Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment.

Reilly v. City of Atlantic City, 532 F.3d 216, 230 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting from Catletti ex rel. Estate of Catletti v. Rampe, 334 F.3d 225, 229-30 (2d Cir.2003) with approval : "paramount importance of judicial truth-seeking").Although factors and purposes other factfinding and accurate factfinding influence and constrain proof and the law of evidence, factfinding and accurate factfinding are essential purposes of the process of proof and the law of evidence; without these last two purposes, the process of proof and the law of evidence would not exist in a recognizable form.

Fed. R. Evid. 807(A) (statement admissible under Rule 807 only if "the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact").The hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 807 or a comparable State rule applies only if the the affected statement is evidence of a material fact.

United States v. Aramony, 88 F.3d 1369, 1377-1378 (4th Cir. 1996) (upholding trial court's admission of testimony of UWA female employees which showed accused Aramony's sexual misconduct because such evidence was relevant to place accused's actions into context and to show his motive in defrauding the UWA...A person's other crimes, wrongs, or acts are not barred by the character rule either if they are not offered to show that person's propensity or if they are not offered to show that that person engaged in conduct on a particular occasion because of his or her propensity to engage in that sort of conduct.