EXHIBIT 1

Case 7:20-cv-00094-MCR-GRJ Document 133-1 Filed 05/20/21 Page 1 of 15
Objections Rulings

15:05 - 15:07 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:06

15:05 Could you state your name for the

15:06 Record, please.

15:07 A. It's Jodee Donaldson.

21:09 - 22:01 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 1:57

21:09 Q. Okay. Prior to appearing here Re: [21:09 to 22:01] OVERRULED

21:10 today, did you have an opportunity to look at Def Obj Improper counter;

21:11 your file, or the VA's file, in connection with Relevance (401, 402) (not

21:12 any treatment or services rendered to Mr. relevant to impeachment on

21:13 McCombs? hearing protection use);

21:14 A. Yes. I looked at the report done Prejudice (403)

21:15 that day.

21:16 Q. And that would be the report that

21:17 you prepared?

21:18 A. Yes.

21:19 Q. Okay. Did you look at any other

21:20 records in the VA's system of Mr. McCombs?

21:21 A. No.

21:22 Q. Did you look to see if you had

21:23 any documents that concerned the treatment of

21:24 Mr. McCombs?

21:25 A. It would have only been the

22:01 report. We don't keep any other records.

22:25 - 23:07 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:21

22:25 Q. Okay. When was the last time

23:01 that you ever examined Mr. McCombs?

23:02 A. According to the document, it was

23:03 November 7, 2015.

23:04 Q. When was the first time you ever

23:05 examined Mr. McCombs?

23:06 A. That would be the same, November

23:07 7, 2015.

23:08 - 23:13 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:19

Designations

Page 1 of 14

Case 7:20-cv-00094-MCR-GRJ Document 133-1 Filed 05/20/21 Page 2 of 15
23:08 Q. Okay. Is it correct your

23:09 treatment or examination of Mr. McCombs was

23:10 limited to a single incident or episode or

23:11 visit?

23:12 A. Yes. The examination was limited

23:13 to a single visit.

33:19 - 34:11 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 1:20

33:19 Q. Can you walk us through your

33:20 employment history after graduating with a

33:21 degree in audiology in 2006?

33:22 A. Yes. In 2006 I was offered a

33:23 full-time position at the same clinic that I

33:24 did my externship at, so I stayed on at Arizona

33:25 Hearing and Balance Center, and I worked there

34:01 until December 2011. At that time, I moved to

34:02 Nashville, from Arizona, and I started working

34:03 at Vanderbilt University, at the Bill Wilkerson

34:04 Clinic, as an audiologist. And then I left

34:05 that job in -- at the end of June 2013, and

34:06 began working for the VA in July 2013.

34:07 And then finally, I work

34:08 part-time for the VA now, so I also work

34:09 part-time at a clinic called Ascent Hearing --

34:10 Audiology and Hearing, and that job began in

34:11 February of 2020.

55:03 - 55:14 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 1:48

55:03 Q. In connection with your rendering

55:04 services to Mr. McCombs, did you inquire of him

55:05 whether he was exposed to noise in a combat

55:06 zone?

55:07 A. Yes. On my report of Mr.

55:08 McCombs, under remarks pertaining to hearing

55:09 loss, I did indicate that he served a combat

55:10 tour in Afghanistan in 2009 until 2010.

55:11 Q. And did you inquire of Mr.

Page 2 of 14

Case 7:20-cv-00094-MCR-GRJ Document 133-1 Filed 05/20/21 Page 3 of 15
55:12 McCombs whether he was wearing hearing

55:13 protection when he was exposed to noise while

55:14 in combat?

55:25 - 56:07 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:23

55:25 A. Okay. I stated in the next

56:01 paragraph of the notes: Hearing protection was

56:02 only worn during training and not in combat.

56:03 Q. Where did you obtain the

56:04 information that Mr. McCombs only wore hearing

56:05 protection in training, but not in combat?

56:06 A. From the veteran's provided

56:07 history.

57:18 - 57:22 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:19

57:18 Q. Did you -- My question is: Did Re: [57:18 to 58:01] OVERRULED

57:19 you consider Mr. McCombs' answer, or statement Def Obj Improper counter;

57:20 to you, that he only wore hearing protection in Relevance (401, 402) (not

57:21 training and not in combat in connection with relevant to impeachment on

57:22 any services that you rendered to Mr. McCombs? hearing protection use);

Prejudice (403); 701 (improper

lay opinion).

58:01 - 58:01 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:02

58:01 A. No. I did -- I did not. Re: [57:18 to 58:01] OVERRULED

Def Obj Improper counter;

Relevance (401, 402) (not

relevant to impeachment on

hearing protection use);

Prejudice (403); 701 (improper

lay opinion).

59:10 - 59:13 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:14

59:10 Q. And were you also seeking to Re: [59:10 to 59:13] SUSTAINED

59:11 ascertain, whether in connection with his Def Obj Improper counter;

59:12 service, he had sustained tinnitus? Relevance (401, 402) (not

59:13 A. Yes. relevant to impeachment on

Page 3 of 14

Case 7:20-cv-00094-MCR-GRJ Document 133-1 Filed 05/20/21 Page 4 of 15
hearing protection use);

Prejudice (403)

61:15 - 61:24 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 1:40

61:15 Q. And was it your practice to

61:16 document as truthfully and accurately as

61:17 possible what the patient had told you in

61:18 connection with your evaluation of that

61:19 patient?

61:20 A. Yes.

61:21 Q. Did you do your best to

61:22 truthfully and accurately document what Mr.

61:23 McCombs had told you in connection with your

61:24 evaluation of him in 2015, for VA benefits?

61:25 - 61:25 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:01

61:25 A. Yes.

66:07 - 66:14 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 1:32

66:07 Q. Is this a record of Mr. McCombs Re: [66:07 to 66:14] OVERRULED

66:08 that you completed in connection with your Def Obj Improper counter;

66:09 evaluation of him? Relevance (401, 402) (not

66:10 A. Yes. According to my notes, I relevant to impeachment on

66:11 said under evidence, comments: Tinnitus was hearing protection use);

66:12 reported within the SMR, that's service medical Prejudice (403)

66:13 record, on 4/26/2009, and that's where I

66:14 believe I obtained that information.

68:19 - 68:23 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:20

68:19 Q. Does the record that you looked Re: [68:19 to 68:23] OVERRULED

68:20 at indicate that following an IED blast on Def Obj Improper counter;

68:21 April 23, 2009, Mr. McCombs reported ringing of Relevance (401, 402) (not

68:22 the ears? relevant to impeachment on

68:23 A. Yes. hearing protection use);

Prejudice (403)

80:08 - 81:04 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 1:26

Page 4 of 14

Case 7:20-cv-00094-MCR-GRJ Document 133-1 Filed 05/20/21 Page 5 of 15
80:08 Q. You go on to write: Tinnitus was Re: [80:08 to 81:04]

80:09 reported within the SMR on 4/26/09. He Def Obj Improper counter;

80:10 reported tinnitus for five minutes after a Relevance (401, 402) (not

80:11 blast. relevant to impeachment on

80:12 Do you see that? hearing protection use);

80:13 A. Uh-huh. Yes. Prejudice (403)

80:14 Q. Was that information that you

80:15 obtained from the medical records that the VA

80:16 or the U.S. military maintained?

80:17 A. Yes. That information was on the

80:18 service medical record that we viewed earlier

80:19 from April 26, 2009.

80:20 Q. When it says he reported tinnitus

80:21 for five minutes after a blast, of what

80:22 significance was that to you in connection with

80:23 your examination of Mr. McCombs?

80:24 A. It was evidence that he

80:25 experienced ringing in his ears while

81:01 active-duty service. Ringing in the ears is

81:02 often the result -- or it can be a result of

81:03 acoustic trauma; and that's what I'm looking

81:04 for, is evidence of any acoustic trauma.

81:16 - 81:24 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 1:30

81:16 Q. Okay. And is it the case, that Re: [81:16 to 81:24] SUSTAINED

81:17 as part of your evidence evaluation or review, Def Obj Improper counter;

81:18 you did look at his medical records while he Relevance (401, 402) (not

81:19 was in the service; that's the SMR, service relevant to impeachment on

81:20 medical records? hearing protection use);

81:21 A. Yes. All service medical records Prejudice (403)

81:22 are reviewed, although there's a human

81:23 component to it where sometimes things are

81:24 missed.

86:02 - 87:02 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 1:59

86:02 Q. And then the next page says, Re: [86:02 to 86:15] SUSTAINED

86:03 under remarks. The veteran reported a history Pltf Obj Not limited to

SUSTAINED as to 80:20-81:04. 

Otherwise OVERRULED

Page 5 of 14

Case 7:20-cv-00094-MCR-GRJ Document 133-1 Filed 05/20/21 Page 6 of 15
86:04 of military noise exposure which included “impeaching McCombs by

86:05 machine guns and IEDs. contradiction.”

86:06 Where do you get that

86:07 information?

86:08 A. I ask the veteran what military

86:09 noise exposure he had, and that's what he

86:10 stated.

86:11 Q. And here when we're talking about

86:12 the veteran, you asked Mr. McCombs what hearing

86:13 -- I'm sorry, what military noise exposure he

86:14 had; is that correct?

86:15 A. Yes.

86:16 Q. And then you write, immediately

86:17 after that: Hearing protection was only worn

86:18 during training and not in combat.

86:19 Do you see that?

86:20 A. Yes.

86:21 Q. Where do you get that

86:22 information?

86:23 A. From Mr. McCombs.

86:24 Q. Did Mr. McCombs indicate to you

86:25 in connection with your evaluation of his claim

87:01 that he only wore hearing protection during

87:02 training and not in combat?

87:05 - 87:14 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:25

87:05 A. I would ask the question if he

87:06 used hearing protection while in the military

87:07 and that would have been his response.

87:08 Q. Okay. So the information that

87:09 Mr. McCombs wore hearing protection only in

87:10 training and not in combat, that's information

87:11 Mr. McCombs provided to you in connection with

87:12 your November 7th of 2015 examination; is that

87:13 correct?

87:14 A. Yes.

Page 6 of 14

Case 7:20-cv-00094-MCR-GRJ Document 133-1 Filed 05/20/21 Page 7 of 15
91:25 - 92:04 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:17

91:25 Q. And was it important to your Re: [91:25 to 92:04] SUSTAINED

92:01 evaluation of Mr. McCombs to understand whether Def Obj Improper counter;

92:02 he was exposed to this noise that resulted in Relevance (401, 402) (not

92:03 this ringing of his ears while he was in relevant to impeachment on

92:04 combat? hearing protection use);

Prejudice (403)

92:14 - 92:18 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:11

92:14 A. In my examination, I -- I did not Re: [92:14 to 92:18] SUSTAINED

92:15 -- I don't remember what I asked him at that Def Obj Improper counter;

92:16 time, because it was five years ago. But in my Relevance (401, 402) (not

92:17 report, I did not indicate if it was in combat relevant to impeachment on

92:18 or training. hearing protection use);

Prejudice (403)

92:20 - 93:11 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 1:48

92:20 that. But I asked whether -- You told us Re: [92:20 to 93:11] SUSTAINED

92:21 earlier in connection with service history, one Def Obj Improper counter;

92:22 of the things you asked about is service in a Relevance (401, 402) (not

92:23 combat zone and exposure to noises, specific relevant to impeachment on

92:24 noises, while in a combat zone; correct? hearing protection use);

92:25 A. Yes. Prejudice (403)

93:01 Q. And that's relevant to your

93:02 evaluation of the patient; correct?

93:03 A. Yes.

93:04 Q. And that would have been relevant

93:05 to your evaluation of Mr. McCombs; correct?

93:06 A. So you're asking if knowing if

93:07 the IED blast was in combat or in training

93:08 would have been relevant?

93:09 Q. Understanding what noise exposure

93:10 he had while in combat, whether that would have

93:11 been relevant to your evaluation?

93:14 - 93:22 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:20

93:14 Q. You can answer. Re: [93:14 to 93:22] SUSTAINED

Page 7 of 14

Case 7:20-cv-00094-MCR-GRJ Document 133-1 Filed 05/20/21 Page 8 of 15
93:15 A. Okay. I -- I mean, honestly, Def Obj Improper counter;

93:16 when we're looking -- when we're looking at Relevance (401, 402) (not

93:17 noise exposure, a lot of times we don't -- we relevant to impeachment on

93:18 just ask about noise exposure and not hearing protection use);

93:19 specifically what occurred in combat. Prejudice (403)

93:20 Q. Okay.

93:21 A. We don't often differentiate

93:22 between combat and between training.

94:23 - 94:25 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:08

94:23 Q. The constant tinnitus is what he Re: [94:23 to 94:25] OVERRULED

94:24 said in your interview of him; correct? Def Obj Improper counter;

94:25 A. Yes. Relevance (401, 402) (not

relevant to impeachment on

hearing protection use);

Prejudice (403); Hearsay

96:08 - 96:14 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:19

96:08 Q. Okay. And that's what you put Re: [96:08 to 96:14] SUSTAINED

96:09 there as the rationale for your conclusion that Def Obj Improper counter;

96:10 it was at least as likely as not, 50 percent Relevance (401, 402) (not

96:11 probability or greater, that tinnitus was relevant to impeachment on

96:12 caused by or result of military noise exposure; hearing protection use);

96:13 correct? Prejudice (403); 701 (improper

96:14 A. Yes. lay opinion)

97:01 - 97:25 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 1:08

97:01 Q. And then you go on to say that Re: [97:01 to 97:25] SUSTAINED

97:02 the etiology is typically inferred by patient Def Obj Improper counter;

97:03 history and a review of the medical records, Relevance (401, 402) (not

97:04 and that the medical -- the service medical relevant to impeachment on

97:05 records in C-file do not contain any direct hearing protection use);

97:06 evidence of tinnitus; however, the veteran Prejudice (403)

97:07 reported the onset of tinnitus occurred in

97:08 2009, during which time he was serving active

97:09 duty in the Army.

97:10 Do you see that?

Page 8 of 14

Case 7:20-cv-00094-MCR-GRJ Document 133-1 Filed 05/20/21 Page 9 of 15
97:11 A. Yes.

97:12 Q. What do you mean that the service

97:13 records in C-file don't contain any direct

97:14 evidence of tinnitus?

97:15 A. When I do these reports, I use a

97:16 template that automatically populates that

97:17 statement. And if there is any evidence in the

97:18 C-file, I have to go in and physically change

97:19 it. And I think that was an error, that I

97:20 didn't go back and change it.

97:21 So it should have stated -- Which

97:22 if you go back to the evidence review, which

97:23 was in my handwriting, that tinnitus was

97:24 reported within the SMR on 4/26/09. So that

97:25 was a user error there.

101:19 - 101:25 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:23

101:19 Q. Dr. Donaldson, just a couple more Re: [101:19 to 102:04] SUSTAINED

101:20 questions. At any time in connection with your Def Obj Improper counter;

101:21 evaluation of Mr. McCombs, did you reach any Relevance (401, 402) (not

101:22 conclusions as to what the cause of his relevant to impeachment on

101:23 tinnitus was? hearing protection use);

101:24 A. I attributed his tinnitus to Prejudice (403); 701 (improper

101:25 military noise exposure. lay opinion)

102:01 - 102:04 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:17

102:01 Q. Did you determine whether the use Re: [101:19 to 102:04] SUSTAINED

102:02 or lack of use of hearing protection devices Def Obj Improper counter;

102:03 while in combat was a cause of his tinnitus? Relevance (401, 402) (not

102:04 A. No. relevant to impeachment on

hearing protection use);

Prejudice (403); 701 (improper

lay opinion)

108:21 - 109:03 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:24

108:21 with the report that you entered. The first Re: [108:21 to 109:03] OVERRULED

108:22 question is, do you have any independent Def Obj Improper counter;

Page 9 of 14

Case 7:20-cv-00094-MCR-GRJ Document 133-1 Filed 05/20/21 Page 10 of 15
108:23 recollection of Dustin McCombs at all? Relevance (401, 402) (not

108:24 A. No. relevant to impeachment on

108:25 Q. All you know is basically what's hearing protection use);

109:01 in your records -- the records that you've Prejudice (403)

109:02 reviewed?

109:03 A. Yes. That's all I know.

109:21 - 110:06 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 1:32

109:21 Q. Now, when you take that history,

109:22 are you writing that down longhand, are you

109:23 entering that into a computer, or what?

109:24 A. Yes. Usually I write it down in

109:25 longhand.

110:01 Q. Do you -- What are you writing it

110:02 on?

110:03 A. We have a history form that the

110:04 -- that everybody in our clinic uses that has

110:05 the general questions that we ask, and I note

110:06 it on there.

113:07 - 113:16 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 1:35

113:07 Q. And you're filling out this form

113:08 in longhand while you're asking the questions

113:09 and he's giving responses; is that right?

113:10 A. Yes, sir.

113:11 Q. Now, after this form is filled

113:12 out by you, longhand, then does he go ahead and

113:13 have these tests done, the audiograms and that

113:14 sort of thing?

113:15 A. Yes. And that would be followed

113:16 by the hearing examination.

116:19 - 116:25 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:25

116:19 Q. Now, the answers that the veteran Re: [116:19 to 116:25] OVERRULED

116:20 gives you, specifically in this instance, Mr. Def Obj Improper counter;

116:21 McCombs, that's not recorded anywhere like an Relevance (401, 402) (not

116:22 audio recording, is it? relevant to impeachment on

Page 10 of 14

Case 7:20-cv-00094-MCR-GRJ Document 133-1 Filed 05/20/21 Page 11 of 15
116:23 A. No. That's -- An audio recording hearing protection use);

116:24 of that type of examination is not allowed, as Prejudice (403)

116:25 far as I know.

120:03 - 120:05 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:11

120:03 Q. You did not ask Mr. McCombs Re: [120:03 to 120:05] OVERRULED

120:04 whether or not he was wearing ear protection on Def Obj Improper counter;

120:05 April 23rd when he had the IED blast; true? Relevance (401, 402) (not

relevant to impeachment on

hearing protection use);

Prejudice (403); Asked,

foundation (602), leading

120:07 - 120:11 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:19

120:07 A. I -- According to the record, I Re: [120:07 to 120:11] OVERRULED

120:08 did not indicate if he was wearing hearing Def Obj Improper counter;

120:09 protection or not whenever I made the notation Relevance (401, 402) (not

120:10 about that date. So I would assume that I did relevant to impeachment on

120:11 not ask that question. I didn't note it. hearing protection use);

Prejudice (403); Asked,

foundation (602), leading

123:09 - 123:11 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:06

123:09 can answer the question: Did you ask Plaintiff Re: [123:09 to 123:11] OVERRULED

123:10 McCombs if he was wearing hearing protection at Def Obj Improper counter;

123:11 the time of the IED blast? Relevance (401, 402) (not

relevant to impeachment on

hearing protection use);

Prejudice (403); foundation

(602), asked, leading.

123:15 - 123:16 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:06

123:15 A. I did document -- I did not Re: [123:15 to 123:16] OVERRULED

123:16 document that I asked him that question. Def Obj Improper counter;

Relevance (401, 402) (not

relevant to impeachment on

hearing protection use);

Page 11 of 14

Case 7:20-cv-00094-MCR-GRJ Document 133-1 Filed 05/20/21 Page 12 of 15
Prejudice (403); foundation

(602), asked, leading.

123:25 - 124:03 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:16

123:25 Q. Dr. Donaldson, you did find that Re: [123:25 to 124:03] SUSTAINED

124:01 Dustin had tinnitus that you believed was Def Obj Improper counter;

124:02 linked through his military service; is that Relevance (401, 402) (not

124:03 right? relevant to impeachment on

hearing protection use);

Prejudice (403); foundation

(602), asked, leading.

124:25 - 125:02 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:08

124:25 A. Yes. I did opine that the Re: [124:25 to 125:02] SUSTAINED

125:01 tinnitus was at least as likely as not caused Def Obj Improper counter;

125:02 by a result of military noise exposure. Relevance (401, 402) (not

relevant to impeachment on

hearing protection use);

Prejudice (403); leading,

foundation (602), 701

(improper lay opinion).

128:23 - 129:07 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 1:36

128:23 Q. Dr. Donaldson, have you ever -- Re: [128:23 to 129:07] SUSTAINED

128:24 Well, we went over a mistake that you made here Def Obj Improper counter;

128:25 on the Record where you referenced that there Relevance (401, 402) (not

129:01 was no direct evidence of tinnitus in the relevant to impeachment on

129:02 C-file. Do you recall testifying to that hearing protection use);

129:03 earlier? Prejudice (403)

129:04 A. Yes.

129:05 Q. And you said that was because the

129:06 template had that language in there?

129:07 A. Yes.

129:15 - 129:25 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 1:35

129:15 Q. Can you explain to me what that Re: [129:15 to 130:12] SUSTAINED

129:16 template form contains? Def Obj Improper counter;

Page 12 of 14

Case 7:20-cv-00094-MCR-GRJ Document 133-1 Filed 05/20/21 Page 13 of 15
129:17 A. Yeah. So in order to make my Relevance (401, 402) (not

129:18 report writing go a little faster, I have -- relevant to impeachment on

129:19 it's basically just a Word document with hearing protection use);

129:20 different opinions that I might use, based, you Prejudice (403)

129:21 know, on different circumstances, and I would

129:22 just copy and paste that opinion.

129:23 So, for example, in this one, it

129:24 would be an opinion for a veteran who reported

129:25 tinnitus in service. So I would copy and paste

130:01 - 130:12 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 1:34

130:01 that into the DBQ and then change what I need Re: [129:15 to 130:12] SUSTAINED

130:02 to or input additional, you know, information Def Obj Improper counter;

130:03 that the veteran has provided me to -- to make Relevance (401, 402) (not

130:04 it for them. That way I don't have to write relevant to impeachment on

130:05 everything, every single time. hearing protection use);

130:06 Q. So that template has a statement Prejudice (403)

130:07 in there that the service medical records in

130:08 C-file do not contain any direct evidence of

130:09 tinnitus?

130:10 A. Yes.

130:11 Q. That would be in the template?

130:12 A. Yes, sir.

130:24 - 131:02 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:11

130:24 Q. How long did -- But you were Re: [130:24 to 131:02] SUSTAINED

130:25 clearly using that template when you saw Dustin Def Obj Improper counter;

131:01 McCombs in November 2015; right? Relevance (401, 402) (not

131:02 A. Yes. relevant to impeachment on

hearing protection use);

Prejudice (403)

131:06 - 131:18 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 1:44

131:06 Q. Can you explain to me what other Re: [131:06 to 131:18] SUSTAINED

131:07 information was on that template? Def Obj Improper counter;

131:08 A. It -- There's just templates for Relevance (401, 402) (not

131:09 opinions that I might provide. So regarding relevant to impeachment on

Page 13 of 14

Case 7:20-cv-00094-MCR-GRJ Document 133-1 Filed 05/20/21 Page 14 of 15
131:10 hearing loss, if -- a hearing loss opinion, if hearing protection use);

131:11 they have normal hearing, if they have a shift Prejudice (403)

131:12 in service; tinnitus that is due to military

131:13 service, tinnitus that was reported after

131:14 military service, so wouldn't be related.

131:15 There -- I can't even estimate how many

131:16 different situations there would be. For --

131:17 There would be templates for, say ten or

131:18 fifteen, but I might be wrong on that.

132:09 - 132:25 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 1:46

132:09 Q. Dr. Donaldson, just a few

132:10 additional questions for you. You indicated

132:11 you take handwritten notes while you're

132:12 interviewing a patient, including Mr. McCombs;

132:13 is that correct?

132:14 A. Yes.

132:15 Q. How soon after you take those

132:16 handwritten notes do you enter them into an

132:17 electronic form such that we have a record of

132:18 that examination?

132:19 A. It really depends on patient by

132:20 patient. If the next patient is there, then I

132:21 typically would go ahead and see them so they

132:22 don't have to wait, and then the report would

132:23 come at a later time.

132:24 I would assume with Mr. McCombs

132:25 in particular, that I did his -- his DBQ

133:01 - 133:06 Donaldson, Jodee 2020-11-17 PIP 0:15

133:01 immediately following the appointment because

133:02 it was documented that it was entered at 10:23,

133:03 which was soon after the appointment time of

133:04 ten o'clock, but I'm only reading that off the

133:05 document. I don't recall. But they're always

133:06 done by the end of the day.

Page 14 of 14

Case 7:20-cv-00094-MCR-GRJ Document 133-1 Filed 05/20/21 Page 15 of 15