State v. Fox, 496 P.3d 10

Background

Defendant assaulted neighbors M and J with a metal chain; both were transported by ambulance/air and received hospital treatment. Defendant pleaded guilty to second‑ and third‑degree assault.
Trial court entered an amended supplemental judgment ordering $11,305.28 restitution ($8,105.28 medical; $3,200 attorney fees).
CVSD (Crime Victim Services Division) paid J’s bills after reduction under the workers’ compensation fee schedule; CVSD also reimbursed M $300 for copays.
Regence Blue Cross paid $3,346.26 for M’s ambulance, emergency, and follow‑up care, but its witness did not provide an itemized breakdown or connect charges to market rates.
Victims retained private attorney Naumes (they had a preexisting civil/property dispute); Naumes performed services related to the criminal case (motion to quash subpoena, settlement negotiations, speaking at sentencing) and some property‑related work.
On appeal the court affirmed restitution for J’s CVSD‑paid medical expenses and for attorney fees directly related to the criminal case, but reversed awards for M’s Blue Cross charges and CVSD’s $300 copay reimbursement and remanded for recalculation/resentencing.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Fox's Argument	Held
Reasonableness & necessity of J’s medical expenses (CVSD payments)	CVSD testimony + workers’ comp fee schedule shows charges at or below market; injuries made ambulance/ER/CT/x‑ray and follow‑up obviously necessary	Witnesses were not medical professionals; medical bills alone insufficient to prove reasonableness or necessity	CVSD testimony and nature of injuries sufficient; J’s CVSD‑paid charges were reasonable and necessarily incurred (affirmed)
Reasonableness of M’s medical expenses (Blue Cross payments)	Blue Cross paid $3,346.26 for ambulance, emergency, follow‑up — payment by insurer shows reasonableness	No itemized breakdown or evidence linking amounts to market rates; bills alone insufficient	Insufficient evidence of market‑rate reasonableness; award for Blue Cross charges reversed
CVSD reimbursement of $300 copay to M	CVSD reimbursed copays	No evidence $300 was reasonable	$300 not established as reasonable; award reversed
Restitution for victims’ private attorney fees (Naumes)	Fees for services directly related to criminal case were reasonably foreseeable and necessarily incurred (motion to quash, negotiations, sentencing)	Fees not reasonably foreseeable because DA/victim advocates could assist; some services related to preexisting property dispute not tied to assaults	Fees for services directly related to criminal prosecution recoverable; fees for property‑dispute work (e.g., photographing defendant’s property) not recoverable; remand to recalculate

Key Cases Cited

State v. Aguirre‑Rodriguez, 367 Or 614 (explains statutory elements required for restitution)
State v. Perdew, 304 Or App 524 (state must prove medical expenses reasonable and necessarily incurred)
State v. Workman, 300 Or App 622 (CVSD witness testimony and workers’ compensation fee schedule can support reasonableness)
State v. McClelland, 278 Or App 138 (medical bills alone are insufficient to prove reasonableness)
State v. Dickinson, 298 Or App 679 (necessity is distinct from reasonableness; some obvious services may be proven by common sense)
State v. Ramos, 358 Or 581 (attorney fees recoverable only if reasonably foreseeable)
State v. Herfurth, 283 Or App 149 (attorney fees must be reasonably foreseeable, reasonable in amount, and necessarily incurred)
State v. Campbell, 296 Or App 22 (payment by insurer or reduced schedule may be evidence of market rate)
State v. Hilburn, 301 Or App 48 (insufficient evidence tying insurer payments to customary market rates defeats restitution claim)