discussed Cited "see" State v. Estrella J.C. See State v. Donald M ., 113 Conn.App. 63 , 71, 966 A.2d 266 (forensic interview statements admissible under medical diagnosis and treatment exception because the purpose of the interview was, at least in part , to determine whether the victim was in need of medical treatment [emphasis added] ), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 910 , 969 A.2d 174 (2009).

discussed Cited "see" State v. Griswold See State v. Donald M., 113 Conn. App. 63, 71 , 966 A.2d 266 (forensic inter- view statements admissible under medical diagnosis and treatment exception because ‘‘the purpose of the interview was, at least in part, to determine whether the victim was in need of medical treatment’’ [emphasis added]), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 910 , 969 A.2d 174 (2009).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Freddy T. The medical diagnosis and treatment exception to the hear- say rule is codified in § 8-3 (5) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence: ‘‘A statement made for purposes of obtaining a medical diagnosis or treatment and describ- ing 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 reason- ably pertinent to the medical diagnosis or treatment.’’ Admissibility of such statements turns on whether ‘‘the declarant was seeking medical diagnosis or treatment, and the statements are reasonab…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Ezequiel R. See State v. Griswold , supra, 160 Conn. App. at 552-53, 557 , 127 A.3d 189 ; see also State v. Donald M. , 113 Conn. App. 63 , 71, 966 A.2d 266 (forensic interview statements admissible under medical diagnosis and treatment exception because purpose of interview was, at least in part, to determine whether victim was in need of medical treatment), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 910 , 969 A.2d 174 (2009).