West Virginia Supreme Court
Lee A. Atkins and Lisa Lynn Atkins v. Zana Lou Midcap…
July 2, 1998202 W. Va. 457
Summary
The court held that testimony recounting a veterinarian's statements about the dog's ownership was inadmissible hearsay because ownership information was not provided for medical diagnosis or treatment. Because ownership was the dispositive issue at trial, the improper admission required reversal and remand. The court did not reach the appellant's other arguments concerning the sufficiency of the ownership evidence or the statutory liability theory.
Holding
- Admissibility of ownership statements under the medical-diagnosis-or-treatment hearsay exception. Statements concerning ownership of the dog were not admissible under Rule 803(4) because they were introduced to establish ownership, not for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.
Docket No. 24679
Cited by
- Estella Robinson, Defendant Below, Petitioner v. City of Bluefield, Plaintiff Below, Respondent — Loughry, J…
- State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Michael Blatt and Kim Blatt, Defendant Bel — Loughry, J…
- State of West Virginia v. Michael and Kim Blatt
- Estella Robinson v. City of Bluefield
- State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Michael Blatt and Kim Blatt, Defendant Bel — Loughry, J…