
    Argued and submitted October 7,
    reversed and remanded in part; otherwise affirmed October 30, 1996
    STATE ex rel DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESORUCES, Respondent, v. Craig E. LEWELLING, Appellant, and Kimberly S. BYRD, Obligee.
    
    (C-910014-FI; CA A90176)
    925 P2d 597
    William B. Wyllie argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
    Mary H. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.
    Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, and Landau and Leeson, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

In this appeal from a judgment establishing appellant’s paternity, the issues are whether the trial court erred when it allowed an expert to testify about the “probability of paternity” on the basis of a statistical analysis of the putative father’s blood, and whether it erred in awarding costs and fees to the state without conducting a hearing on defendant’s objections to them.

On the first issue, the testimony of the state’s expert witnesses met the conditions articulated in Plemel v. Walter, 303 Or 262, 278-79, 735 P2d 1209 (1987).

On the second issue, we accept the state’s concession that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a hearing pursuant to ORCP 68 C(4)(c) on defendant’s timely objections to the state’s cost bill and request for attorney fees.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings on attorney fees and costs; otherwise affirmed.  