State v. Doerflinger
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtGrosse, J.
¶1 When the primary purpose of a radiologist’s finding of a nasal fracture was to inform the treating physician of the nature of a patient’s injuries in order to determine appropriate treatment, the radiologist’s finding is not testimonial and the limitations of the confrontation clause do not apply to its admissibility. And when the radiologist’s finding was made in the regular course of business and the radiology scan was ordered simply to rule out other injuries that might require additional treatment, the radiologist’s finding confirming the treating physician’s diagnosis of a nasal…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Davis v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Williams v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
- State v. BourgeoisWashington Supreme Court · 1997
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- State v. ManionCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
- State v. HurtadoCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
- State v. BurkeWashington Supreme Court · 2021
- Dependency Of C.w., Johnathan Weidenaar v. DcyfCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2020
- In re Welfare of M.R.Washington Supreme Court · 2022
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.