In a legal setting, hearsay is “evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated” (Cal. Evid. Code § 1200, 1965) and is generally prohibited. Legal rulings in life care planning regarding hearsay have traditionally allowed life care planners, as experts, to testify about information that is case-specific to individuals with disabilities or chronic illnesses. However, a few recent cases have been using hearsay rules to exclude testimony, leaving only general aggregate data to be used for the purposes of identifying needs of evaluees. This article summarizes pertinent cases regarding hearsay on the admissibility of expert witness testimony. It also provides a discussion about hearsay evidence, namely that the denial of all hearsay evidence amounts to being too restrictive, essentially doing a disservice to evaluees, the practice of life care planning, and the court system. It also argues that a strict denial of hearsay evidence leaves courts without an accurate picture of the medical and ancillary treatment being received by evaluees and the cost of those services. Keywords: Hearsay, Life Care Planning, Sanchez, casespecific evidence, expert witness Courts in California have been wrestling with a problem that is now affecting life care planners and the admissibility of hearsay testimony across the country, namely the 2016 case, The People v. Marcos Arturo Sanchez, (Sanchez). This case is considered a landmark that denies the use of casespecific hearsay evidence by expert witnesses. While life care planners have been concerned about hearsay affecting core methodologies for some time (Albee Van de Bittner et al., 2019). At present, this issue is primarily affecting life care planners working in California; however it is prudent to continue discussions about best practices that provide services to people with disabilities in a way that is acceptable to the courts. In recent years, the healthcare delivery system has changed; the legal system has refined its understanding of the use of hearsay; business and technology models have evolved; and scientific progress has been made. It is important that life care planners stay abreast of recent advancements. This does not mean that the fundamental methodology is adapted to accommodate these changes, but that life care plans continue to be “dynamic” (International Academy of Life Care Planner, 2015, pg. 14; Weed, 2018, p. 5; Weed & Field, 2014, p. 152) enough to reflect changes in the environment in which they are written. Before discussing hearsay, it may be helpful to provide a context for how admissibility of evidence has changed over time.
Tracy Albee (Mon,) studied this question.