Medical statements to trial experts
Sharon Elizabeth Keegan v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Sharon Elizabeth Keegan asked the Supreme Court to review whether statements made to an expert retained for trial testimony can qualify under the federal evidence rule for statements made for medical diagnosis.
- Who it affects
- The order gives no Supreme Court answer in Keegan's case on whether statements to a trial expert qualify under Rule 803(4).
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court refused to hear her case (denied her petition for Supreme Court review) and did not decide that question.
Keegan's petition concerned whether statements to an expert hired for trial can count as statements made for medical diagnosis under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4).
Question presented
Do “statement[s]” “made for” the purpose of obtaining a “medical diagnosis” still satisfy Rule 803(4) when they are made to an expert witness retained to testify at trial?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 2 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Court Order added: Lower Court Orders/Opinions
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.