(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Freddy T ., 200 Conn. App. 577, 591, 241 A.3d 173 (2020). As this court explained in Freddy T. , however, "[t]he statements of a declarant may be admissible under the medical treatment exception [only] if made in circumstances from which it reasonably may be inferred that the declarant understands that the interview has a medical purpose .

See Thibodeau v. American Baptist Churches of Connecticut, 298 Conn. 901, 3 A.3d 74 (2010); accord Abdelhak v. Jewish Press, Inc., 411 N.J.Super. 211, 235, 985 A.2d 197 (App. Div. 2009) (affirming dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on first amendment establishment clause grounds); Hafif v. Rabbinical Council of Syrian & Near Eastern Jewish Communities in America, 140 A.D.3d 1017, 1017, 34 N.Y.S.3d 160 (2016) (same). ''It is axiomatic that we cannot overrule the decision made by another panel of this court in the absence of en banc consideration''; State v. Freddy T., 200 Conn.App. 577, 589 n.14, 241 A.3d 173 (2020); and ''that this court cannot overrule or reconsider the decisions of our Supreme Court.'' State v. Corver, 182 Conn.App. 622, 638 n.9, 190 A.3d 941, cert. denied, 330 Conn. 916, 193 A.3d 1211 (2018)

We frequently have stated and consistently have adhered to the policy that "we cannot overrule the decision made by another panel of this court in the absence of en banc consideration." State v. Freddy T ., 200 Conn. App. 577, 589 n.14, 241 A.3d 173 (2020) ; see also State v. Jackson , 198 Conn. App. 489, 507 n.12, 233 A.3d 1154, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 957, 239 A.3d 318 (2020) ; State v. White , 127 Conn. App. 846, 858 n.11, 17 A.3d 72, cert. denied, 302 Conn. 911, 27 A.3d 371 (2011).The contrary result reached in this opinion from that of the 2019 panel is made possible as a result of the remand order from our Supreme Court.

(Citations omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Freddy T. , 200 Conn. App. 577, 590–93, 241 A.3d 173 (2020). "Finally, the focus on the understanding of the declarant that there is a medical purpose for the interview remains even when the declarant is a young child.

I recognize that an absence of physical evidence is not uncommon in child sexual abuse cases, but the problem in this case is not just an absence of physical or forensic evidence, but an absence of any corroborative evidence to support the credibility of the complainants' testimony. Compare Statev.Felix R., 319 Conn. 1, 19, 124 A.3d 871 (2015) (''the state's case was not weak due'' in part to corroborative evidence, such as ''the defendant's purchase of a pregnancy test and morning after pills'' for complainant), with Statev. Freddy T., 200 Conn.App. 577, 599, 241 A.3d 173 (2020) (state's case was weakened by lack of corroborative evidence). The state's witnesses corroborated the locations where the complainants lived when the alleged sexual assaults occurred, but those locations were not in dispute at trial.