## Facts

- Gail O. Hansen’s stopped vehicle was rear-ended on July 15, 1988, by a car driven by James Woo, age 78.
- Earlier that day, Woo had been treated at a VA hospital for shortness of breath associated with lung and heart disease; he was sent home with no driving restrictions.
- At the scene, paramedics reported Woo possibly suffered a syncopal episode (sudden loss of consciousness without warning).
- After returning to the VA hospital, Woo told his treating physician he “suddenly lost consciousness without warning” and remembered nothing until after the collision.
- The physician diagnosed “syncope and CHF” and admitted Woo for six days of treatment.
- Hansen sued Woo for negligence; Woo asserted an affirmative defense of sudden, unforeseeable loss of consciousness.
- Woo died before deposition; John Heath, as personal representative of Woo’s estate, was substituted.
- The trial court denied Hansen’s motions to exclude Woo’s statement as hearsay and allowed defense expert testimony based on the medical records; the jury returned a no-cause verdict for the estate.

## Issues

1. Whether Woo’s statement to his treating physician describing sudden loss of consciousness was admissible under Utah Rule of Evidence 803(4) (statements for medical diagnosis or treatment).
2. Whether the trial court erred by admitting subsequent medical records and expert testimony that relied on and repeated the syncope diagnosis, given Woo’s unavailability and the statement’s alleged fault-related, self-serving character.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the estate.
- The court held Woo’s statement was admissible under Rule 803(4) because it described symptoms and the inception or general character of the condition in a treatment context.
- The court upheld admission of related medical records and expert testimony based on the diagnosis.
- To the extent any admitted material approached statements of fault, any error did not warrant reversal under harmless-error review.

## Legal Principles

- Under Utah R. Evid. 803(4), a patient’s statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment that describe symptoms, medical history, or the inception/general character of the cause are admissible if reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
- Statements principally assigning legal responsibility are generally outside Rule 803(4), but cause-related descriptions needed for medical evaluation (including sudden loss of consciousness) may be admissible even if they also support a tort defense.
- Evidentiary rulings are reviewed deferentially for abuse of discretion; reversal requires both error and resulting prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a defense verdict after concluding that a driver’s post-accident statement to a treating physician that he suddenly lost consciousness was properly admitted as medically pertinent hearsay under Rule 803(4), and that related records and expert testimony were within the trial court’s discretion and not prejudicially erroneous.


Hansen v. Heath, 852 P.2d 977 (Utah 1993)