1


1
	IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO
2


TOWANA K. LARRICK, ET AL.,	:

PLAINTIFFS,
5
-VS-	: CASE NO. 00--CV-94
6-
	CLARK LESLIE, M.D., ET AL.,
7
DEFENDANTS.
8

9
	10	MARC L. ECKHAUSER, M.D.

11
	A WITNESS OF LAWFUL AGE, HAVING PERSONALLY APPEARED
12
	BEFORE ME, SHELLEY DAY, A PROFESSIONAL REPORTER AND
1-3
	NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF OHIO, ON THIS
14
	21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2000, BEGINNING AT 1:30 P.M., AT
15
	1005 BELLEFONTAINE AVENUE, LIMA, OHIO, BEING
16
	FIRST DULY CAUTIONED AND SWORN, GAVE ORAL TESTIMONY IN
17
	THE ABOVE-SAID CAUSE PURSUANT TO NOTICE AND/OR
18
	AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE
19.
	RESPECTIVE PARTIES AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH.
20

21

22

23 ___________________________________________________________
		              SHELLEY DAY.
	24	       PROFESSIONAL COURT REPORTER
		1307 FOSTORIA AVE. FINDLAY, OH 45840
	25	             (419) 424—3755

2



1
		APPEARANCES
2

3	ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS:
	4	JAMES A. MARX, ESQ.
		1370 WEST SIXTH STREET
	5	CLEVELAND, OH 44113

6
ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
7
		PATRICK F. SMITH, ESQ.
	8	1490 OLD HENDERSON ROAD
		COLUMBUS, OH 43220
9

10	APPEARING TELEPHONICALLY:
ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT LIMA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL:
11
		WARREN M. ENDERS, ESQ.
	12	REMINGER & REMINGER
		505 SOUTH HIGH STREET
	13	COLUMBUS, OH 43215
	14
	15
	16
	17
	18

19
z
w

20


21
22

23

24

25

3


1
STIPULATIONS


3
IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED BY AND AMONG

	COUNSEL FOR THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES HERETO THAT THE
5
	DEPOSITION OF DR. MARC L. ECKHAUSER MAY BE TAKEN AT
6
	THIS TIME, BY AGREEMENT AND/OR NOTICE OF COUNSEL, IN
7
	STENOTYPE BY THE NOTARY, WHOSE NOTES MAY THEREAFTER BE
8
	TRANSCRIBED OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF SAID WITNESS, AND
9
	THAT THE WITNESS SHALL READ AND SIGN THIS DEPOSITION
10
	BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC.
11

12
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED THAT THE OFFICIAL
13
	CAPACITY, CHARACTER AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE NOTARY
14
	ARE ADMITTED.
15

16

17

18


19
.20

21





24

25

4



1
INDEX TO EXAMINATION AND EXHIBITS
2
	3	WITNESS:	PAGE:

4
DR. MARC L. ECKHAUSER
5
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH	5
6
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ENDERS	31
7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

C

U,
U)



23

24

25

	5
	1		        MARC L. ECKHAUSER, M.D.
	2 HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
	3		          CROSS-EXAMINATION
	4 BY MR.		SMITH:
	5	Q	  DOCTOR, MY NAME IS PAT SMITH AND I REPRESENT
	6 DR. CLARK LESLIE IN THE CASE FILED BY TOWANA LARRICK.
	7		  I'M GOING TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS TODAY.
	8 ASK THAT ALL YOUR ANSWERS BE VERBAL. I ALSO ASK THAT
	9 IF YOU		DON'T UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION THAT YOU WOULD STOP
	10	ME AND	I WOULD BE HAPPY TO REPHRASE IT. IS THAT
	11 ACCEPTABLE?
	12	A	  YES.
	13	Q	  DOCTOR, WHEN WERE YOU FIRST CONTACTED TO
	14	REVIEW	THIS CASE?
	15	A	   I THINK IT WAS PROBABLY THE END OF OCTOBER,
	16 SOMETIME OCTOBER. THE FIRST CORRESPONDENCE I HAVE --
	17 ACTUALLY, I'M SORRY, IT WAS IN MARCH OF 2000.
	18	Q	  MAY I SEE THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT YOU
	19 RECEIVED FROM EITHER JIM OR BOB IN THIS CASE?
	20	A	   SURE. (INDICATING)
	21	Q	  AND THERE'S A LETTER THAT YOU RECEIVED FROM
	22 JIM MARX DATED MARCH 29, 2000 REFERRING THE CASE TO YOU
	23 AND GIVING SOME MEDICAL RECORDS; IS THAT CORRECT?
	24 A CORRECT.
	25	Q	   COULD YOU BRIEFLY IDENTIFY WHAT RECORDS YOU

6


1	HAVE RECEIVED FROM JIM'S OFFICE IN THIS CASE?
	2	A	INITIALLY THE ONLY RECORDS THAT I HAD

3	RECEIVED WAS A COPY I BELIEVE OF THE OPERATIVE NOTE AND

4	THEN SUBSEQUENT TO THAT I RECEIVED THE HOSPITAL RECORDS

5	AND THEN VERY RECENTLY RECEIVED SOME RECORDS FROM

6	DR. ELSTON, HIS OFFICE NOTES.
	7	Q	DOCTOR, HAVE YOU FORMED OPINIONS IN THIS CASE

8	THAT ARE CRITICAL OF THE CARE AND TREATMENT RENDERED BY

9	DR. LESLIE?
	10	A	YES.
	11	Q	WHAT ARE YOUR OPINIONS?
	12	A	BASICALLY THE PATIENT CAME IN FOR A REPAIR OF

13	A RECURRENT HERNIA, NUMBER ONE, THAT WAS NOT IDENTIFIED

14	PRE-OPERATIVELY, AND DURING THE CONDUCT OF THAT REPAIR

15	HAD AN IATROGENIC INJURY TO THE ILIAC ARTERY.
	16	Q	LET'S SEE IF I CAN FLUSH OUT SO I KNOW

17	EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE CRITICAL OF.

18	ARE YOU OFFERING AN OPINION THAT IT WAS BELOW

19	THE STANDARD OF CARE TO INJURE THE ILLIAC ARTERY DURING


20	THE SURGERY?
	21	A	YES.
	22	Q	ARE YOU OFFERING ANY OTHER OPINIONS THAT

23	YOU'RE GOING TO SAY THAT DR. LESLIE DEVIATED FROM THE

24	STANDARD OF CARE OTHER THAN INJURING THE ILIAC ARTERY?
	25	A	NO.

	7
	1	Q	WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE -- AND I AM GOING TO

2	FLUSH OUT A FEW MORE THINGS IF I CAN -- AS IT RELATES

3	TO THE RECOGNITION OF THE INJURY AND THE REP4IR OF THE

4	ILIAC ARTERY, I TAKE IT YOU'RE NOT CRITICAL OF THAT?
	5	    A	NO.
	6	     Q	AM I CORRECT?
	7	    A	CORRECT.
	8	     Q	AND SIMILARLY, YOU'RE NOT CRITICAL OF THE
	9	FACT THAT DR. LESLIE SCHEDULED THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF
	10	SURGERY?
	11	    A	LAPAROSCOPIC VERSUS OPEN; IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE
	12	ASKING?
	13	     Q	YES.
	14	    A'	NO.
	15	     Q	SIMILARLY, YOU'RE NOT CRITICAL OF THE FACT
	16	THAT HE SCHEDULED SURGERY IN THE FIRST PLACE.
	17	    A	I WO