— after the victim had undergone “diagnostic tests up to and including a CAT scan.” See id. (determining that victim’s statements were made for the purpose of medical treatment or diagnosis, in part, because the examination was conducted “in a medical office, with all the equipment that a young child would recognize as indicative of a doctor’s visit”). In addition, the victim had an existing doctor-patient relationship with Gladstone as she had met with her in Gladstone’s medical office on two prior occasions in the previous six months. See State v. Graf, 143 N.H. 294, 304 (1999) (noting preexisting relationship between doctor and victim in analysis of whether victim made statements for purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment); cf. VanPatten v. State, 986 N.E.2d 255, 265 (Ind. 2013) (<HOLDING>). The defendant argues that the fact that
holding that there was insufficient evidence that alleged victim made statements to forensic nurseexaminer for purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment in part because there was no evidence regarding alleged victims past experience with medical facilities or medical providers holding that plaintiffs claim that medical providers did not comply with baker act was not subject to medical malpractice statutes ajlthough a medical diagnosis is necessary in order to involuntarily commit a patient the process of complying with the statute does not require medical skill or judgment holding a victims statements to emergency room doctor not testimonial where the purpose of the examination was for medical diagnosis and treatment holding that the term medical as used in the hearsay exception regarding statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment includes emotional and mental health as well as physical health holding that statements in medical records given for the primary purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment are nontestimonial