Home

Find Transcripts
Search Transcripts
Browse by Case Name
Browse by Expert Name
Browse by Expert Type
Product Pricing
Legal Topics
FAQ

Demo

REGISTER!

About Us
HELP!
Links
Privacy Policy

 


By clicking the "BUY NOW" button, you agree to our Transcript License Agreement
Cost: $342.00
Case: ESTATE OF JOSEPH SAGGESE v. DAVID DZURINKO, M.D.
Testimony Date: January 17, 2001
Expert Witness: Thomas Murray M.D.
Expert Type: Obstetrics / Gynecology
Court: State: Pennsylvania County: Philadelphia
Pages: 114

	 







                    IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY

                          FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

                                    CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION

                                           - - -

                  ESTATE OF JOSEPH SAGGESE       : OCTOBER 1998
                  BY ADMINISTRATRIX LISA SAGGESE
                  AND LISA SAGGESE AND THOMAS
                  FUHRMEISTER, H/W

                      VS.

                  DAVID DZURINKO, M.D.           :  NO. 1084

                                           - - -

                                  COURTROOM 253, CITY HALL
                                 PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

                                           - - -

                                      JANUARY 17, 2001

                                           - - -

                  BEFORE:  HONORABLE VICTOR J. DI NUBILE

                                           - - -




                       GEORGE D'ANGELIS, RPR, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
                                    LAND TITLE BUILDING
                                    100 S. BROAD STREET
                                        SECOND FLOOR
                             PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, 19110
                                       (215) 683-8056


                                           - - -
 








                  APPEARANCES:




                               BY: SALVATORE J. CUCINOTTA, ESQUIRE
                               COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS




                               LAW FIRM: KENT AND MC BRIDE, P.C.
                               BY:  JAMES L. MOORE, ESQUIRE
                               COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT




















                       GEORGE D'ANGELIS, RPR, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
                                    LAND TITLE BUILDING
                                    100 S. BROAD STREET
                                        SECOND FLOOR
                             PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, 19110
                                       (215) 683-8056


                                           - - -
 
                                                                             3




         1

         2                            WITNESSES

         3                         DIRECT   CROSS   REDIRECT RECROSS

         4

         5        THOMAS MURRAY, M.D. 40      44       105       109

         6

         7

         8

         9

        10

        11

        12

        13

        14

        15

        16

        17

        18

        19

        20

        21

        22

        23

        24
 
                                                                             4




         1                         MORNING_SESSION
                                   _______ _______

         2

         3

         4                     (WHEREUPON, THE FOLLOWING TOOK PLACE

         5               IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE

         6               JURY:)

         7                           THE COURT:  THERE ARE SOME

         8               MOTIONS.

         9                     (WHEREUPON, A DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE

        10               OFF THE RECORD.)

        11                           THE COURT:  NOW, WE WILL TRY

        12               OUR BEST TO HAVE DR. MURRAY TESTIFY TODAY,

        13               BUT I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW FAR WE ARE GOING

        14               TO GET.  LET'S PROCEED FIRST WITH THE

        15               MOTIONS.  OKAY?

        16                     THE ONE MOTION I THINK HAS BECOME

        17               MOOT AND THAT WOULD BE -- AND THAT INVOLVED

        18               MY DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT INVOLVING DR.

        19               HUSLIN.  THE QUESTION WAS WAS DR. HUSLIN

        20               STILL A PARTNER OF DR. DZURINKO WHEN THE

        21               ALLEGED MALPRACTICE, ACCORDING TO DR.

        22               MURRAY, OCCURRED WHICH WAS AFTER 5-23 BASED

        23               ON THE FAILURE, THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO

        24               DISCOVER ANY DISCORDANT GROWTH BY NOT DOING
 
                                                                             5




         1               A WEEKLY ULTRASOUND OR A NON-STRESS TEST.

         2               BUT SINCE THERE HAS BEEN A STIPULATION IN

         3               WHICH THE CASE HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED

         4               AGAINST DR. HUSLIN DATED YESTERDAY, I

         5               BELIEVE THAT MOTION BECOMES MOOT.

         6                     NOW, THE NEXT MOTION DEALS WITH --

         7               AND I THINK THERE ARE TWO MOTIONS HAND AND

         8               
	 

 


      Copyright 2004 - 2008 CrossExam LLC
      All rights reserved.
dmca