STENO IS IN THE HOUSE | ||
StenoDrills.com
| Medical 003Buy steno drill CDs at StenoDrills.com (At this time Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.) MR. CONRAD: This is the trial deposition of Dr. John Donovan being taken in lieu of his live testimony before the Referee in the case of Rita Scott versus Farmer’s Union Bank Building. Counselor, do we agree that since this is a trial deposition the witness will be permitted to answer all questions, and objections will be made on the record, and the Referee will rule on the objections when he reviews the transcript? MR. WOODS: That's agreed. MR. CONRAD: Thank you. DIRECT EXAMINATION ON QUALIFICATIONS BY MR. CONRAD: Q. Doctor, would you please state your full name and professional address. A. John C. Donovan, 14150 Stanson Street, Benson, Vermont. Q. I'm showing you a document which is marked as Exhibit D-1. Do you recognize that? A. Yes. Q. What is that document? A. My curriculum vitae. Q. I'd like to attach Exhibit D-1 to the transcript. Doctor, does that curriculum vitae correctly reflect that you are board certified in the field of orthopedic surgery? A. Yes. Q. You're licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Vermont. A. Yes. MR. CONRAD: Counselor, I understand that you stipulate to the Doctor's qualifications. MR. WOODS: Absolutely. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CONRAD: Q. Doctor, have you ever examined Rita Scott? A. On May 18, 1991. Q. How was she drawn to your attention, if you remember? A. I believe she was sent by an insurance company. It's not stated here, but I believe that is what happened. Q. What history of complaints did she relate to you when you saw her? A. She stated that she complained of right hip and groin pain after she was pushing a bucket when working as a cleaning lady in March of 1990. She stated that the pain originally started five years ago. She had been -- four years before this other incident, she tripped and caught her heel on some type of tile; but she had been able to work in spite of this problem. She states that she wasn't really bothered when she was standing or sitting. The pain only occurs when pushing her foot from an adducted to an abducted hip position; in other words, bringing the hip out to the side -- out from the side. She stated that she had not been working at the time that she was seen here and was undergoing physical therapy. Q. What did your physical examination reveal? A. She had a full range of motion of the lumbar spine. She had a negative straight leg raising test bilaterally; 2 plus knee jerks and ankle jerks bilaterally; no gross motor sensory loss in the lower extremities. In other words, her neurological examination was normal. Range of notion of the right hip was full and equal compared to the left hip; 60 degrees of internal rotation and 80 degrees of external rotation. Q. Did you review any diagnostic studies or orthopedic studies or medical records pursuant to the examination? A. I X-rayed her pelvis and her right hip, and these X-rays were essentially normal. Q. Do you remember the date of her accident that she related to you? A. March of 1990. Q. 1990. Are you sure that was in March? A. That’s what she wrote on the form. MR. CONRAD: Off the record. (At this time there was a short discussion held off the record.) MR. CONRAD: Back on the record. BY MR. CONRAD: Q. Doctor, as of the date of your examination, did you form an opinion as to the claimant's work capacities? A. I felt that I wasn't able to find any disability. I felt that she could return to her normal work duties. Q. Would she have any restrictions as of that date, May 18, 1991? A. No Q. Was she suffering from any pathological orthopedic condition as of that date, May 18, 1991? A. Not that she related to me, and none that I could demonstrate on examination. Q. Is that opinion rendered to within a reasonable degree of medical certainty based on the records you reviewed, the examination you performed, and the history that you received? A. Yes. Q. On the same basis, were you able to form an opinion as to whether on or after May 18, 1991, the claimant required any medical treatment for any orthopedic condition? A. No, she did not. MR. CONRAD: Cross-Examination. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WOODS: Q. Doctor, my name is Robert Woods. I have a few questions. I represent Rita Scott in this case. Very briefly on cross-examination, my understanding is that you saw Ms. Scott one time; and that would have been on May 18, 1991. A. Correct. Q. You saw her at the request of an insurance company. A. Yes. Q. Now, Doctor, you haven't seen her subsequent to May of 1991, which is approximately one year ago? A. No, I haven't. Q. So your opinion is as you saw her at that time. You are not giving an opinion as to her condition as of today? A. That is correct. Q. In that regard, Doctor, you really don't know what her condition is at this point in time. MR. CONRAD: Objection. The question is argumentative, but you can answer. BY MR. WOODS: A. No, I don't. Q. Doctor, at the time you saw Ms. Scott, did you review any medical records of her treating physicians at that time? A. No. Q. Doctor, were you aware as to whether or not she had had any diagnostic studies performed prior to the time you saw her? A. She told me that she had not even received an X-ray up to that point. Q. Since you examined her, Doctor, nave you been able to look at any of the records of any diagnostic studies performed subsequent to the time that you saw her in May of 1991? A. No, I haven't. Q. Have you reviewed the results of a bone scan that was performed? A. No, I haven't. Q. Have you had any contact with either her or any of her records since May of 1991 ? A. No. MR. WOODS: That's all I have. MR. CONRAD: That's all. I'm done. Thank you. (At this time the deposition in the above-captioned matter was concluded.) |
|
