State v. Henry

For restitution award purposes, a trial court may not find that an amount paid was reasonable based solely on the fact of payment by CVCP. State v. J. M. E., 299 Or App 483, 489, 451 P3d 1018 (2019). Medical costs that are at or below the market rate are considered reasonable. State v. Workman, 300 Or App 622, 623-24, 455 P3d 566 (2019).

Defendant appealed a supplemental judgment awarding restitution for his victim’s medical costs after he pleaded guilty to first degree burglary, and “two counts of unlawful use of a weapon.”  On appeal, Defendant argued that the State failed to prove the medical costs were reasonable.  In response, the State asserted that sufficient evidence existed in the record for the trial court to determine the medical costs paid by the Crime Victims’ Compensation Program (CVCP) were reasonable.  For restitution award purposes, a trial court may not find that an amount paid was reasonable based solely on the fact of payment by CVCP.  State v. J. M. E., 299 Or App 483, 489, 451 P3d 1018 (2019).  Medical costs that are at or below the market rate are considered reasonable.  State v. Workman, 300 Or App 622, 623-24, 455 P3d 566 (2019).  The Court found that the “affidavit executed by CVCP did not establish that the amounts paid were at, or below, the market rate.”  Thus, the Court held that there was insufficient evidence “to support the reasonableness of the medical costs.”  Supplemental judgment reversed and remanded with respect to the medical costs; otherwise affirmed.