must be reasonably pertinent to that diagnosis or treatment. The court found Woo’s statement met both elements, as it was made to his doctor immediately after the accident, and the information about losing consciousness was essential for diagnosis and treatment. The court rejected the argument that the statement's self-serving nature made it inherently untrustworthy, concluding that a statement qualifying for a hearsay exception should only be excluded if there is substantial doubt about its reliability, which was not present here given Woo's age, health, and the circumstances under which the statement was made.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the medical diagnosis and treatment exception to the hearsay rule, particularly for statements that are also self-serving or exculpatory. The court establishes that the self-serving nature of a statement does not automatically render it inadmissible if it otherwise meets the criteria of the Rule 803(4) exception. This decision reinforces the strong presumption of trustworthiness afforded to communications between patients and physicians for the purpose of treatment. It provides a significant precedent for personal injury cases involving sudden medical emergencies, making it easier to admit crucial statements from a declarant who may be unavailable to testify at trial.
