Opinion ID: 2549636
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hearsay Statements Medical Records

Text: Redmond also appeals the inclusion of three unredacted portions of Johnson's medical records. Redmond contends that redaction was necessary because the records contained attributions of fault, making them inadmissible under ER 803(a)(4). Because ER 803(a)(4) pertains to statements reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment, it allows statements regarding causation of injury, but generally not statements attributing fault. State v. Woods, 143 Wash.2d 561, 602, 23 P.3d 1046, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 964, 122 S.Ct. 374, 151 L.Ed.2d 285 (2001). For example, the statement the victim said she was hit on the legs with a bat, would be admissible, but the victim said her husband hit her in the face would not be admissible. The trial court abused its discretion when it failed to redact two of the three portions of medical records complained of by Redmond. [4] Redaction could easily have eliminated attributions of fault, while preserving the portions relevant to treatment or diagnosis. For example, the wording an ex-student accosted and dragged Mr. Johnson from his auto and was accosted in the parking lot by another male. He was taken from his car should have been redacted. State Ex. 5, at 1, 3. We do not find any inappropriate attribution of fault in the third statement complained of by Redmond. [5] Although we hold that the trial court erred in failing to require redaction of certain portions of the medical records, because of our holding on the jury instruction issue, we do not consider whether the trial court's error provides an independent basis to require a new trial.