Opinion ID: 3012940
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Falast’s Testimony

Text: First, we address the District Court’s decision to permit the government to introduce, pursuant to Rule 804(b)(1), the testimony of Earl Falast in a prior EEO proceeding, after finding that Falast was unavailable as a witness under Rule 804(a)(4). The EEO proceeding was the result of one of Finizie’s EEO complaints, in which she had challenged, inter alia, Falast’s 1994 decision to reassign her permanently to the position of quality management specialist. Rule 804(a)(4) provides that “unavailability as a witness” includes situations in 3 which a witness “is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of... then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity.” In deciding that Falast was unavailable, the District Court relied on a declaration by Falast’s physician, Anad K. Salem, M.D., which explained Falast’s medical condition and precisely why that medical condition rendered Falast “unavailable” to testify. (Confidential Appendix.) No more is required. We, thus, reject Finizie’s contention that Dr. Salem’s declaration did not sufficiently support a finding of unavailability. We require the party seeking to introduce hearsay testimony based on medical unavailability to provide objective medical support for its claim that a witness is ill or infirm. See Complaint of Bankers Trust Co., 752 F.2d 874, 888 (3d Cir. 1984) (refusing to find that witness was unavailable, where party’s attorney testified that witness was physically infirm but introduced “no affidavits or other information supporting the assertion of medical disability.” A district court’s finding of medical unavailability reasonably supported by objective medical evidence, such as we have here, is entitled to “respectful deference.” 2 United States v. Faison, 679 F.2d 292, 297 (3d Cir. 2982). 2 In Faison, we reversed the refusal of the district court to put off a criminal trial when a key government witness was expected to recover from heart surgery within five weeks. We stated that in determining whether to admit the prior testimony of a witness who is temporarily medically unavailable a trial judge must consider all relevant circumstances, including: the importance of the absent witness for the case; the nature and extent of cross-examination in the earlier testimony; the nature of the illness; the expected time of recovery; the reliability of the evidence of the probable 4 There is no requirement under Rule 804(a)(4) that the kind of specific clinical documentation sought by Finizie be provided. Moreover, Finizie has not identified any way in which she was prejudiced by the District Court’s decision to admit Falast’s prior testimony. Finizie has not contested the VA’s statement that in the EEO proceeding in which Falast testified, she was represented by an attorney and had the opportunity to cross-examine Falast. Moreover, because this was a bench trial, the importance of live cross-examination was somewhat diminished. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Finizie’s motion for a new trial on this basis.