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. Jimenez, 419 F.3d 34, 43 (1st Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's exclusion of Pérez's statement after finding that it was not against penal interest considering that "Pérez's statement that he never....Federal Rule of Evidence of Evidence 804(b)(3) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

United States v. Tolliver, 454 F.3d 660, 665-666 (7th Cir. 2006) (upholding trial court's admission of the audiotapes that recorded defendant's sales of crack to a confidential informant because (1) "[Dunklin's] statements....The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause places no limits on the admission at trial of nonhearsay statements made prior to or outside of trial.

Cates v. Morgan Portable Building Corp., 780 F.2d 683, 691 (7th Cir. 1985) (holding, in plaintiff buyers' action for breach of contract against defendant portable building manufacturer, that evidence of stipulation of September 1973....Although settlement negotiations and offers are inadmissible (i) to show the validity or invalidity of a claim when validity is in dispute, (ii) to show the amount of damages when the amount is in dispute, or (iii) to impeach by showing a prior inconsistent statement or specific contradiction, they are admissible when they are offered to support or oppose a claim based on a settlement agreement.