Opinion ID: 2571646
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Borden testified at trial about matters he refused to address at his deposition.

Text: At Dr. Borden's pre-trial deposition, the estate's lawyer asked Dr. Borden, Did Margaret Zaverl die because the connection between the massive hemoptysis and her history of prior aortic repair was not diagnosed? Dr. Borden's attorney objected and instructed Dr. Borden not to answer: I object to the form of the question. He's not an expert in that area.... He's not going to testify as an expert in that area, and I won't allow him to testify on thison the speculation of something nobody will ever know and he's not a cardiovascular surgeon, cardiac thoracic surgeon, so he's not going to answer that question. When the estate's attorney asked Dr. Borden what treatment he would have provided if the aortobronchial fistula [7] had been diagnosed, Dr. Borden's attorney stated: I'm going to instruct him not to answer. He's not going to speculate on something which he did not do.... He's not an expert. I'm not going to offer him as an expert in the area of cardiovascular treatment and handling of aortic breakdown, I mean breakdowns of coarctation repairs of the aorta. Dr. Borden did not answer these questions at his deposition. At trial, near the end of Dr. Borden's direct testimony, his trial attorney asked Dr. Borden if he had a fairly good understanding of what's necessary to repair ... an aortobronchial fistula such as Margaret Zaverl had. The estate's attorney objected. He argued that when he asked Dr. Borden the same question at the deposition, Dr. Borden's deposition attorney instructed Dr. Borden not to answer and not to speculate about something he did not do and something that did not occur. When the trial court stated that a motion to compel would have been the way to deal with the attorney's instruction, the estate's attorney indicated that he had understood counsel's statement at the deposition to mean that Dr. Borden would not be offered as an expert on these topics. The trial court overruled the estate's objections. The court reasoned that Dr. Borden was a general surgeon, not a cardiovascular surgeon who does such repairs or who is an expert in repairing such conditions. The court stated that Dr. Borden's knowledge in 1994 is an important issue and to the extent he's a defendant in this case, as to the standard of care he gave, it appears to the court relevant and admissible for those issues to be discussed with him, by both sides. The court also noted that the estate would have an opportunity to cross-examine. Dr. Borden then testified that he did have a reasonably good understanding of aortobronchial fistulae. He proceeded to testify at some length about particular nuances of diagnosing and treating this condition. Dr. Borden testified that he wished he had thought of this particular kind of fistula, even though these other smart guys wouldn't have thought about it. Nonetheless, he concluded that his treatment of Margaret, including his failure to detect the fistula which may have caused her hemoptysis, did not fall below the applicable standard of care.