the writing concerns a collateral matter. See Utah R.Eivid. 1004. Nevertheless, even if an original document meets one of the exceptions provided, secondary evidence will not be allowed if the proponent of the evidence was responsible for its absence. See Weinstein's § 1004.11[2][al. This is due to the extensive risk that the proponent might offer false or misleading secondary evidence. See id. 139 In the instant case, Dr. Larsen, who was the treating physician, was called by the Gorostiectas to testify. Because we have been provided with only partial transcripts, there is no record of his testimony. However, he was apparently never asked about the medical charges. 1[ 40 Also due to the incompleteness of the record, it is unclear as to what testimony Marie Gorostieta would 14 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Kennedy v. Monroe, 15 Wash.App. 39, 547 P.2d
holding that any sentence that is properly calculated under the guidelines is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness recognizing a presumption of reasonableness holding that guidelines create a rebuttable presumption holding that statute does not eliminate plaintiffs burden to prove reasonableness and necessity of past medical expenses holding that medical bills offered through plaintiffs testimony alone may require more if rebuttable presumption of reasonableness and necessity is challenged