HomeMy WebLinkAbout0060 QUESTION: `~hich means that yoga didn't measure
it or you measured it incorrectly.
?i_JS~diR: I neasured it incorrectly, obviously.
QUES~`ION: Is it i*.tportant
ANSWER: I wouldn't put it in intentionally too
long; that's for sure.
QUESTION: Is it important to the patient that the
rod be measured correc~ly?
AVSAIER: Yes; anti I'm usually right. I'm very goon
at my work.
Also on cross examination, Dr. Sullivan testified with respect to
the failure of the hospital to provide an X-ray machine in the
operating room:
QUESTION: Is there anything in the operative note
that says, 'Called for X-ray. riot available.'
At~S~VER: No, I didn't say that. - ~ -
QUESTION: Is there anything in the entire hospital
- record that says that?
f
AVS:~ER: No, not that -I am aware of .
~2UESTIO?i: So, if Mr. ?arker read the hospital records,
he wouldn't get it front that, would he?
A:ZSWER: P1o that's a damaging statement. We try to
avoid those things in the record.
i
Then, with respect to .Mr. Terry's damages, Dr. Sullivan testified: -
QL~STIOLV: But he had another surgery that he
shouldn't have had to have, didn't he?
A'JSPIER: That's the way it noes in this business.-
QU~STIOV: Since you feel he should have that reaction,
did you charge him for that second admission?
ANSWER: Certainly.
It is interesting to note that Dr. Sullivan solicited
contributions from members of the medical profession for institut- f
k
ing this and other malicious prosecution cases. Two of the con-
tributors were Dr. Stalker and Dr. Peacock, an orthopedic sur-
geon who testified on behalf of the defense. In addition to his
expert testimony, Dr. Peacock also testified that iF he had
known all of the facts in this case he would not have contributed
to the prosecution fund.
Ds previously noted, the pri*_aary issue on appeal is
whether there was probable cause for bringing the medical rtal-
-
a40 PaGE ~ -