Opinion ID: 1592335
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Depositions and Sikyta's Back Problems.

Text: In her deposition, Margaret Sikyta stated that she had never seen a physician for back pain before the bus accident, although she did state that she had seen Dr. William Fulcher for pain in [her] hip area once before the accident. The morning that trial commenced, the parties' counsel met with the judge and discussed the prospects of a videotape deposition by Dr. Fulcher because the doctor would be performing surgery the next morning. The substance of the discussion was prospective use of Dr. Fulcher's deposition in lieu of the physician's oral testimony adduced through his personal attendance at Sikyta's trial. Regarding a time for obtaining Dr. Fulcher's videotape deposition, the court inquired and commented: What about this evening? .... ... Well, I mean, this is in lieu of having him here. This is not a discovery deposition, this is a trial deposition.... .... ... Would it be possible for us to talk to Dr. Fulcher's office and see if they would schedule that deposition ... at the end of the day today? Is that agreeable with .... ... With everybody's agreement, I'll talk to him. The judge, in counsels' presence, then telephoned Dr. Fulcher's office and talked with someone about the prospective deposition, but the content of that conversation is undisclosed. Later that same day, the court remarked to counsel: Gentlemen, it is now 4:15, and I know that you have a deposition to take tonight at 5 o'clock in this case. At this time, we will therefore be in recess until 9 o'clock tomorrow. In Dr. Fulcher's deposition taken at the doctor's office in Lincoln, Sikyta's lawyer conducted direct examination, Arrow's lawyer the cross-examination. On the morning of the second day in the trial, Sikyta's lawyer sought to introduce the videotape deposition of Dr. William Fulcher, an orthopedic surgeon who had treated Margaret Sikyta. Dr. Fulcher's deposition was taken on the first day of Sikyta's trial. Sikyta's lawyer told the court that use of the Fulcher videotape deposition at trial was necessary and, concerning a showing of Dr. Fulcher's unavailability, commented to the court and Arrow's counsel: Well, I thought we dealt with that yesterday when we decided that we were going to proceed and take a videotape deposition for use at trial, because he [Dr. Fulcher] is unavailable due to surgery commitments this week, as he has advised me several times. I can't represent that he's out of the city, but I think that the Court has discretion ... to permit use of videotape even if the witness may technically be in the environs, if he's not able to be here at trial. Arrow's counsel referred to Neb.Ct.R. of Discovery 32(a) (rev. 1989), which provides: (3) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds: .... (E) That such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the interest of justice and with due regard to the importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in open court, to allow the deposition to be used.... Arrow's lawyer then objected to use of the videotape deposition because Dr. Fulcher's unavailability had not been established as a pre condition for use of [Dr. Fulcher's] deposition at trial. On the basis of the representation by Sikyta's lawyer, the court concluded that Dr. Fulcher is presently in surgery and is in surgery today and unavailable to testify [and] that constitutes an exceptional circumstance, and, therefore, the deposition can be used under [Rule 32(a)(3)(E) ]. Dr. Fulcher testified that Margaret Sikyta had been his patient in 1981 when he found severe degenerative arthritis in Sikyta's low back at the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae depicted in x rays shown to the jury. In 1981 and later, in reference to Margaret Sikyta's injuries from the bus accident, Dr. Fulcher diagnosed Sikyta's condition as lumbar radicular syndrome, that is, radiation of pain due to nerve irritation, as a result of Margaret Sikyta's arthritic condition. In Dr. Fulcher's opinion, Margaret Sikyta's condition had been asymptomatic, but the bus accident aggravated any preexisting condition in Margaret Sikyta's lumbar spine; hence, Margaret Sikyta's permanent disability was caused by the bus accident. On cross-examination, when confronted with her deposition denial of any back problem before the bus accident, Margaret Sikyta testified that she had completely forgotten about her previous back condition. As Margaret Sikyta explained, her family physician had referred her to Dr. Fulcher in 1981 on account of her hip pain, a condition which she had mentioned in her deposition. Margaret's referral to Dr. Fulcher was prompted by her sister's death from cancer which had been accompanied by pain in the hip. Consequently, Margaret Sikyta had completely forgotten about her back problem, which was overshadowed by the possibility of cancer. At the conclusion of Margaret Sikyta's case in chief, Arrow moved for a directed verdict. After the court overruled Arrow's directed verdict motion, Arrow presented its case in chief, which began with Dr. Patrick W. Bowman, an orthopedist who examined Margaret Sikyta at Arrow's request. Through his examinations, Dr. Bowman determined that Margaret Sikyta suffered from cervical spondylosis ... degenerative cervical disease or degenerative spine disease, which is manifested by symptoms such as mechanical type achiness, aggravated by activity, relieved to some extent by rest and recumbency.... However, when Dr. Bowman asked Margaret Sikyta whether she had suffered from any of the symptoms, aforementioned, if we assume that Margaret Sikyta was versed in the medicalese used by Dr. Bowman, she answered that her symptoms dated exclusively from that injury sustained in the bus accident. Nevertheless, Dr. Bowman concluded that Margaret Sikyta suffered from longstanding degenerative spine disease, which had existed at least since 1981, and probably before that.... Arrow called other witnesses, including the busdriver, Herman Campbell, who testified that the trip to Lawrence, Kansas, on November 10, 1984, was uneventful and routine and that he did not recall making a sudden or abrupt stop during the trip or Margaret Sikyta's being thrown into the bus stairwell.