IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY

                          FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

                                    CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION

                                           - - -

                  KAREN CASSELLS              : APRIL TERM, 1995

                        VS.                   : NO. 1507

                  JANE B. PORCELAN, M.D.      :
                  MARK E. CHASTENEY, III, M.D.

                                           - - -

                                  COURTROOM 650, CITY HALL
                                 PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

                                           - - -

                                         VOLUME III

                                       JULY 24, 1997

                                           - - -

                  BEFORE:  HONORABLE JOSEPH I. PAPALINI, J.
                                         AND A JURY

                                           - - -









                       GEORGE D'ANGELIS, RPR, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
                                1321 ARCH STREET - SUITE 302
                                  PHILADELPHIA, PA. 19107
                                       (215) 686-4240
 










                  APPEARANCES:



                               JAMES B. CRUMMETT, ESQUIRE
                               BY:  JOHN MC VEIGH, ESQUIRE
                               FOR THE PLAINTIFFS



                               GARY M. SAMMS, ESQUIRE
                               FOR THE DEFENDANTS
 











                                          I N D E X
                                          _ _ _ _ _









                  WITNESSES             DIRECT   CROSS   REDIRECT  RECROSS
                  _________             ______   _____   ________  _______



                  DR. THOMAS MC DONALD    9        15       35        52



                  KAREN CASSELLS         59       106      119







                                      E X H I B I T S
                                      _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _





                  MARKED_AS       DESCRIPTION       PAGE
                  ______ __       ___________       ____



                  D-3             REPORT             16

                  P-36            REPORT             35

                  P-37            AFFIDAVIT          40
 
                                                                             4




         1

         2                         MORNING_SESSION
                                   _______ _______

         3

         4

         5                     (WHEREUPON, THE FOLLOWING TRANSPIRED

         6               IN CHAMBERS:)

         7                           MR. SAMMS:  YOUR HONOR, IT WAS

         8               MY BELIEF THAT UPON PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY

         9               TODAY THEY WERE GOING TO TRY TO INTRODUCE

        10               AND EXTRACT FROM THE PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY

        11               REGARDING AN INFORMED CONSENT ISSUE.

        12                     MY OBJECTION IS THAT THEIR EXPERT,

        13               DR. MC DONALD, DID NOT TESTIFY OR INCLUDE

        14               IN HIS REPORT ANY CRITICISM ABOUT THE

        15               INFORMED CONSENT GIVEN TO THIS PATIENT AND,

        16               THEREFORE, TO ALLOW INFORMED CONSENT

        17               TESTIMONY AT THIS POINT WOULD ONLY MISLEAD

        18               AND/OR CONFUSE THE JURY AND, IN FACT, WOULD

        19               BE TRYING TO BE ATTEMPTING TO GET THROUGH

        20               NEGLIGENCE THROUGH INFORMED CONSENT OR

        21               INFORMED CONSENT THROUGH A NEGLIGENCE

        22               ACTION.

        23                     IN FACT, ON PAGES 70 AND 71 ARE THE

        24               ONLY REFERENCE IN DR. MC DONALD'S TESTIMONY
 
                                                                             5




         1               TO INFORMED CONSENT AND AT THAT POINT IN

         2               TIME THE COURT DENIED HIM THE RIGHT TO

         3               TESTIFY ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT WASN'T IN HIS

         4               REPORT.

         5                     ACCORDINGLY, I'M ASKING AT THIS POINT

         6               IN TIME, YOUR HONOR, THAT NONE OF THE

         7               PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED POINTS FOR CHARGE ON

         8               INFORMED CONSENT BE GIVEN.  THAT A NON-SUIT

         9               BE GRANTED IN FAVOR OF BOTH DEFENDANTS ON

        10               THE ISSUE OF INFORMED CONSENT AND THAT THE

        11               PLAINTIFF BE PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING

        12               ABOUT WHAT SHE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN