State v. Riverman, 513 P.3d 13

Defendant pled guilty to fourth-degree assault and recklessly endangering another after a car crash that injured the victim.
At restitution hearing, the state introduced victim testimony and four documents: an Explanation of Benefits from Providence, two Legacy Emanuel hospital Statements of Account, and a chiropractor Account Ledger.
The hospital statement showed $8,407.91 "due from patient"; the chiropractor ledger showed $1,446.98; lost wages claimed were $735.00.
The state did not present evidence that the hospital or chiropractic charges were reasonable; defendant did not object below on reasonableness.
Trial court entered a supplemental judgment ordering $10,589.89 restitution (hospital + chiropractor + lost wages).
On appeal the state conceded plain error as to the medical charges; the Court of Appeals agreed, reversed that portion of the supplemental judgment, remanded for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution may be ordered for hospital and chiropractic charges absent proof those charges are reasonable	State conceded error but argued appellate court should decline plain-error correction because defendant failed to preserve issue and the state could have supplemented the record	Riverman argued trial court plainly erred because the state presented no evidence establishing reasonableness of the medical bills	Court held trial court plainly erred; exercised discretion to correct the error and reversed/restated the restitution award (remanded for resentencing)
Standard for plain-error review	N/A (court applies established plain-error framework)	N/A	Court applied three-prong plain-error test (error of law, obvious, apparent on record) and exercised discretion to correct given gravity and interests of justice

State v. Benz, 289 Or App 366 (restitution plain-error practice)
State v. Dickinson, 298 Or App 679 (state must prove medical/hospital charges reasonable)
State v. McClelland, 278 Or App 138 (finder of fact cannot assume what is a reasonable medical charge without evidence)
State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614 (plain-error test and discretionary review)
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 (plain-error discretionary factors)
State v. Pumphrey, 266 Or App 729 (three prerequisites for restitution: criminal activity, economic damages, causation)
State v. Martinez, 250 Or App 342 (court may correct plainly erroneous restitution awards)
State v. Fults, 343 Or 515 (consideration of whether defendant made a strategic choice when evaluating plain-error review)