Associate Justice Sabida Singh convened the panel and called Commonwealth v. Arthur Bubanes for argument. Defense attorney Sarah Unger told the court the trial judge abused discretion by admitting statements in the victim’s medical records that were "not reliable statements" and "largely unattributed," arguing they were inflammatory and prejudicial to the defense.

Unger said the medical-record entries lacked attribution to a qualifying medical professional and therefore did not trigger the statutory presumption of reliability for records used in diagnosis or treatment. "These are not reliable statements. They're largely unattributed," she said, urging exclusion and arguing the jury was wrongly asked to weigh anonymous assertions as evidence of the victim’s intellectual disability.

The Commonwealth, represented by Bennett Demski (joined at counsel table by Assistant District Attorney Casey Sylvia), replied that the contested entries fit within the statutory scheme and that the jury had other, stronger evidence of a long‑term impairment, "Our best evidence was a diagnosis from a neurologist," Demski said. He also defended the trial judge’s voir dire and steps taken to insure the reliability of an identification shown to the jury.

Both sides addressed harmless‑error considerations: Unger argued the records were the most prejudicial evidence on disability and therefore reversal was required; Demski countered that even if the entries were erroneously admitted the verdict did not turn on them because of the neurologist’s testimony and corroborating witness accounts. The panel asked several questions about attribution, the medical‑records statute, and the extent to which jurors could rely on family‑history notations in intake forms.

After extended questioning the panel submitted the matter for decision. The court did not announce a ruling from the bench at the hearing.