State v. Dickinson

Defendant appealed a supplemental judgment stemming from his second-degree rape conviction. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's imposition of restitution for medical expenses incurred by the victim. On appeal, Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support that the medical expenses were “reasonably and necessarily incurred” by the victim. In response, the State argued that the element of necessity was undisputed and that evidence was sufficient to support that the medical expenses were reasonable because the insurance company paid the bills and paid them in a lesser amount than was originally billed. In restitution cases, “the trial court [can] not simply rely on a review of [a victim’s medical bill] and ‘common sense’ to conclude that such charges were reasonable,” and the state is required to produce “additional testimony or evidence” to support that a medical bill is necessary and reasonable. State v. McClelland, 278 Or App 138, 141, 372 P3d 614 (2016). The Court held that the State did not provide sufficient evidence that all of the medical expenses included in the restitution order were necessarily incurred, and since the issue of necessity was dispositive, it did not need to address whether the medical expenses were reasonable. 

Remanded for re-sentencing.