In State v. Hinnant, 351 N.C. 277, 289, 523 S.E.2d 663, 670-71 (2000), the alleged victim of sexual abuse was a four-year-old child. She was interviewed by a clinical psychologist after a doctor had already conducted an initial medical exam. The record did not "disclose that the psychologist or anyone else explained to the child the medical purpose of the interview." In that case our Supreme Court could not conclude that the child understood the interviews were conducted in order to provide medical diagnosis or treatment. Because "there was no affirmative record evidence indicating that the child's statements were medically motivated and, therefore, inherently reliable," the Court found that the first part of the inquiry was not met. Among the firmly-rooted hearsay exceptions is the exception for statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment. N.C. Gen. Stat. 8C-1, Rule 803(4)(2007). Hearsay evidence is admissible under Rule 803(4) only when two inquiries are satisfied. First, the trial court must determine that the declarant intended to make the statements at issue in order to obtain medical diagnosis or treatment. The trial court may consider all objective circumstances of record in determining whether the declarant possessed the requisite intent. Second, the trial court must determine that the declarant's statements were reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment. State v. Hinnant, 351 N.C. 277, 289, 523 S.E.2d 663, 670-71 (2000).