Zhai v. Saint Francis Medical Center, et al
Filing
170
ORDER - See attached rulings on the proposed deposition testimony of Defendant Philip Cahoy, M.D. to be offered in Plaintiff's case-in-chief. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (JAB)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
WENJIA ZHAI, Individually;
Plaintiff,
vs.
CENTRAL NEBRASKA
ORTHOPEDICS & SPORTS
MEDICINE, P.C., a domestic
professional corporation; et al;
Defendants.
4:16CV3049
1) PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED
REQUESTFOR PORTIONS
OF PHILIP CAHOY, M.D'. 'S
DEPOSITION TO BE READ
AT TRIAL; AND
2) DEFENDANTS' REQUEST
FOR RULING ON
DEPOSITION OBJECTIONS
AND FOR ADDITIONAL
PORTIONSTO BE READ AT
TRIAL
See attached rulings on the proposed deposition testimony of Defendant
Philip Cahoy, M.D. to be offered in Plaintiff’s case-in-chief.
Dated this 27th day of March, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Cheryl R. Zwart
United States Magistrate Judge
72:16 Q. (By Mr. Watson) But that was something that you
17 chose to do on a daily basis in your examinations of
18 Wenjia Zhai?
19 MR. ERNST: Object to fonn. Overruled
20 Q. (By Mr. Watson) To examine him for compartment
21 syndrome, true?
22 A. No. I was not examining him for specifically
23 compartment syndrome. We were -- I was examining him for
24 any other secondary -- it's called secondary surveys where
25 you check everything for several days to make sure -- two,
73 three, four days later sometimes frach1res show up with
2 swelling, ecchymosis. So again, it's just a secondary
3 survey.
Defendants' Request for Rulings on Objections/Additional Portions:
Defendants request a ruling sustaining the above objection (72:20) because the question is vague
and ambiguous. Without this question, the rest of the excerpt does not make sense and should be
stricken. If not, Defendants request the additional portion noted below, pursuant to FRCP 32(a)(6),
which provides that "If a party offers in evidence only part of a deposition, an adverse party may
1
Granted
require the offeror to introduce other patts that in fairness should be considered with the pait
introduced, and any patty may itself introduce any other paits":
Q So is it fair to believe that you w
.
ere
5 perfonning the secondary survey for up to four days after
6 Wenjia Zhai arrived in the hospital under your care
7 looki ng for other medical problems?
8
A. A least.
t
9
Q. And w
ould cofll)artrr.ent syndrome be one of those
10 other medical probl ems that could arise within the tw to
o
11 three to four days in the hospital after a traumati c
12 fracture?
13
A. Anything is p:issible, but again, it w I t the
asn
14 situation in this case.
(73:4-14)
2.)
Plaintiff's Requested Portion:
88:12 Q. (By Mr. Watson) Okay. Did you expect the other
13 physicians to consider you to be the primary physician
14 examining for compaltment syndrome?
15 MR. ERNST: Object. Fonn and foundation. Asked
Overruled
16 and answered.
17 A. Not consciously.
18 Q. (By Mr. Watson) What do you mean "not
19 consciously"?
20 A. I don't think they consciously said, We're going
21 to have Dr. Cahoy look at compaitment syndrome. I think
22 they would look at the patient. If they saw something,
23 they would have a discussion with me.
Defendants' Request for Ruling:
Defendants request a ruling regarding the above objection (88:15) because it is vague and
ambiguous as to "primary physician" and was asked and answered.
2
3.)
Plaintiff's Requested Portion:
87:20 Q. Okay. So you retained the challenge of
21 examining him for compartment syndrome?
22 A. Correct.
Defendants' Request for Ruling/Additional Portions:
Defendants note that Plaintiff did not include the defense objection (87:23) which should be
sustained because "retained the challenge" is vague and ambiguous. If not sustained, Defendants
request the additional portion be read into evidence:
24
A.
As far as --
2:i
Q.
(By M
r.
Sustained
W son) The care of -at
E7
2
3
4
5
A I didn't specifi2.ally say, Nobooy touch him.
.
N I didn ' t say, Nolxxiy can touch him but me .
o,
Q. But it w understoc
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?