Opinion ID: 2972660
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Medical Treatment Exception

Text: The Michigan Rules of Evidence include the following hearsay exception for “Statements Made for Purposes of Medical Treatment or Medical Diagnosis in Connection with Treatment.” 4 In spite of petitioner’s efforts to argue otherwise, the Confrontation Clause analysis from Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), does not govern this case since Crawford was decided long after petitioner’s trial, and this Court has ruled that Crawford does not apply retroactively. See Dorchy v. Jones, 398 F.3d 783, 788 (6th Cir. 2005) (“Teague thus prohibits Dorchy from availing himself of the new rule articulated in Crawford.”). -8- No. 04-1449 Brandt v. Curtis Statements made for purposes of medical treatment or medical diagnosis in connection with treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably necessary to such diagnosis and treatment. See Mich. Ct. Rules Prac., Evid. R. 803(4). This rule is virtually identical to the federal hearsay exception for statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(4). The Michigan Supreme Court has explicitly held that “identification of the assailant [in child abuse cases] is necessary to adequate medical diagnosis and treatment.”5 People v. Meeboer, 439 Mich. 310, 322 (1992). This holding is consistent with the comments to Federal Rule 803(4), which state “[the exception] also extends to statements as to causation, reasonably pertinent to the same purposes, in accord with the current trend.” Fed. R. Evid. 803(4), Note to Paragraph (4). Because the United State Supreme Court has found the medical treatment exception to be “firmly rooted,” see White, 502 U.S. at 356 n.8 , and the Michigan version of that rule is consistent with the federal version as well as with the “current trend” among the states, then if Brittany’s statements fit under the Michigan rule, their admission is also presumptively appropriate under the Confrontation Clause. Brittany’s statement to Dr. Hartwig, that “Kenny” had caused her injuries, is clearly admissible under Michigan’s “firmly rooted” exception for statements made for the purpose of medical treatment. Brandt attempts to undermine this testimony by pointing out that she only made 5 Consistent with that ruling, Dr. Hartwig testified regarding the medical bases for determining a perpetrator’s identity. “[W]e want to make sure we’re not sending a child home or back to an environment where the perpetrator may be. . . . It’s also helpful to know if there are sexually transmitted diseases found.” -9- No. 04-1449 Brandt v. Curtis the statement after she was left alone with her mother, who had indicated her belief that Brandt was the perpetrator. But this point goes only to the weight that the jury assigns the testimony, not to its admissibility. Since the statement clearly qualifies under a “firmly rooted” exception, we need not analyze other indicia of reliability.6