medical diagnosis exception in Iowa

2023Id. at 10 (finding the interview was not conducted to seek a medical diagnosis).

2022But the Skahill court contrasted the inadmissible forensic interview with the CPC medical examination done before the interview, describing the child’s statements to that doctor as “the type of information the medical diagnosis exception is designed to allow into evidence.” Id. at 9.

2022Cf. State v. Smith, 876 N.W.2d 180, 185 (Iowa 2016) (noting that the reason for the medical diagnosis exception to hearsay is that “the effectiveness of the medical treatment rests on the accuracy of the information imparted to the doctor [and] [a] patient understands that a false statement in a diagnostic context could result in misdiagnosis”).

2018The girlfriend’s statement regarding her belief Pogwizd intended to kill her “this time”4 3 In Smith, our supreme court considered whether a statement identifying the perpetrator of the physical injury was necessary information for effective medical treatment. 876 N.W.2d at 186 .

2021We held that the statements fell under the medical diagnosis exception after we considered whether the social workers were “qualified by training and experience to provide that diagnosis and treatment.” Id.

2021But the fact a statement is made to nonmedical personnel tends to indicate it was not made for the purpose of medical diagnosis. 13 For example, in State v. Hildreth, we determined whether statements made to a social worker fell under the medical diagnosis exception. 582 N.W.2d 167, 169 (Iowa 1998).

2016See State v. Tracy, 482 N.W.2d 675, 681 (Iowa 1992); cf. State v. Smith, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, 2016 WL 851991 , at *7 (Iowa 2016) (rejecting a categorical rule that statements that identify perpetrators made to medical personnel by victims of domestic abuse are automatically admissible under rule 5.803(4)).