Scenario:

Child victim is given a sexual assault examination. During the exam, a SANE takes statements from the child regarding the specific acts of abuse as part of the medical history for purposes of medical diagnosis. The SANE documents the child victim's statements in the report.

The SANE becomes unavailable for trial.

A different SANE is qualified as a records custodian and wishes to testify that the report is a business record and should be admitted as such. Futhermore, that based on her qualifications as an expert (R.O.E. 702-703) she would agree with the findings as well as testify about what the child victim said during the examination.

If the child victim is available to testify, has Crawford been violated?
Is a medical exam substantively different from laboratory analysis by DPS for purposes of Crawford?

The most recent Williams case has, sadly, given us virtually nothing to help answer your question.

There is still not a majority of SCOTUS judges who have a consistent, coherent theory that can be applied to scientific testimony and result in a predictable answer.