State Of Washington v. Edmond E. Cummings, 75229-4

Edmond Cummings pleaded guilty to third-degree assault for biting Christopher Connolly; plea agreement stated the judge would order restitution for injuries unless extraordinary circumstances existed.
The State sought $12,195.80 in restitution for medical costs incurred by Connolly for treatment between May 16–18, 2015, allegedly for a MRSA infection following the bite.
The trial court initially reserved decision on MRSA-related costs but later entered an order granting the State’s full restitution request, finding by a preponderance that the injuries were caused by Cummings.
At the restitution hearing, the State introduced only Connolly’s medical bills; it did not introduce medical records, treating-provider testimony, or other evidence linking the bills specifically to a MRSA infection caused by the assault.
Cummings disputed that his conduct caused the claimed MRSA-related expenses and requested further proof; the court nonetheless ordered restitution and Cummings appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Cummings)	Held
Whether the plea agreement obligated Cummings to pay restitution beyond damages caused by his charged crime	Plea language and statutory restitution allow ordering full restitution for injuries; Cummings agreed to pay restitution in full	Plea was boilerplate and should not be read to impose restitution beyond causally connected losses from his charged conduct	Court rejected Cummings’s plea-agreement challenge and held the order was not void for exceeding the plea’s scope
Whether the State proved causation between Cummings’s charged assault and Connolly’s claimed medical expenses	The bills reflect treatment costs after the assault and thus are causally connected to the crime	State offered no medical records or testimony proving MRSA resulted from the assault; bills alone do not establish causation	Court reversed: State’s evidence was insufficient to prove causation by a preponderance; remanded for evidentiary hearing

State v. Tobin, 161 Wn.2d 517 (2007) (losses awarded need not be foreseeable but must be causally connected to the crime)
State v. Enstone, 137 Wn.2d 675 (1999) (restitution only for losses causally connected to the offense)
State v. Griffith, 164 Wn.2d 960 (2008) (but-for causation test for restitution)
State v. Dedonado, 99 Wn. App. 251 (2000) (court may rely only on facts admitted or proved; defendant entitled to evidentiary hearing if material facts disputed)
State v. Kinneman, 155 Wn.2d 272 (2005) (precise accuracy of restitution amount not required; reasonable basis suffices)
State v. Bunner, 86 Wn. App. 158 (1997) (medical-bill summaries lacking reasons for services insufficient to establish causation)
State v. Blanchfield, 126 Wn. App. 235 (2005) (victim testimony can establish causation when adequate)
State v. Gonzalez, 168 Wn.2d 256 (2010) (remand for evidentiary hearing when restitution causation not established)