In Our "ShorvG4u* l'tFyMW(ii)Oo5*r'i T prt-sented TVi* .Mtentit- OMvfMd (Vib/^ i/USdod-iau Of pecenis iflfoEi/itUnck- jwtyii, yw+U diSisq^kTH
c..!,:^ -h, Section \a5P-, tVidtrce ^ a statewrt- is ymjV ym^ inwteiW
w^aiw* or 4*a wc&pW or qenwai ^m&u' of -|W f}om 0/ -Eternal r&wr<B/
-rKA^of a? r^^Ktftkia p^fi'*e/>f iv Ai&Qw$s or ^YcKfmmt- Hn>s sec^otf
Ainnuxpc^ a sWewtvtf -tfu Vi'ctw vtoo is a YMor ya tivfci df-W^
h < ^ mrmAiA ^'SW-ewvrt was vvvde^ v^Vavi tkt vvoKw was un% K^qW X@- cUfiCYxV^ «W( ac*, OY aMwf\tA a<X,of-&M AtaSt
cvnegleo+-- "cRilcI fbvsg.''
\Jndwl>te S'ix-Hi Awmidmevt- fwra flood m| riqVif-ft Tiled loy ]unj wft$
W&V
EVidevi c& (W& p5>- tvidwici ok (x STaWaaviV if Wuk'iS'^' .
Adi's 5W«r\wVS Avid ph[iical Evidence/ «f Atouft- wm, disregard^
UWofR poUrVa ^avidsini and fttadiw M.MVwu
A« $44^4 Wr fcdWr jv\i Earned CcivAstfl dte \c< cUaMJcWivr 4nd tk
5^ua\ "aRwct- 1v\ addvWori ft ^\ng f\\i in Her -*%$.

Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of medical records and statements under the hearsay rule