1
                IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                  OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
     
     
     ARCHIE ROSS,
                 Plaintiff-Appellant,
            vs                           Case No
     ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF             01-445680
     WORKERS COMPENSATION, et al,
                 Defendants
     
     
                          - - - - -
                 Videotaped deposition of PAUL C 
     VENIZELOS, MD, called for examination under the 
     statute, taken before me, Carina C Meszaros, a 
     Registered Merit Reporter and Notary Public in 
     and for the State of Ohio, at the offices of Ohio 
     West Region Sleep Center, 15805 Puritas Avenue, 
     Cleveland, Ohio, on Wednesday, February 5, 2003, 
     at 2:30 o'clock pm
                          - - - - -
     
     
     

                                                                     2
 1   APPEARANCES:  
 2   
 3         On behalf of the Plaintiff-Appellant:  
 4               Kelley & Ferraro, LLP, by
 5               ROBERT A MARCIS, II, ESQ
 6               WILLIAM GAZLEY, ESQ
 7               1901 Bond Court Building
 8               1300 East 9th Street
 9               Cleveland, Ohio  44114
10               (216) 575-0777
11   
12         On behalf of the Defendants:
13               EUGENE B MEADOR, ESQ
14               Assistant Attorney General
15               State Office Building, 11th Floor
16               615 West Superior Avenue
17               Cleveland, Ohio  44113-1899
18               (216) 787-3030
19                         ----
20   
21   ALSO PRESENT:
22               Ms Kimberly DiMuzio, Videographer
23                         ----
24   
25   

                                                                     3
 1               MR MEADOR:  On behalf of the 
 2   Defendant, I want to raise an issue that arose 
 3   when I received Dr Venizelos's second report 
 4   in this case  His second report I received 
 5   December 27, 2002, and it was faxed to me by 
 6   Shawn Acton from Kelley & Ferraro  
 7               The report references an exam that 
 8   was done on November 14, 2002  The problem is 
 9   that the report and exam were done after the 
10   Defense had already videotaped its expert 
11   witness and after this case had been set for 
12   trial already three different times  
13               So prior to me receiving this 
14   report on December 27, 2002, I was operating 
15   under the premise that Dr Venizelos was going 
16   to give his opinions and talk about evidence 
17   that he had in connection with his report of 
18   November 4, 1999  
19               In that report, he references an 
20   earlier exam of September 8, 1998, and he has 
21   information and he reads an x-ray that was 
22   taken on October 23, 1999, and read on November 
23   2, 1999, according to his B-read report 
24               So based upon this report and that 
25   x-ray film, which Dr Liu did have a chance to 

                                                                     4
 1   review and comment on, I think it would be 
 2   highly prejudicial to the Defense to allow this 
 3   latter report to come into evidence or be 
 4   discussed by Dr Venizelos 
 5               So I would ask -- since there's 
 6   very little difference between the two reports 
 7   and the conclusions are the same, I would ask, 
 8   to the extent that you can, to rely upon the 
 9   report and evidence that my doctor had a chance 
10   to respond to and possibly not duplicate and 
11   also create error in this case by having him 
12   talk about his December 27th -- I'm sorry, his 
13   November 14, 2002, report and x-ray 
14               And the other thing, too, that is a 
15   bit aggravating is that at the time that this 
16   case was set for trial last, which was December 
17   16, 2002, Bob, I had agreed with Shawn Acton to 
18   give a continuance of this case because there 
19   was a potential conflict with Dr Venizelos's 
20   schedule, not knowing that less than two weeks 
21   later I was going to be getting an additional 
22   report from Dr Venizelos concerning an exam 
23   that he did in November of 2002, which no one 
24   told me about 
25               MR MARCIS:  Thank you 

                                                                     5
 1               Give me a minute to step outside   
 2               MR MEADOR:  If you need to see 
 3   Shawn's letter to me or anything -- 
 4               MR MARCIS:  I don't think so   
 5               (Recess taken)
 6               MR MEADOR:  I don't know if you 
 7   want to give me a continuing objection on that 
 8               MR MARCIS:  Sure, if that's what 
 9   you want to do is have a