Although Federal Rule of Evidence 409 or a comparable State rule bars evidence of paying for or furnishing medical, hospital, or similar expenses if such evidence is offered to prove liability, such evidence is not barred by Rule 409 or a comparable State rule if the evidence is offered to show injury or damages.

Cf. United States v. Naiden, 424 F.3d 718, 722-723 (11th Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's exclusion of defendant's statement [that he did not believe his online acquaintance to be fourteen years] as a state of mind exception....Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement by a declarant setting forth the declarant's perception of the declarant's internal state (including mental states, bodily conditions, feelings, motives, designs, and intentions) at the time the declarant makes the statement.

United States v. Lopez, 271 F.3d 472, 484-485 (3d Cir. 2001) (upholding trial court's admission of police officer's statements about a witness's prior statement as pretrial identification because "the purpose of the Rule....A pretrial identification is exempt from the prohibition against hearsay evidence if the witness who made the identification testifies and is subject to cross-examination at the trial or hearing at which the identification is offered and if the witness who made the identification did so after perceiving the person whom he or she identified.

Fed. R. Evid. 405(a) advisory committee's note ("According to the great majority of cases, on cross-examination inquiry is allowable as to whether the reputation witness has heard of particular instances of conduct pertinent to the trait in question. Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948); Annot., 47...Although a character witness who testifies to the reputation of another person or gives an opinion of the character of another person cannot testify to specific instances of that person's conduct to bolster the character witness's testimony, an opposing party may question the character witness about specific instances of the person's conduct to show that the character witness' testimony about the character of the person was not well-founded.