CACI 218 Statements Made to Physician (Previously Existing Condition)
California Civil Jury Instructions CACI
218 Statements Made to Physician (Previously Existing Condition)
[Insert name of health-care provider] has testified that [insert name of patient] made statements to [him/her/nonbinary pronoun] about [name of patient]’s medical history. These statements helped [name of health-care provider] diagnose the patient’s condition. You can use these statements to help you examine the basis of [name of health-care provider]’s opinion. You cannot use them for any other purpose.
[However, a statement by [name of patient] to [name of health-care provider] about [his/her/nonbinary pronoun] current medical condition may be considered as evidence of that medical condition.]
New September 2003; Revised June 2006, May 2020
Directions for Use
This instruction does not apply to, and should not be used for, a statement of the patient’s then-existing physical sensation, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health. Such statements are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule under Evidence Code section 1250. This instruction also does not apply to statements of a patient regarding a prior mental or physical state if the patient is unavailable as a witness. (Evid. Code, § 1251.)
This instruction also does not apply to, and should not be used for, statements of a party that are offered into evidence by an opposing party. Such statements are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule under Evidence Code section 1220. See CACI No. 212, Statements of a Party Opponent.
Sources and Authority
• Statements of Party. Evidence Code section 1220.
• Statements pointing to the cause of a physical condition may be admissible if they are made by a patient to a physician. The statement must be required for proper diagnosis and treatment and is admissible only to show the basis of the physician’s medical opinion. (People v. Wilson (1944) 25 Cal.2d 341, 348 [153 P.2d 720]; Johnson v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 247, 252 [34 Cal.Rptr. 484]; Willoughby v. Zylstra (1935) 5 Cal.App.2d 297, 300–301 [42 P.2d 685].)