167
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT LINDA DE ROGATIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ) AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO TARA DE ) ROGATIS; PETER DE ROGATIS, ) INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ) SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO TARA DE ) ROGATIS, ) ) PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, ) ) VS. ) NO. BC457891 ) KAREN MICHELLE SHAINSKY, D.O., ) NO. B254024 ) DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. ) ) APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY HONORABLE JAN A. PLUIM, JUDGE PRESIDING REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS NOVEMBER 4, 2013 APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFFS- BROWN WHITE & NEWHOUSE, LLP APPELLANTS: BY: THOMAS M. BROWN, ESQ. AND KATHERINE C. MC BROOM, ESQ. 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET 40TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 (213)613-0550 FOR DEFENDANT- TAYLOR BLESSEY, LLP RESPONDENT: BY: RAYMOND L. BLESSEY, ESQ. AND PATRICIA M. TAZZARA, ESQ. 350 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE SUITE 3850 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 213.687.1600 VOLUME 6 OF 9 KAREN E. KAY, CSR NO. 3862, RMR, CRR PAGES 474 TO 636 COURT REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    1

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

LINDA DE ROGATIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND )AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO TARA DE )ROGATIS; PETER DE ROGATIS, )INDIVIDUALLY AND AS )SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO TARA DE )ROGATIS, ) ) PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, ) ) VS. ) NO. BC457891 ) KAREN MICHELLE SHAINSKY, D.O., ) NO. B254024 ) DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. ) )

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY

HONORABLE JAN A. PLUIM, JUDGE PRESIDING

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

NOVEMBER 4, 2013

APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFFS- BROWN WHITE & NEWHOUSE, LLP APPELLANTS: BY: THOMAS M. BROWN, ESQ. AND KATHERINE C. MC BROOM, ESQ. 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET 40TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 (213)613-0550 FOR DEFENDANT- TAYLOR BLESSEY, LLP RESPONDENT: BY: RAYMOND L. BLESSEY, ESQ. AND PATRICIA M. TAZZARA, ESQ. 350 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE SUITE 3850 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 213.687.1600

VOLUME 6 OF 9 KAREN E. KAY, CSR NO. 3862, RMR, CRR PAGES 474 TO 636 COURT REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

Page 2: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT P HON. JAN A. PLUIM, JUDGE LINDA DE ROGATIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND )AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO TARA DE )ROGATIS; PETER DE ROGATIS, )INDIVIDUALLY AND AS )SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO TARA DE )ROGATIS, ) ) PLAINTIFFS, ) ) VS. ) NO. BC457891 ) (CONSOLIDATED WITH KAREN MICHELLE SHAINSKY, D.O., ET ) NO. BC453966) AL., ) ) DEFENDANTS. )_____________________________________)

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

NOVEMBER 4, 2013

APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFFS: BROWN WHITE & NEWHOUSE, LLP BY: GEORGE B. NEWHOUSE, JR., ESQ. AND KATHERINE C. MC BROOM, ESQ. 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET 40TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 (213)613-0550 FOR DEFENDANT KAREN TAYLOR BLESSEY, LLP MICHELLE SHAINSKY, BY: RAYMOND L. BLESSEY, ESQ. D.O.: AND PATRICIA M. TAZZARA, ESQ. 350 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE SUITE 3850 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 (213)687-1600 REPORTED BY: KAREN E. KAY, CSR NO. 3862, RMR, CRR COURT REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

Page 3: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

M A S T E R I N D E X

NOVEMBER 4, 2013; VOLUME 6

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PLAINTIFFS' DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

LOPEZ, ANTHONY 483 490 RAMIN, DAVID S., M.D. 494 516 BOHN, PAUL, M.D. 524 578 DE ROGATIS, PETER 588 619

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PLAINTIFFS' DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

BOHN, PAUL, M.D. 524 578

DE ROGATIS, PETER 588 619

LOPEZ, ANTHONY 483 490

RAMIN, DAVID S., M.D. 494 516

EXHIBITS

JOINT WITHDRAWN EXHIBIT FOR I.D. IN EVD. OR REJECTED

102-7 1/11/10 476 476 TO CONSULTATION NOTE, 102-11 HANDWRITTEN PROGRESS NOTE, AND A PRESCRIPTION FOR NORCO BY BRADLEY SPIEGEL, M.D.

Page 4: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

M A S T E R I N D E X

NOVEMBER 4, 2013; VOLUME 6

EXHIBITS (CONTINUED)

JOINT WITHDRAWN EXHIBIT FOR I.D. IN EVD. OR REJECTED 104-1 MEDICAL CHART OF 495 496 TO DAVID S. RAMIN, 104-21 M.D. 114-27 INVESTIGATIVE 484 485 TO REPORT BY ANTHONY 114-31 LOPEZ, DEPUTY CORONER INVESTIGATOR 115-1 MEDICAL CHART OF 526 544 TO PAUL BOHN, M.D. 115-106 119 SUICIDE NOTE 488 489 121-3 PHOTO OF MR. 591 591 DE ROGATIS, TARA DE ROGATIS, AND P.J. DE ROGATIS 121-5 PHOTO OF MR. 598 599 DE ROGATIS, MS. LINDA B. DE ROGATIS, SAMANTHA, AND TARA DE ROGATIS 125-3 BIRTHDAY CARD TO 604 605 AND PETER DE ROGATIS 125-4 FROM TARA DE ROGATIS 135 PAINTING BY TARA 604 DE ROGATIS TITLED "LADY LIBERTY"

Page 5: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

474

CASE NUMBER: BC457891

CASE NAME: DE ROGATIS VS. SHAINSKY

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2013

DEPARTMENT P HON. JAN A. PLUIM, JUDGE REPORTER: KAREN E. KAY, CSR NO. 3862 TIME: A.M. SESSION

APPEARANCES:

PLAINTIFFS LINDA DE ROGATIS AND PETER DE ROGATIS

ARE PRESENT WITH THEIR COUNSEL, GEORGE B. NEWHOUSE,

JR., AND KATHERINE C. MC BROOM, ATTORNEYS AT LAW

DEFENDANT KAREN MICHELLE SHAINSKY, D.O., IS PRESENT

WITH HER COUNSEL, RAYMOND L. BLESSEY, AND

PATRICIA M. TAZZARA, ATTORNEYS AT LAW

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD

IN OPEN COURT, OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE

OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: COUNSEL, ANYTHING WE NEED TO TAKE UP

THIS MORNING?

MR. BLESSEY: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT IT ON THE RECORD?

MR. BLESSEY: I THINK SO, YES, PLEASE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL SET?

WE'RE ON THE RECORD.

MR. BLESSEY: YOUR HONOR, I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT

JUDGES WHEN THEY'RE IN TRIAL DON'T LIKE SURPRISES, SO I'D

LIKE TO BRING THINGS TO YOUR ATTENTION AHEAD OF TIME.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 6: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

475

WE'VE MET AND CONFERRED ON THESE ISSUES, BUT I'M JUST

MAKING A RECORD.

AS TO DR. SPIEGEL, HE WAS ONE OF THE LISTED

WITNESSES. HE WAS A TREATING DOCTOR. WE'VE AGREED, I

BELIEVE -- IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING -- THEY'RE NOT GOING TO

CALL HIM, TRYING TO MOVE THINGS ALONG, BUT IN EXCHANGE FOR

THAT, THERE WERE FIVE PAGES IN EXHIBIT 102 THAT I WILL NOT

OBJECT TO BEING ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. AND THOSE

PAGES --

THE COURT: HANG ON, COUNSEL, LET ME GET MY BOOK.

ARE THESE RECORDS OF DR. SPIEGEL?

MR. BLESSEY: THEY ARE, YES.

THE COURT: GO AHEAD.

MR. BLESSEY: THE PAGES THAT I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE

AN AGREEMENT ON ARE PAGES -- EXHIBIT 102, PAGES 7, 8 AND

9, WHICH ARE A THREE-PAGE DICTATED CONSULTATION NOTE; PAGE

10, WHICH IS A HANDWRITTEN PROGRESS NOTE; AND PAGE 11 IS A

PRESCRIPTION FOR NORCO.

MR. NEWHOUSE: AND NOT THE -- AND NOT THE -- AND

NOT THE PAST MEDICAL HISTORY FORM THAT SHE FILLED OUT.

THE COURT: SO THOSE ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT YOU'LL

STIPULATE TO IS 7 THROUGH 12?

MR. BLESSEY: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OR 7 THROUGH 11.

MR. BLESSEY: 7 THROUGH 11, CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

MR. NEWHOUSE: MAY I CONFER, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: SURE.

MR. NEWHOUSE: WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY MEET AND CONFER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 7: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

476

THIS MORNING.

THAT'S FINE, YOUR HONOR, WE'LL ACCEPT THAT

STIPULATION, AND THOSE WOULD BE THE PORTIONS OF

DR. SPIEGEL, THE PAIN MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST RECORDS, THAT

WE WOULD ADMIT.

THE COURT: OKAY. SO ORDERED.

MR. BLESSEY: THE SECOND ITEM --

MR. NEWHOUSE: YOUR HONOR, EXCUSE ME.

MR. BLESSEY: SORRY.

MR. NEWHOUSE: BY "SO ORDERED," CAN WE HAVE THOSE

IN EVIDENCE AT THIS POINT? WE WOULD MOVE THEM INTO

EVIDENCE.

MR. BLESSEY: NO OBJECTION.

THE COURT: RECEIVED.

MR. NEWHOUSE: THANK YOU.

(MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION, JOINT

EXHIBITS 102-7 TO 102-11, AND

RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE, 1/11/10

CONSULTATION NOTE, HANDWRITTEN

PROGRESS NOTE, AND A PRESCRIPTION

FOR NORCO BY BRADLEY SPIEGEL, M.D.)

MR. BLESSEY: THE SECOND ITEM IS THERE'S A

MR. LOPEZ. HE'S AN INVESTIGATOR FOR THE CORONER. HE'S

GOING TO BE CALLED, I THINK, THIS AFTERNOON OR THIS

MORNING.

MS. MC BROOM: THIS MORNING.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 8: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

477

MR. BLESSEY: HE HAS A COUPLE OF RECORDS THAT HE'S

PREPARED. ONE IS A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT, HIS INVESTIGATOR'S

REPORT. AND IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, HE IS SUMMARIZING

INFORMATION HE GOT FROM OFFICER RUIZ, R-U-I-Z, WHO TALKED

TO MR. MAC EACHERN, SO THERE'S KIND OF A DOUBLE HEARSAY.

WE'VE MET AND CONFERRED ON THIS ISSUE. THEY'VE AGREED TO

REDACT ON THAT PORTION OF THIS FIRST PAGE ANY OF THAT

DOUBLE HEARSAY.

AND SO WITH THAT AGREEMENT, AND I BELIEVE

I'VE GIVEN THE CLERK AND COUNSEL COPIES OF THE REDACTED

VERSION, I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT DOCUMENT.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, YOU HAVE THE REDACTED VERSION?

MS. MC BROOM: WE DO, SO WHEN I --

THE COURT: EVERYONE AGREES TO THAT?

MS. MC BROOM: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WHAT EXHIBIT IS THAT?

MR. BLESSEY: THAT'S EXHIBIT 114, PAGE 27.

THE COURT: IT WILL BE RECEIVED, THEN.

MR. NEWHOUSE: JUST SO THE COURT KNOWS, WE'VE JUST

WHITED IT OUT SO THE JURY DOESN'T EVEN KNOW THERE WAS

SOMETHING THERE. IT'S JUST A BIG SPACE.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. BLESSEY: LAST BUT NOT LEAST IS, I THINK

MR. DE ROGATIS IS GOING TO BE ON THE STAND AT SOME POINT

TODAY.

THE COURT: WHAT HAPPENED TO RAMIN?

MR. BLESSEY: I THINK HE'S --

MR. NEWHOUSE: PRESUMABLY HE'S OUTSIDE. WE HAVEN'T

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 9: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

478

VERIFIED THAT.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU GO OUTSIDE AND VERIFY IT?

MR. NEWHOUSE: KAMAN, DO YOU KNOW WHAT DR. RAMIN

LOOKS LIKE?

MS. CHOW: I THINK.

MR. NEWHOUSE: WE CAN CONTINUE WHILE THEY'RE

CHECKING ON RAMIN.

MR. BLESSEY: AS TO MR. DE ROGATIS, I JUST WANT TO

MAKE SURE WE DON'T GET INTO THE SAME PROBLEM WE HAD THE

OTHER DAY. C.A.C.I. 3294, I THINK, IS THE INSTRUCTION,

SAYS THAT THE JURY IS NOT TO CONSIDER GRIEF AND SORROW OF

THE -- IN THIS CASE THE PARENT, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE

SURE WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET INTO AREAS THAT ARE NOT

RELEVANT TO THE DAMAGES IN THIS CASE.

MR. NEWHOUSE: MAY I SPEAK TO THAT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: SURE.

MR. NEWHOUSE: WE HAVE NO PROBLEM. WE AGREE THAT

THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTION; AND IF THE COURT FEELS

IT NECESSARY TO GIVE A LIMINE INSTRUCTION AT THE TIME OF

HIS TESTIMONY, THAT'S FINE.

BUT WE DON'T APPARENTLY SEE DR. RAMIN --

THE COURT: HAVE YOU CALLED -- I'M SORRY. YOU

KNOW, I TOOK IT UPON MYSELF TO CALL HIS OFFICE, AND I

TALKED TO HIM PERSONALLY. HE SAID HE'D BE HERE.

HAVE YOU FOLLOWED UP? DID YOU CALL HIM THIS

MORNING AT HIS OFFICE OR TALK TO ANYBODY IN HIS OFFICE TO

FIND OUT WHETHER HE'S GOING TO BE HERE OR NOT?

MS. MC BROOM: WE'VE SPOKEN TO HIM SEVERAL TIMES.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 10: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

479

HE SAID -- HE, AT ONE POINT, SAID HE'D BE HERE BUT WOULD

REFUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, SO --

THE COURT: HE WOULD WHAT?

MS. MC BROOM: AT ONE POINT HE TOLD US HE WOULD BE

HERE BUT WOULD REFUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

THE COURT: I'M SORRY. WHEN DID YOU TALK TO HIM

ABOUT THAT?

MS. MC BROOM: THAT WAS ON FRIDAY.

MS. CHOW: FRIDAY. I CAN CHECK MY E-MAILS.

MR. NEWHOUSE: WE WERE IN E-MAIL COMMUNICATION WITH

HIS OFFICE THIS WEEKEND. IN FACT, WE RECEIVED

CORRESPONDENCE FROM HIS ATTORNEYS TELLING US THAT

DR. RAMIN WOULD BE HERE, AND THAT THEY EXPECTED US TO PAY

HIM SOME OUTRAGEOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY, LIKE $3,000, FOR AN

EXPERT WITNESS FEE. WE DIDN'T REALLY RESPOND TO THAT.

SO THE COURT KNOWS, WE DO NOT INTEND TO

ELICIT ANY EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM DR. RAMIN. HE WAS A

TREATING PHYSICIAN. WE'RE ONLY GOING TO ELICIT THE

FOLLOWING FROM HIM AS BY WAY OF A PROFFER, THAT HE SAW

MS. DE ROGATIS ON TWO OCCASIONS IN JANUARY AND WHAT SHE

SAID TO HIM IN TERMS OF COMPLAINTS AND WHAT

PRESCRIPTIONS -- WHAT HE TOLD HER AND WHAT HE PRESCRIBED.

THAT'S THE IMPORTANT THING FOR OUR RECORD, THE TWO

LIMITED --

THE COURT: THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT SHE SAW HIM --

MR. NEWHOUSE: RIGHT.

THE COURT: -- AND THAT WE HAVE A PRESCRIPTION FROM

HIM.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 11: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

480

MR. NEWHOUSE: WELL, THE PROBLEM IS THIS, YOUR

HONOR: HIS MEDICAL CHART, UNLIKE DR. SPIEGEL, IS

INDECIPHERABLE WITHOUT THE DOCTOR THERE TO EXPLAIN WHAT IT

IS.

THE COURT: WAS HE DEPOSED?

MS. MC BROOM: YES.

MR. NEWHOUSE: YES, WE HAVE HIS DEPOSITION. THE

COURT SAID --

THE COURT: I GUESS WHAT I'M REALLY SAYING IS THAT

IF HE DOESN'T SHOW UP, WHY CAN'T WE JUST AGREE AS TO WHAT

HIS RECORDS SAY AND BE DONE WITH IT?

MR. NEWHOUSE: THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO, YOUR HONOR.

WE WOULD PREFER TO HAVE A WITNESS, BUT IF HE DOESN'T SHOW

UP, AS THE COURT INDICATED EARLIER, WE WILL DESIGNATE A

PORTION OF HIS TRANSCRIPT, AND WE'LL READ THE DEPOSITION

TO THE JURY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. NEWHOUSE: THAT'S OUR PLAN.

THE COURT: ALL SET?

MR. BLESSEY: NO, YOUR HONOR. BACK TO

MR. DE ROGATIS. I JUST WANT TO -- LOOK, AS A FATHER, I

UNDERSTAND LOSING A CHILD. I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO

MISCONSTRUE WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY. BUT IN HIS DEPOSITION

HE TALKED ABOUT PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDS HE'S

REQUIRED SINCE THE DEATH. HE TALKED ABOUT JOB LOSS THAT

HE ATTRIBUTES TO THE DEATH. SO THESE ARE ITEMS THAT ARE

NOT PART OF THIS DAMAGE CLAIM IN THIS CASE AND I DON'T

THINK SHOULD BE PUT BEFORE THIS JURY.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 12: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

481

THE COURT: I THINK COUNSEL UNDERSTANDS THAT.

MR. NEWHOUSE: YOUR HONOR, PLEASE.

THE COURT: THERE'S NO ECONOMIC CLAIM.

MR. NEWHOUSE: WE DON'T HAVE AN ECONOMIC CLAIM, AND

HAD COUNSEL MET AND CONFERRED, I WOULD HAVE INFORMED HIM.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO ELICIT FROM MR. DE ROGATIS EVIDENCE OF

HIS PRESCRIPTIONS. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO INTO HIS

PSYCHIATRIC CARE, BUT IT IS RELEVANT THAT HE HAS FOUND IT

DIFFICULT TO WORK. HE IS WORKING AGAIN BECAUSE IT

MEASURES THE LOSS OF THAT RELATIONSHIP, WHICH IS DAMAGES

THAT WE CAN RECOVER, SO I SAY --

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM

WITH THAT. I GUESS WHAT HE'S REALLY SAYING IS THAT TO GET

INTO EVIDENCE ABOUT HOW HE LOST HIS JOB AND SUFFERED

ECONOMIC LOSS, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PORTRAY WITH

THAT TYPE OF A QUESTION. SO OBVIOUSLY IT WAS DIFFICULT

FOR HIM TO CONCENTRATE AND --

MR. NEWHOUSE: THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BRING

OUT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. NEWHOUSE: AND WE'LL PLAY IT BY EAR, YOUR

HONOR. I'M GOING TO ATTEMPT TO LIMIT IT AND STREAMLINE

IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'RE ALL SET. VERY GOOD.

MR. BLESSEY: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD

IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 13: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

482

THE JURY:)

THE COURT: OKAY. WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. GOOD

MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WELCOME BACK. ALL JURORS

ARE PRESENT IN THEIR PLACES.

ONE SECOND, SIR.

ALL JURORS ARE PRESENT IN PLACE. PARTIES

ARE PRESENT. LAWYERS ARE PRESENT.

AND YOU MUST BE DR. RAMIN?

THE WITNESS: NO.

THE COURT: OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. YOU LOOK LIKE

A DOCTOR.

THE WITNESS: INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ.

THE CLERK: RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SOLEMNLY STATE THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU

MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT SHALL

BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH,

SO HELP YOU GOD?

THE WITNESS: I DO.

THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT IN THE WITNESS

STAND. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL YOUR NAME FOR THE

RECORD.

THE WITNESS: MY NAME IS ANTHONY LOPEZ,

A-N-T-H-O-N-Y, L-O-P-E-Z. I'M A CORONER INVESTIGATOR WITH

THE L.A. COUNTY CORONER'S OFFICE.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.

THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: YOU MAY PROCEED.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 14: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

483

ANTHONY LOPEZ,

CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PLAINTIFFS, WAS DULY SWORN AND

TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. MC BROOM:

Q GOOD MORNING, MR. LOPEZ.

A GOOD MORNING.

Q HOW ARE YOU EMPLOYED?

A I'M SORRY?

Q WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION?

A I AM A DEPUTY CORONER INVESTIGATOR.

Q OKAY. AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU -- IS THAT WITH

LOS ANGELES COUNTY?

A YES.

Q AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN SO EMPLOYED?

A GOING ON 13 YEARS.

Q OKAY. WHAT ARE YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS A

CORONER INVESTIGATOR?

A VARIOUS, BUT THE MAIN FOCUS OF OUR OFFICE IS

INVESTIGATING DEATHS IN L.A. COUNTY.

Q DO YOU GATHER EVIDENCE FROM THE SCENE OF A

DEATH AS PART OF YOUR JOB?

A YES. LIMITED.

Q AND DO YOU PRODUCE A REPORT FOLLOWING YOUR

VISIT TO THE SCENE OF ANYTHING YOU RECOVER?

A YES.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 15: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

484

Q I'M GOING TO HAVE YOU TURN TO EXHIBIT --

I'LL GET IT FOR YOU -- 114-27.

(MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION, JOINT

EXHIBITS 114-27 TO 114-31,

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT BY ANTHONY

LOPEZ, DEPUTY CORONER INVESTIGATOR.)

BY MS. MC BROOM:

Q CAN I HAVE YOU LOOK THROUGH 127 THROUGH --

MR. NEWHOUSE: YOU SAID 127, COUNSEL.

BY MS. MC BROOM:

Q I'M SORRY. 114-27 TO -31. JUST TAKE A LOOK

AT THAT.

THE COURT: FOR THE RECORD, THAT'S EXHIBIT 114,

PAGES 27 THROUGH -31.

BY MS. MC BROOM:

Q HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GLANCE

THROUGH IT?

A I HAVE PREVIOUSLY THIS MORNING.

Q CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THAT EXHIBIT IS, THOSE

SPECIFIC PAGES?

A -27, -28 ARE A NARRATIVE OF MY VISIT TO THE

SCENE AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I DID.

114-29 THROUGH -31 IS AN ITEMIZED LISTING OF

MEDICATIONS THAT I RECOVERED FROM THE LOCATION.

Q SO IS THIS A REPORT OF YOUR INVESTIGATION OF

THE DEATH OF TARA DE ROGATIS?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 16: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

485

A YES.

Q OKAY. AND ON WHAT DATE DID YOU PERFORM THIS

INVESTIGATION?

A MARCH 23RD, 2010.

MS. MC BROOM: YOUR HONOR, I MOVE TO ADMIT

EXHIBIT 114-27 THROUGH 31.

THE COURT: ANY OBJECTION?

MR. BLESSEY: NO OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: RECEIVED.

(RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE, JOINT

EXHIBITS 114-27 TO 114-31.)

BY MS. MC BROOM:

Q OKAY. SO THIS IS YOUR INVESTIGATIVE

NARRATIVE FROM YOUR INVESTIGATION OF THE SCENE?

A YES. MINUS THE INFORMANT STATEMENT.

Q THANK YOU. DID YOU DRAFT THIS REPORT?

A YES.

Q AND CAN YOU JUST TELL US WHAT IT'S A REPORT

OF IN GENERAL?

A WELL, GENERALLY SPEAKING, JUST TIMES OF

ARRIVAL, COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATION, DEATH LOCATION,

INJURY LOCATION, THE SCENE DESCRIPTION OF WHERE THE ACTUAL

BODY WAS FOUND.

Q OKAY.

A EVIDENCE COLLECTED, PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION

OF THE BODY AS SEEN, POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 17: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

486

DECEDENT.

Q OKAY.

A NEXT-OF-KIN INFORMATION.

Q WHAT TIME DID YOU ARRIVE ON THE SCENE?

A IT LOOKS LIKE 8:20 IN THE MORNING.

Q AND WHO CALLED YOU TO THE SCENE, IF YOU

RECALL?

A WELL, THE ACTUAL CALL IS GENERATED BY THE

RESPONDING POLICE DEPARTMENT. THEY CALLED THE OFFICE.

THE OFFICE TAKES THE INFORMATION, WHICH IS THEN PASSED ON

TO THE WATCH COMMANDER, AND HE OR SHE ASSIGNS THE CALL TO

AN INVESTIGATOR.

Q OKAY. DID YOU -- DID YOU OBSERVE TARA'S

BODY AT THE SCENE?

A YES.

Q OKAY. DO YOU RECALL WHERE SHE WAS LOCATED?

A I RECALL SHE WAS IN THE BEDROOM.

Q DID IT APPEAR THAT THE PARAMEDICS HAD BEEN

THERE?

A YES.

Q DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE

SCENE?

A A LOT OF MEDICATIONS STREWN IN THE ROOM.

Q DID YOU -- YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU MADE AN

INVENTORY OF THE MEDICATIONS THAT YOU RECOVERED OR THE

PILL BOTTLES THAT YOU RECOVERED FROM THE SCENE, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q OKAY. THEN YOU PUT THEM IN A MEDICAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 18: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

487

EVIDENCE CHART; IS THAT RIGHT?

A RIGHT.

Q I'M JUST PUTTING UP PAGE 1. IT'S MULTIPLE

PAGES.

SO TELL US, WHERE WERE THE PILL BOTTLES THAT

YOU RECOVERED FROM THE SCENE IN RELATION TO WHERE TARA WAS

LOCATED, IF YOU CAN RECALL?

A I'M SORRY?

Q IF YOU CAN RECALL. I KNOW IT'S BEEN AWHILE.

A I RECALL SHE WAS ON THE FLOOR. THERE WAS

MEDICATIONS ON THE BED NEXT TO HER, AND THERE WAS

MEDICATIONS ON THE FLOOR NEXT TO HER.

Q DID YOU RECOVER ALL OF THE MEDICATIONS OR

ALL THE MEDICINE BOTTLES THAT YOU OBSERVED?

A ALL THE MEDICATIONS I OBSERVED, YES.

Q NOW, DID YOU RECOVER ANY LOOSE PILLS FROM

THE SCENE?

A YES.

Q OKAY. AND WERE YOU ABLE -- TELL ME THIS:

WHEN YOU RECOVER LOOSE PILLS, DO YOU TRY TO IDENTIFY WHAT

THE MEDICATION IS?

A YES.

Q OKAY. AND HOW DO YOU GO ABOUT DOING THAT?

A WE HAVE BOOKS AT THE OFFICE THAT PRETTY MUCH

LIST MEDICATIONS, KNOWN MEDICATIONS, WITH THE

IDENTIFICATION ON THEM. SOMETIMES I'LL USE THE INTERNET.

THERE'S ALSO WEBSITES THAT IDENTIFY MEDICATIONS.

Q OKAY. LET'S -- HERE, IT LOOKS HERE LIKE YOU

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 19: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

488

LISTED, YOU KNOW, PILL BOTTLES WITH THE R.X. NUMBER AND

THE PRESCRIBING PHYSICIAN, BUT THEN DOWN HERE IT SAYS,

"PARAPHERNALIA DESCRIPTION, 36 LOOSE PILLS (GEODON)."

DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU DETERMINED THAT THE

LOOSE PILLS YOU COLLECTED FROM THE SCENE WERE GEODON?

A IT LOOKS THAT WAY.

Q IS THERE EVER A TIME WHEN YOU WOULD COLLECT

LOOSE PILLS AND NOT IDENTIFY THEM IN SOME WAY?

A YES.

Q THERE IS?

A YES.

Q AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD THAT BE?

A WHEN I'M NOT ABLE TO FIND ANY LITERATURE TO

IDENTIFY THE MEDICATION.

Q OKAY. AND DID THAT HAPPEN IN THIS CASE?

A I DON'T RECALL. SOMETIMES WE FORWARD THE

MEDICATION TO THE EVIDENCE SECTION. THEY HAVE MORE

RESOURCES TO IDENTIFY MEDICATIONS.

Q OKAY. BUT YOU HAVEN'T NOTED ANYWHERE IN

THIS REPORT OR INVENTORY THAT YOU WERE UNABLE TO IDENTIFY

ANY LOOSE PILLS RECOVERED?

A NO.

Q DID YOU RECOVER A SUICIDE NOTE FROM THE

SCENE?

A YES.

Q I'M GOING TO HAVE YOU TURN TO EXHIBIT 119.

(MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION, JOINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 20: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

489

EXHIBIT 119, SUICIDE NOTE.)

BY MS. MC BROOM:

Q DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT'S DEPICTED IN 119-1?

A YES.

Q AND WHAT IS THAT?

A SUICIDE NOTE.

Q IS THIS THE SUICIDE NOTE YOU RECOVERED FROM

THE SCENE?

A YES.

MS. MC BROOM: YOUR HONOR, I'D MOVE TO ADMIT

EXHIBIT 119-1.

THE COURT: ANY OBJECTION?

MR. BLESSEY: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: RECEIVED.

(RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE, JOINT

EXHIBIT 119.)

BY MS. MC BROOM:

Q SO CAN YOU GIVE US AN IDEA OF ABOUT HOW MANY

PILL BOTTLES YOU RECOVERED FROM THE SCENE?

A I --

Q ARE THEY ALL LISTED IN THIS MULTIPLE-PAGE

DOCUMENT THAT'S AN INVENTORY OF THE DRUGS?

A YES.

Q AND I SEE ON THIS INVENTORY -- I'M GOING TO

PUT UP ONE PAGE OF THE INVENTORY.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 21: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

490

YOU STATE HERE THE "R.X. NUMBER," DATE

ISSUED, NUMBER ISSUED, THE "DOSAGE," AND IT LOOKS LIKE

"PHYSICIAN" AND "PHARMACY."

IS ALL THAT INFORMATION JUST TAKEN OFF THE

PILL BOTTLES?

A YES.

Q OKAY. DID YOU VERIFY ANY OF THIS

INFORMATION BY CONTACTING THE PHARMACY OR THE DOCTOR OR

DID YOU JUST TAKE WHAT WAS WRITTEN ON THE BOTTLES?

A TAKE WHAT WAS WRITTEN ON THE BOTTLES.

Q OKAY. I SEE HERE YOU PUT -- THERE'S A

COLUMN THAT'S "NUMBER REMAINING," I ASSUME THAT'S THE

NUMBER OF PILLS REMAINING IN THE BOTTLES?

A RIGHT.

Q SO THIS ENTRY FOR OXYCODONE RIGHT HERE SAYS

IT WAS FILLED ON MARCH 22ND, 2010, 100 ISSUED, ZERO

REMAINING. SO I TAKE IT YOU DIDN'T RECOVER ANY OXYCODONE

PILLS FROM THE SCENE?

A RIGHT, YES.

MS. MC BROOM: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: CROSS?

MR. BLESSEY: VERY BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. BLESSEY:

Q GOOD MORNING, MR. LOPEZ.

A GOOD MORNING.

Q JUST FOLLOWING UP ON THAT CHART, WHAT YOU

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 22: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

491

BASICALLY DID IS YOU LOOKED AT THE PILL BOTTLES; YOU MADE

A LIST OF THE TYPE OF PILL IT WAS, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q THE NUMBER OF PILLS THAT WERE DISPENSED,

MEANING WHAT THE PRESCRIPTION CALLED FOR; IS THAT CORRECT?

A YES.

Q AND THEN YOU LOOKED IN THE PILL BOTTLE AND

YOU MADE A DETERMINATION HOW MANY WERE REMAINING IN THE

PILL BOTTLE, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q AND THEN I THINK YOU ALSO LISTED THE

PHARMACY NUMBER AND THE NAME OF THE DOCTOR IN THE COLUMN,

CORRECT?

A YES.

Q AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR BELIEF, THAT

INFORMATION -- LET ME STRIKE THAT.

YOU ARE CAREFUL IN RECORDING THAT

INFORMATION BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT THAT INFORMATION IS

GOING TO BE RELIED ON PERHAPS BY THE CORONER AND OTHERS IN

DETERMINING CAUSE OF DEATH, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q OKAY. AND DO YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT THAT THE

MEDICATIONS THAT YOU LISTED AND ALL THE INFORMATION

RELATED TO THOSE 14 PILL BOTTLES WAS ACCURATE AND COMPLETE

WITH ANY DOUBT?

A NO.

Q THANK YOU. SIR, THE LAST THING, IN YOUR

SECOND PAGE OF YOUR -- THIS WOULD BE EXHIBIT 114-28 -- YOU

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 23: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

492

HAVE SOME INFORMATION ON THE SECOND PAGE OF YOUR

NARRATIVE.

WOULD YOU TURN TO THAT FOR ME, PLEASE.

A OKAY.

Q YOU HAVE ON THAT PAGE, DROPPING DOWN, AND IN

THE INTEREST OF TIME, I WON'T PROJECT IT, BUT IT HAS A

"NEXT OF KIN NOTIFICATION" SECTION, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q AND I THINK YOU INDICATE THAT

MRS. DE ROGATIS, OR A LINDA DE ROGATIS, WAS NOTIFIED ABOUT

THE DEATH, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q NOW, DOWN -- LET'S SEE IF I CAN FIND IT.

OH, THE LAST SECTION SAYS "AUTOPSY NOTIFICATION" ON IT.

THAT'S THE TITLE OF THE SECTION, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q AND IT SAYS, "NONE REQUESTED."

A YES.

Q WHAT YOU ARE SAYING BY THAT ENTRY? THE

FAMILY WASN'T REQUESTING AN AUTOPSY; IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE

SAYING?

A NO. THAT SECTION IS -- INDICATES THAT LAW

ENFORCEMENT REQUESTS A 2-HOUR NOTIFICATION FOR ATTENDANCE

TO THE AUTOPSY.

THE COURT: "LAW ENFORCEMENT"?

THE WITNESS: YES.

BY MR. BLESSEY:

Q CAN YOU EXPLAIN? I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHAT YOUR

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 24: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

493

ANSWER MEANT.

A IN CASES OF HOMICIDES, THE HANDLING

DETECTIVE OR INVESTIGATOR WILL REQUEST A 2-HOUR NOTICE TO

BE NOTIFIED OF WHEN THE AUTOPSY TAKES PLACE SO THAT HE CAN

BE CALLED AND MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO ATTEND THE AUTOPSY.

MR. BLESSEY: VERY GOOD.

YOUR HONOR, NOTHING FURTHER. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: REDIRECT?

MS. MC BROOM: NO, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, OFFICER.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

THE COURT: YOU'RE EXCUSED.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.

MR. NEWHOUSE: DR. RAMIN IS HERE.

THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SOLEMNLY STATE THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU

MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT SHALL

BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH,

SO HELP YOU GOD?

THE WITNESS: I DO.

THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, DOCTOR.

THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING.

THE CLERK: PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL YOUR

NAME.

THE WITNESS: DAVID S. RAMIN, R-A-M-I-N.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, COUNSEL.

MS. MC BROOM: THANK YOU.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 25: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

494

DAVID S. RAMIN, M.D.,

CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PLAINTIFFS, WAS DULY SWORN AND

TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. MC BROOM:

Q GOOD MORNING, DR. RAMIN.

A GOOD MORNING.

Q TELL US HOW YOU'RE EMPLOYED.

A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q TELL US HOW YOU'RE EMPLOYED. WHAT'S YOUR

OCCUPATION?

A I PRACTICE IN A SOLO PRACTICE, AND I'M

SELF-EMPLOYED.

THE COURT: YOU'RE A MEDICAL DOCTOR, RIGHT?

THE WITNESS: YEAH. I'M A GENERAL INTERNIST.

THE COURT: OKAY.

BY MS. MC BROOM:

Q AND WHERE IS YOUR PRACTICE?

A IN BEVERLY HILLS.

Q ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A YOUNG WOMAN BY THE

NAME OF TARA DE ROGATIS?

A I'VE SEEN HER IN MY OFFICE.

Q OKAY. YOU TREATED HER?

A I SAW HER AND I TREATED HER.

Q ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS DID YOU SEE

MS. DE ROGATIS?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 26: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

495

A I DIDN'T BRING THE CHART, BUT I SAW HER

TWICE, SO IF YOU HAVE -- YOUR OFFICE TOLD ME THAT YOU HAVE

A COPY OF THE CHART; I DIDN'T NEED TO BRING THE CHART.

Q YOU KNOW WHAT? WHY DON'T YOU TURN TO -- LET

ME HELP YOU WITH THAT.

A THANK YOU.

MS. MC BROOM: THIS GOES FROM 104-1 TO 104-21.

(MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION, JOINT

EXHIBITS 104-1 TO 104-21, MEDICAL

CHART OF DAVID S. RAMIN, M.D.)

BY MS. MC BROOM:

Q CAN YOU IDENTIFY WHAT'S DEPICTED IN THAT

EXHIBIT?

A 104-1 IS THE PATIENT QUESTIONNAIRE.

Q OKAY. IS THIS ENTIRE EXHIBIT A COPY OF YOUR

FILE FROM YOUR VISIT?

A YOU WANT ME TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT?

Q SURE.

A YOU GUYS HAD A COPY SERVICE THAT CAME INTO

THE OFFICE AND COPIED IT.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT.

MS. MC BROOM: YOUR HONOR, I MOVE TO ADMIT

EXHIBIT 104.

THE COURT: ANY OBJECTION?

MR. BLESSEY: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: RECEIVED.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 27: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

496

(RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE, JOINT

EXHIBITS 104-1 TO 104-21.)

BY MS. MC BROOM:

Q SO NOW, TAKING A LOOK AT YOUR CHART, CAN YOU

TELL ME ON WHAT TWO OCCASIONS YOU SAW TARA DE ROGATIS?

A YOU HAVE HANDWRITTEN NOTES FROM ME. THE

FIRST ONE IS JANUARY 20TH, 2010.

Q OKAY.

A AND THE SECOND ONE IS FEBRUARY 2010. I'M

NOT SURE IF IT'S THE 3RD OR THE 10TH. IT'S NOT COPIED

VERY WELL, THE DATE.

Q OKAY.

A 3RD OR 8TH.

Q DO YOU KNOW WHO REFERRED -- DO YOU HAVE ANY

IDEA WHO REFERRED TARA TO YOU?

A I DON'T KNOW.

Q OKAY. I AM NOW ON PAGE 104-4 OF YOUR CHART.

IF YOU COULD TURN TO THAT PAGE.

A SURE.

Q OKAY. ARE THESE NOTES FROM YOUR FIRST VISIT

WITH TARA DE ROGATIS?

A THIS IS MY HANDWRITING, YES.

Q OKAY. AND FORGIVE ME. I CAN'T READ IT, SO

I'M GOING TO HAVE YOU -- I'M GOING TO HAVE YOU JUST WALK

THROUGH IT STEP BY STEP FOR THE JURY.

A OKAY.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 28: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

497

Q OKAY. CAN YOU JUST TELL ME -- LET'S JUST

WALK FROM HERE TO HERE, WHAT THIS SAYS.

A SO THAT'S 30. "Y.R." MEANS YEAR.

"O.L.D.F." MEANS 30-YEAR-OLD FEMALE.

Q OKAY. PLEASE KEEP GOING.

A "PATIENT WITH POLYARTHRALGIA. POSITIVE NECK

AND BACK PAIN."

Q OKAY. AND THOSE WERE HER COMPLAINTS TO YOU?

A POLYARTHRALGIA MEANS PAIN ALL OVER THE

JOINTS. "NECK AND BACK PAIN."

Q OKAY. AND WHAT DOES IT SAY RIGHT HERE?

A A POSITIVE TYPE OF PAIN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT

I PUT DOWN.

Q OKAY.

A OKAY. "NO HISTORY OF M.V.A." MEANS MOTOR

VEHICLE ACCIDENT.

Q NO HISTORY OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT?

A YEAH.

Q OKAY. TELL US WHAT THIS SAYS.

A "WAS HIT BY EX-BOYFRIEND TWO YEARS AGO."

Q OKAY. AND WHAT'S THE NEXT LINE?

A "HAS BEEN HAVING A LOT OF," SOMETHING.

"PAIN."

Q OKAY. AND LET'S GO -- WHY DON'T YOU JUST

TELL ME WHAT THIS SAYS RIGHT HERE. JUST GO LINE BY LINE.

A OKAY. ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, HER

MEDICATIONS, SHE'S TAKING "NORCO, Q. 4 P.R.N.," EVERY 4

HOURS AS NEEDED. AND SHE'S ON "KLONOPIN, 1 MILLIGRAM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 29: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

498

B.I.D. P.R.N."

Q OKAY. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS?

A YES.

Q SO HERE YOU'VE NOTED THE MEDICATIONS SHE

REPORTED SHE WAS TAKING?

A YES.

Q OKAY. AND WHAT IS THIS OVER HERE?

A "POSITIVE FOR INSOMNIA."

Q OKAY.

A THAT MEANS SHE'S UNABLE TO SLEEP.

Q OKAY. AND THE NEXT LINE?

A "POSITIVE FOR PANIC ATTACK."

NO. I'M SORRY.

"POSITIVE FOR PINPRICK NEEDLE SENSATION."

Q OKAY. AND THIS HERE?

A "SEEING NEUROLOGIST. GOT RECENT" -- I CAN'T

READ IT.

Q OKAY. AND?

A "HISTORY OF AUDITORY HALLUCINATION. WAS

SEEN BY DOCTOR" -- "BY PAIN DOCTOR" -- "BY PAIN DOCTOR 10

DAYS AGO."

Q OKAY. WAS TARA ACCOMPANIED BY ANYONE ON

THIS APPOINTMENT?

A YEAH, SHE CAME WITH THIS GUY WHO WAS A LOT

OLDER THAN HER.

Q OKAY. AND YOU DON'T RECALL HIS NAME,

CORRECT?

A I DON'T, NO.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 30: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

499

Q OKAY.

A BUT THEY -- THEY WEREN'T -- THEY DIDN'T --

THEY WEREN'T A MATCH. SOMETHING WAS ODD ABOUT BOTH OF

THEM.

Q OKAY. DID TARA REPORT -- SHE REPORTED TO

YOU SHE HAD A HISTORY OF AUDITORY HALLUCINATIONS?

A THAT'S WHAT I WROTE DOWN.

Q OKAY. DO YOU RECALL WHETHER TARA TOLD YOU

HOW LONG SHE HAD BEEN SUFFERING WITH AUDITORY

HALLUCINATIONS?

A IT'S NOT DOCUMENTED.

Q OKAY. IF IT'S NOT DOCUMENTED, DOES THAT

JUST MEAN YOU DON'T RECALL?

A CERTAIN THINGS I WRITE DOWN, AND CERTAIN

THINGS -- I'M NOT A PSYCHIATRIST. IF YOU COME TO ME AND

YOU TELL ME, "I HAVE AUDITORY HALLUCINATIONS," I RECOMMEND

YOU GO AND SEE A PSYCHIATRIST. I CAN'T -- I CANNOT MAKE

YOUR AUDITORY HALLUCINATIONS BETTER. IT'S NOT MY

PRACTICE. SO I NOTED THAT SHE HAS AUDITORY

HALLUCINATIONS.

Q OKAY.

A AND I THINK AT THE END OF MY NOTE, I

RECOMMENDED THAT SHE NEEDS TO FOLLOW WITH A PSYCHIATRIST.

Q OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH. LET'S KEEP GOING.

WHAT DOES THIS SAY RIGHT HERE?

A "POSITIVE, A LOT OF ANXIETY."

Q OKAY. DID SHE APPEAR ANXIOUS TO YOU ON THIS

VISIT --

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 31: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

500

A NO.

Q -- IF YOU CAN RECALL?

A NO. SHE WAS OKAY.

Q SHE JUST REPORTED HAVING A LOT OF ANXIETY?

A SHE SAID SHE HAS A LOT OF ANXIETY.

Q AND WHAT DOES THIS SAY?

A "HAD E.E.G. BY DR. OR-" -- SOMETHING.

Q DR. ORFUSS? DOES THAT RING A BELL? NO?

A I DON'T KNOW THE DOCTOR, BUT "HAD E.E.G."

Q DID SHE BRING YOU A COPY OF THE E.E.G.

REPORT?

A YOU KNOW, WHATEVER I HAVE IN HERE, I HAVE

IT. AND THEN SHE -- I REFERRED HER TO DR. GIOMBETTI, WHO

WAS A NEUROLOGIST -- AND HE WAS THE CHIEF NEUROLOGIST IN A

HOSPITAL BEFORE -- TO ACTUALLY EVALUATE HER AND SEND

WHATEVER I HAD.

Q OKAY.

A IT WAS ACTUALLY FAXED TO HIS OFFICE ON

1/27/2010. THAT'S ON 104-18.

Q SO YOU REFERRED HER -- AT THE END OF THIS

APPOINTMENT, YOU REFERRED HER TO A NEUROLOGIST BY THE NAME

OF DR. GIOMBETTI?

A ON THE -- I DON'T KNOW IF AT THIS POINT OR

LATER ON I REFERRED, BUT WE SENT HER TO SEE DR. GIOMBETTI.

Q GOT IT. OKAY. DID WE FINISH UP? CAN YOU

TELL ME WHAT THIS IS RIGHT HERE? DOWN AT THE --

A "NORMAL E.E.G. 1 YEAR AGO."

E.E.G. IS THE BRAIN ENCEPHALOGRAM THAT THEY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 32: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

501

TAKE IF THEY HAVE SEIZURES OR STUFF LIKE THAT.

Q OKAY. AND THIS HERE?

A "P.S.H." -- WHERE ARE YOU?

Q I'M AT THE VERY BOTTOM.

A SO "P.S.H.," THAT'S PAST SURGICAL HISTORY.

"NEGATIVE ALLERGIES," NO KNOWN ALLERGIES.

AND THAT'S HER SIGNATURE, AND SHE SIGNS, AND

WE PUT A STICKER ON THE CHART.

Q GOT IT. OKAY. I'M ON THE SECOND PAGE OF

YOUR NOTES FROM THE VISIT ON JANUARY 20TH, 2010, AND

AGAIN, FORGIVE ME, BUT I JUST NEED YOU TO WALK ME THROUGH

YOUR NOTES.

A "F.H.X." IS FAMILY HISTORY. "FATHER AND

MOTHER IS HEALTHY. GRANDMOTHER HAS BREAST CANCER.

GRANDFATHER, QUESTION LEUKEMIA. AUNT WITH BREAST CANCER."

Q AND BELOW THAT, DOWN HERE?

A THAT'S MY PHYSICAL EXAM. SO "N.A.D." MEANS

NO ACUTE DISTRESS. "N.C." MEANS NORMOCEPHALIC. THAT MEANS

THAT THE HEAD IS NORMAL. "ATRAUMATIC." THERE WAS NO

VISIBLE TRAUMA. "E.O.M.I.," EXTRAOCCULAR MUSCLE INTACT.

THAT MEANS HER EYES DIDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES.

Q OKAY.

A "MULTIPLE TRIGGER POINT TENDERNESS."

Q OKAY. AND THEN -- I'M SORRY -- WERE YOU NOT

FINISHED WITH YOUR ANSWER?

A I'M READY. CAN I GO?

Q SURE.

A OKAY. "S1 S2 R.R.R." THOSE ARE THE HEART

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 33: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

502

SOUNDS. HER HEART SOUNDS WERE NORMAL. CLEAR -- "CTA"

MEANS CLEAR TO AUSCULTATION. HER LUNGS WERE NORMAL AND

ABDOMEN WAS SOFT. "EXTREMITY, NO EDEMA. MOTOR STRENGTH,

5 OVER 5 EXTREMITIES." THAT MEANS HER MOTOR STRENGTH WAS

NORMAL WITH HANDGRIPS.

Q OKAY. ARE WE HERE NOW?

A YEAH.

Q OKAY. WHAT DOES THIS SAY?

A IMPRESSION, "I.M.P. CHRONIC PAIN SYNDROME."

"F.M.S." MEANS FIBROMYALGIA SYNDROME.

"ANXIETY. QUESTION HISTORY OF AUDITORY

HALLUCINATION."

Q OKAY. AND WHAT DID YOU WRITE BELOW THAT?

A "SEE PSYCHIATRIST." THAT'S MY FIRST

RECOMMENDATION TO HER.

Q OKAY. AND WHAT ELSE DID YOU RECOMMEND?

A "START LYRICA," L-Y-R-I-C-A, "Q.H.S. SAMPLE

GIVEN."

Q OKAY.

A ALSO GAVE HER "30 NORCO 10/325 EVERY 6."

Q SO EVERY -- CAN YOU JUST TELL US WHAT THIS

PRESCRIPTION WAS, EVERY -- ONE PILL EVERY 6 HOURS?

A UH-HUH. "P.R.N.," AS NEEDED.

Q AND HOW MANY DID YOU --

A 30.

Q 30?

A YEAH. I HAD RECOMMENDED HER TO SEE A

NEUROLOGY AND PAIN MANAGEMENT, A RHEUMATOLOGIST, I THINK.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 34: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

503

Q SO AT THE END OF THIS FIRST VISIT, YOU

REFERRED HER OUT TO SEE THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF

PHYSICIANS?

A PSYCHIATRIST, NEUROLOGIST, PAIN, AND

RHEUMATOLOGY. I THINK THAT'S FOUR.

Q LET'S GO TO YOUR NOTES FROM YOUR SECOND

VISIT, AND I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU IT. IT IS 104-21.

DO YOU HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF YOU?

A 104-21.

Q OKAY. AND THESE ARE NOTES FROM YOUR SECOND

VISIT WITH TARA DE ROGATIS?

A UH-HUH.

THE REPORTER: "YES"?

THE WITNESS: YES.

BY MS. MC BROOM:

Q APPEARS TO BE FEBRUARY 3RD, 2010?

A IT'S EITHER 3RD OR 8TH. NOT COPIED VERY

WELL.

Q I'M GOING TO HAVE YOU DO THE SAME THING AND

JUST WALK US THROUGH YOUR NOTES HERE.

A OKAY. ON TOP, THAT'S THE NOTE FROM THE

NURSES THAT HAS THE VITALS ON IT.

Q OKAY, THESE ARE THE VITAL UP HERE?

A YEAH. SO UNDERNEATH IT SAYS, "PATIENT WITH

CHRONIC PAIN. POSSIBLE F.M.S.," FIBROMYALGIA. "SAW

DR. GIOMBETTI, GETTING M.R.I. BRAIN."

Q SO LET ME STOP YOU THERE. SHE TOLD YOU,

TARA TOLD YOU, ON THIS VISIT THAT SHE HAD SEEN

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 35: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

504

DR. GIOMBETTI, THE NEUROLOGIST?

A YES.

Q OKAY. AND SHE WAS GOING TO BE GETTING AN

M.R.I.?

A YES.

Q OKAY.

A AND THEN LYRICA DID NOT WORK.

Q OKAY. AND IS THAT WHAT TARA TOLD YOU, SHE

TOLD YOU THE LYRICA DID NOT WORK? DO YOU RECALL HER

SAYING WHY IT DIDN'T WORK?

A YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES SHE SAID IT DIDN'T WORK.

EVERY MEDICATION DOESN'T WORK WITH EVERYBODY. SHE --

LYRICA IS USED IN PATIENTS WITH FIBROMYALGIA AND HELPS

SOME OF THEM, AND IT DOESN'T HELP THE OTHER ONES, YOU

KNOW. YOU KNOW, NOT EVERY MEDICATION WORKS ON EVERY

PATIENT.

Q I UNDERSTAND. SO THAT'S WHAT SHE REPORTED

TO YOU. THOSE WERE HER WORDS, "THE LYRICA IS NOT

WORKING"?

A I DON'T KNOW IF SHE SAID, "LYRICA IS NOT

WORKING" OR "LYRICA DIDN'T WORK." I DOCUMENTED LYRICA

DIDN'T WORK.

Q OKAY. LET'S SEE. WHERE WERE WE? OKAY.

LET'S CONTINUE ON.

A "RECENT LABS. TEST OKAY. UNDERSTAND

FIBROMYALGIA. NO NAUSEA," SLASH, "VOMITING."

Q OKAY.

A SO NO ACUTE DISTRESS MEANS SHE'S -- "N.A.D."

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 36: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

505

MEANS NO ACUTE DISTRESS. SHE WASN'T IN DISTRESS.

Q OKAY.

A THERE WAS "NO BULGING OF HER NECK VEINS. NO

J.V.D. S1 S2 R.R.R." SORRY. "HER HEART SOUNDS WERE

NORMAL." "C.T.A." MEANS HER LUNGS WAS CLEAR. "ABDOMEN

WAS SOFT." AND THERE WAS "NO EDEMA," AND SHE HAD

"MULTIPLE TRIGGER POINT TENDERNESS."

Q OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAVE YOU KEEP GOING.

A "IMPRESSION," SLASH, "HYPERSENSITIVITY

SYNDROME. FIBROMYALGIA. WILL NEED TO SEE RHEUMATOLOGY.

NORCO WAS GIVEN AND ULTRACET WAS GIVEN, 30 OF EACH."

Q OKAY. WHAT WAS THE NORCO PRESCRIPTION THAT

YOU PROVIDED HER?

A 10/325 EVERY 6.

Q ONE EVERY 6 HOURS?

A YES.

Q AND HOW MANY DID YOU GIVE HER?

A 30.

Q AND WHAT WAS THE OTHER MEDICATION?

A ULTRACET.

Q OKAY. AND HOW MANY --

A I GIVE -- ULTRACET IS A PAIN MEDICATION

THAT'S NOT ADDICTIVE, BUT IT WORKS VERY WELL. IT'S VERY

CONSTIPATING. SO IF YOU GIVE IT TO A PATIENT AND THEY

HAVE PAIN, THEY USUALLY DO WELL. IT'S STRONGER, BUT IT

DOESN'T GIVE ANYBODY A HIGH, SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT

THEY WANT --

Q WHAT WAS THE DOSE YOU GAVE HER?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 37: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

506

A ULTRACET COMES IN ONE DOSE.

Q OKAY. AND WHAT IS THAT?

A 37.5.

Q OKAY. AND HOW OFTEN WAS SHE SUPPOSED TO

TAKE THAT?

A I WROTE, "6, NO. 30 AS NEEDED," EVERY 6

HOURS AS NEEDED." "30."

Q OKAY. AND HOW MANY PILLS DID YOU PROVIDE?

A 30.

Q 30. OKAY. NOW, ON THIS VISIT, THIS SECOND

VISIT, DO YOU RECALL WHETHER TARA WAS REQUESTING

ADDITIONAL PAIN MEDICATION?

A WHETHER SHE WAS ASKING -- SHE BASICALLY

DIDN'T LIKE LYRICA, DIDN'T LIKE OTHER THINGS.

AND YOU HAVE A YOUNG LADY WHO IS IN PAIN,

AND YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S WRONG WITH HER.

SHE'S ACTUALLY FOLLOWING UP. I ASKED HER TO

SEE A NEUROLOGIST. SHE WENT AND SAW THE NEUROLOGIST. I

ASKED HER TO GO SEE A RHEUMATOLOGIST.

SHE WAS AN ACTRESS, AND SHE WAS VERY GOOD AT

HIDING THINGS, AND SHE DIDN'T GIVE US A COMPLETE HISTORY.

THIS IS A PATIENT THAT CAME INTO MY OFFICE AND DIDN'T GIVE

HER WHOLE HISTORY AND THINGS -- YOU KNOW, THERE ARE

CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE PERTINENT AND YOU WANT A PATIENT

TO GIVE IT TO YOU.

IF YOU HAD THREE CHILDREN, I WOULDN'T KNOW

YOU HAD THREE CHILDREN UNLESS YOU TELL ME. SO THOSE ARE

-- THOSE ARE THE THINGS. DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 38: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

507

REQUIRES A PATIENT TO TELL YOU --

Q I UNDERSTAND. BUT MY QUESTION WAS: ON THIS

LAST VISIT WAS SHE ASKING YOU FOR ADDITIONAL PAIN

MEDICATIONS?

A SHE WANTED ANSWERS. I DIDN'T HAVE HER

ANSWERS.

Q IS THAT WHY YOU REFERRED HER TO SEE A

RHEUMATOLOGIST?

A YOU KNOW, RHEUMATOLOGISTS -- IF YOU SEND

THEM TO PAIN MANAGEMENT DOCTORS, THEY WON'T FIND OUT

WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE PATIENT. IF YOU SEND THEM TO A

RHEUMATOLOGIST, IF SHE HAS AN UNDIFFERENTIATED CONNECTIVE

TISSUE DISORDER, OR SHE HAS A MIXED CONNECTIVE TISSUE

DISORDER, IF SHE HAD AN AUTOIMMUNE DISORDER, THEY'RE

BETTER AT FINDING THESE THINGS, AND THEY'RE BETTER AT

TREATING THESE PATIENTS.

Q OKAY. DID YOU REFER HER TO DR. SHAINSKY?

A I REFERRED -- I THINK I REFERRED HER TO

DR. SHAINSKY OR DR. VENTURUPALLI IN THEIR GROUP. DON'T

REMEMBER WHICH ONE I REFERRED.

Q YOU'RE SAYING IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN SHAINSKY OR

SOMEONE IN DR. SHAINSKY'S GROUP?

A YEAH.

Q HOW DO YOU KNOW -- OR AT THE TIME HOW DID

YOU KNOW DR. SHAINSKY?

A DR. SHAINSKY JOINED A VERY REPUTABLE GROUP

AT CEDARS-SINAI, DR. VENTURUPALLI, AND THERE'S TWO OTHER

DOCTORS THERE.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 39: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

508

SHE HAS DONE REMARKABLE JOBS ON MY PATIENTS.

I'VE CALLED HER ON POSTOP PATIENTS FOR HER TO COME IN AND

GIVE STEROID INJECTIONS IN THE HOSPITAL.

Q I'M JUST INTERESTED IN HOW DO YOU KNOW

DR. SHAINSKY? HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN HER? I'LL PUT IT

THAT WAY.

A SINCE SHE GOT A RESIDENCY, FELLOWSHIP, AND

SHE TRAINED WITH -- SHE FINISHED HER TRAINING, AND SHE

STARTED WORKING IN A GROUP.

Q CAN YOU GIVE ME AN ESTIMATE OF ABOUT HOW

LONG YOU'VE KNOWN HER?

A YOU KNOW, I WORK WITH 300 DOCTORS. YOU WANT

ME TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY YEARS? I THINK SHE'S BEEN --

AT LEAST FOUR YEARS, MAYBE FIVE, MAYBE SIX, SO I DON'T --

MAYBE MORE.

Q I SEE. SO DO YOU SEE HER AT CEDARS-SINAI

OCCASIONALLY?

A ONCE IN A WHILE, YES.

Q HOW OFTEN WOULD YOU SAY?

A TWO, THREE TIMES A YEAR, MAYBE LESS, MAYBE

MORE.

Q NOW, FOLLOWING THIS VISIT, THIS WAS YOUR

FINAL VISIT WITH TARA, CORRECT?

A THIS, YEAH.

Q OKAY. FOLLOWING THIS VISIT, DID YOU EVER

RECEIVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE FROM DR. SHAINSKY REGARDING HER

CONSULTATION WITH TARA?

A YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY, YOU ASKED ME THE SAME

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 40: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

509

QUESTION. I REMEMBER WE HAD A PROBLEM WITH OUR FAXES FOR

A FEW DAYS AT A CERTAIN TIME. IF THOSE THREE DAYS SHE

FAXED IT, WE DIDN'T HAVE IT. BUT WHATEVER YOU HAVE FROM

MY CHART, THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

Q SO IT WASN'T IN YOUR CHART, RIGHT?

A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

MR. NEWHOUSE: YOU HAVE TO ANSWER AUDIBLY.

THE WITNESS: YES.

BY MS. MC BROOM:

Q WHICH YOU INTERPRET TO MEAN YOU DID NOT

RECEIVE -- I'M NOT ASKING IF IT WAS SENT. I'M ASKING IF

YOU RECEIVED A LETTER FROM DR. SHAINSKY.

A IN ORDER TO GET A LETTER, IT HAS TO BE

FAXED. THEN SOMEBODY IN MY OFFICE NEEDS TO CHANGE IT.

AND I HAD -- DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, I HAD A LOT OF

CHANGE IN MY OFFICE, SO IF THAT ANSWERS YOU WELL OR NOT --

Q NOT QUITE.

DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT --

A I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN MY CHART.

Q OKAY.

A SHE COULD HAVE SENT IT, AND IT COULD HAVE

BEEN THAT THE GIRLS DIDN'T PUT IT IN THE CHART.

Q DOES THAT HAPPEN OFTEN WHERE --

A IT CAN HAPPEN. IT'S NOT LIKE SOMETHING THAT

DOESN'T HAPPEN.

Q HOW MANY TIMES WOULD YOU SAY THAT HAPPENS A

YEAR?

A I DON'T KNOW. I -- I CAN'T CHECK HOW MANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 41: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

510

TIMES A YEAR MY FAX MACHINE IS GONE FOR 20 MINUTES.

Q WELL --

A HOW MANY TIMES A YEAR?

Q GO ON. I'M SORRY. I INTERRUPTED YOU.

A YOU KNOW, YOU'RE ASKING HOW IS IT --

SOMETHING COMES IN THROUGH THE FAX. IF THE FAX GETS

JAMMED -- THIS, THAT -- YOU KNOW, IT JUST DOESN'T COME IN.

SO THEY HAVE TO -- IF WE RUN OUT OF THE INK AND WE DON'T

HAVE INK FOR 3, 4 HOURS AND WE GET HUNDREDS OF SHEETS THAT

COME IN, I CAN'T TELL YOU THE ANSWERS.

BUT THIS IS A PATIENT THAT I SAW THE FIRST

TIME AND RECOMMENDED TO SEE A PSYCHIATRIST, SO THAT WAS MY

FIRST RECOMMENDATION. PLEASE LET ME FINISH. I

RECOMMENDED HER TO SEE A NEUROLOGIST. I RECOMMENDED TO

SEE DOCTORS.

Q I UNDERSTAND. I'M JUST FOCUSED RIGHT NOW ON

THE LETTER. YOU'VE TOLD US IT WASN'T IN YOUR CHART, AND

ARE YOU TELLING US THAT YOU THINK IT MAY NOT BE IN YOUR

CHART BECAUSE THERE WAS A PERIOD OF TIME WHEN THE POWER

WENT OUT?

A I DIDN'T SAY, "THE POWER WENT OUT." I SAID,

"THE FAX MACHINE."

Q OKAY.

A EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE WE GET A JAM IN THE

FAX WHERE WE DON'T HAVE INK. IT DOESN'T HAVE MEMORY THAT,

YOU KNOW, IF THE FAXES ARE COMING -- IT'S A TECHNICAL

QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING ME, YOU KNOW.

Q PRIOR TO -- ARE YOU AWARE THAT TARA IS NOW

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 42: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

511

DECEASED?

A YES. IT'S VERY SAD, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHEN

YOU HAVE A YOUNG PATIENT COME INTO YOUR OFFICE AND YOU

WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT'S WRONG WITH HER AND YOU ACTUALLY

RECOMMEND HER TO SEE OTHER DOCTORS AND STUFF LIKE THAT,

IT'S VERY SAD TO SEE A PATIENT PASS AWAY.

Q DR. RAMIN, DO YOU RECALL HAVING ANY

CONVERSATIONS WITH DR. SHAINSKY ABOUT TARA PRIOR TO TARA'S

DEATH, WHICH WAS ON MARCH 23RD, 2010?

A I DON'T THINK SO.

Q WHAT ABOUT AFTER TARA'S DEATH; DO YOU RECALL

HAVING ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH DR. SHAINSKY?

A YES.

Q WAS THAT IN PERSON OR OVER THE PHONE OR A

COMBINATION? DID YOU SPEAK -- LET ME START WITH THIS:

DID YOU SPEAK MULTIPLE TIMES FOLLOWING TARA'S DEATH WITH

DR. SHAINSKY?

A YOU KNOW, WE SHARE PATIENTS. I REFER

PATIENTS TO HER, SO -- AND I STILL DO REFER PATIENTS TO

HER. I'VE TALKED TO HER A FEW TIMES ABOUT TARA.

Q OKAY. HOW MANY PATIENTS DO YOU REFER TO

DR. SHAINSKY A YEAR?

A I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PATIENTS I REFER TO

DR. SHAINSKY A YEAR.

Q CAN YOU GIVE ME AN ESTIMATE? IS IT TEN? IS

IT 50?

A A FEW. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY.

Q A HANDFUL PER YEAR?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 43: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

512

A OKAY.

Q WE NEED -- WE NEED YOU TO ANSWER AUDIBLY SO

THE COURT REPORTER CAN GET IT.

A I SAID "OKAY."

Q SO YOU SAID YOU SPOKE WITH DR. SHAINSKY ON A

FEW OCCASIONS AFTER TARA'S DEATH.

DO YOU RECALL THE FIRST TIME, ABOUT WHAT

TIME?

A NO. IT WAS JUST -- YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE

A PATIENT THAT PASSES, IT'S SAD. YOU TALK ABOUT IT WITH

THE OTHERS. YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST VERY HUMAN. SHE CALLED

AND SHE SAID, "DID YOU KNOW SHE PASSED?"

AND I SAID, "I DIDN'T KNOW."

Q IN FACT, DR. SHAINSKY CALLED YOU --

A I CALLED THE OFFICE REGARDING ANOTHER

PATIENT, AND WE TALKED. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT WAS.

Q DID DR. SHAINSKY, IN A PHONE CALL WITH YOU,

IN THAT PHONE CALL WITH YOU REGARDING TARA, ASK YOU

WHETHER YOU BELIEVED TARA HAD SOME OTHER MEDICAL ISSUES?

A WHAT -- ASK YOUR QUESTION AGAIN.

Q DURING YOUR CONVERSATION WITH DR. SHAINSKY

FOLLOWING TARA'S DEATH, DID DR. SHAINSKY ASK YOU WHETHER

YOU THOUGHT TARA HAD SOME OTHER MEDICAL ISSUES?

A I DON'T REMEMBER.

Q DO YOU RECALL -- YOU RECALL BEING DEPOSED IN

THIS MATTER, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q OKAY. IN FACT, I DEPOSED YOU, CORRECT?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 44: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

513

A OF COURSE.

Q OKAY.

A YOU DEPOSED [SIC] ME FOUR TIMES AND YOU

CANCELED FOUR TIMES. I REMEMBER THAT AS WELL.

Q SUCH IS LITIGATION. I DEPOSED YOU ONE TIME.

I TOOK YOUR TESTIMONY ONE TIME.

A IT WAS CANCELED MULTIPLE TIMES.

Q BUT THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION. I DEPOSED YOU

ONE TIME, CORRECT? DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A DO YOU RECALL THAT IT WAS CANCELED MULTIPLE

TIMES?

THE COURT: COUNSEL, LET'S MOVE ON. YOU DEPOSED

HIM.

THE WITNESS: YES.

BY MS. MC BROOM:

Q AND YOU RECEIVED A TRANSCRIPT OF THAT

DEPOSITION AND YOU REVIEWED IT, CORRECT?

A I THINK SO.

Q AND YOU SIGNED A DECLARATION STATING THAT

YOUR TESTIMONY WAS TRUE AND CORRECT?

A RIGHT.

MS. MC BROOM: I'LL REFER COUNSEL TO PAGE 56 -- I'M

SORRY -- PAGE 59 AT LINE 12 TO 23.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T HAVE A PAGE 59 WHERE I AM.

BY MS. MC BROOM:

Q I UNDERSTAND. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND

READ FROM THE DEPOSITION.

THE COURT: ANY OBJECTION?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 45: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

514

MR. BLESSEY: NO OBJECTION.

THE COURT: READ IT.

BY MS. MC BROOM:

Q SEE IF IT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION.

"QUESTION: DO YOU RECALL THAT SHE

TOLD YOU --

"ANSWER: YOU KNOW, MY FATHER HAD

PASSED AWAY IN DECEMBER OF -- OR NOVEMBER

2009, SO YOU'RE ASKING ME WHEN I WAS

MOURNING, WHICH SHE TOLD ME LIKE THREE MONTHS

LATER. I DON'T KNOW. I CAN'T RECALL, OKAY?

I KNOW THAT SHE SAID THE PATIENT PASSED AWAY.

"QUESTION: DID SHE HAVE ANY OTHER

MEDICAL PROBLEMS?

"ANSWER: THIS AND THAT, I TOLD HER.

"QUESTION: SHE ASKED WHETHER TARA HAD

ANY MEDICAL PROBLEMS?

"ANSWER: I THINK SO. SOMETHING LIKE

THAT."

DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A IF I SAID THAT, THIS DEPOSITION WAS

PROBABLY -- WHEN WAS IT?

Q IT WAS OVER A YEAR AGO.

A YEAH. IT WAS CLOSER TO THE TIME.

Q DO YOU RECALL ANY OTHER COMMUNICATIONS WITH

DR. SHAINSKY FOLLOWING TARA'S DEATH?

A WE'VE TALKED A FEW TIMES.

Q ON YOUR FINAL VISIT WITH TARA ON FEBRUARY --

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 46: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

515

IN FEBRUARY OF 2010, DID YOU TELL TARA THAT YOU DID NOT

WANT TO BE A PHYSICIAN PRESCRIBING OPIATES TO HER?

A I DON'T THINK I -- I JUST GENERALLY DON'T

FEEL LIKE PRESCRIBING MEDICATION WHEN WE AREN'T HAVING A

DIAGNOSIS THAT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH.

I'M AN INTERNIST. I'M VERY GOOD WITH

DIABETES. SO IF YOUR BLOOD SUGAR IS 400, 500, IF YOU'RE

HAVING A HEART ATTACK, IF YOU'RE UNDERGOING SURGERY, AND

YOU'RE ASKING ME TO DO A CLEARANCE ON YOU, I'M COMFORTABLE

WITH IT. IF YOU HAVE HIGH CHOLESTEROL OR THIS, THAT, I'M

COMFORTABLE TREATING CERTAIN THINGS.

A PATIENT THAT COMES IN LIKE HER AT A YOUNG

AGE AND SHE HAS A LOT OF PAIN, I THINK IT'S BEST TREATED

NOT BY AN INTERNIST, BUT IT'S BEST TREATED WITH PEOPLE WHO

HAVE EXTRA TRAINING IN ARTHRITIS, IN PAIN MANAGEMENT, A

NEUROLOGIST.

I WANTED AN ANSWER; I DIDN'T HAVE THE

ANSWER. AND I -- I WASN'T -- YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE AN

INTERNIST, YOU KNOW, SHE HAS A COLD, SHE CAN COME AND SEE

ME. IF SHE HAS A FLU, SHE'S MORE THAN WELCOME TO COME AND

SEE ME. BUT, YOU KNOW, DID SHE HAVE A CONNECTIVE TISSUE

DISORDER THAT I DIDN'T PICK UP IN MY EXAM? DID SHE HAVE

AN AUTOIMMUNE DISORDER ON EXAM?

AND I WORKED IN THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY.

I WORKED FOR THE MOTION PICTURE CLINICS. AND SOME OF

THESE PATIENTS, THEY COME IN -- THEY'RE ACTRESSES, AND

THEY CAN PRETEND THEY HAVE THINGS, AND THEY COME TO YOUR

OFFICE. THEY'RE NOT PATIENTS; THEY'RE ACTING. SO YOU

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 47: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

516

KNOW, YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT IF A PATIENT LIKE THAT

COMES IN, YOU SEND IT TO THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO GET THE RIGHT

TREATMENT.

DID I DO THE RIGHT THING BY SENDING HER TO

THE SPECIALISTS? YES.

MS. MC BROOM: THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: CROSS?

MR. BLESSEY: BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. BLESSEY:

Q GOOD MORNING, DR. RAMIN.

A GOOD MORNING.

Q WE HAVE NOT MET, HAVE WE?

A I DON'T THINK SO.

Q MY NAME IS RAYMOND BLESSEY, AND I REPRESENT

DR. SHAINSKY.

I'M GOING TO BE BRIEF. IN FACT, I'LL TRY TO

GET YOU OUT OF HERE BECAUSE I KNOW YOU HAVE PATIENTS YOU

NEED TO SEE.

SO JUST TO KIND OF REVIEW QUICKLY, YOUR

FIRST VISIT WITH MS. DE ROGATIS -- LET'S BACK UP.

YOU SAID YOU'RE AN INTERNIST. YOU'VE HAD

SOME EXPERIENCE, HAVE YOU NOT, DURING YOUR TRAINING,

EDUCATION DEALING WITH FIBROMYALGIA PATIENTS BEFORE YOU

SAW MS. DE ROGATIS IN 2010?

A ACTUALLY, I DO.

Q TELL THE JURY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 48: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

517

A SO WHEN I FINISHED MY TRAINING, I JOINED A

RHEUMATOLOGIST IN SANTA MONICA OR TRIED HIS TREATMENT

CENTER. HE'S PASSED. HIS NAME WAS GIDEON DARVISH. I

STAYED IN THAT PRACTICE FOR A YEAR, A YEAR AND A HALF, AND

THERE WAS A DR. TROUM IN THE OFFICE AS WELL, WHO WAS A

RHEUMATOLOGIST, AND I LEFT TO OPEN MY OWN PRACTICE.

Q DURING THAT 18-MONTH-OR-SO PERIOD WITH THIS

RHEUMATOLOGIST, WOULD YOU HAVE OCCASION TO SEE PATIENTS

WITH FIBROMYALGIA?

A YES.

Q NOW, ON YOUR FIRST VISIT, THAT WOULD BE

JANUARY, I BELIEVE, THE 20TH, 2010, YOU DID SOMETHING

CALLED A TRIGGER POINT EXAMINATION, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q WHY DID YOU DO THAT?

A THIS IS A LADY WHO HAD A BUNCH OF TESTS

DONE, AND NONE OF THE TESTS ARE COMING UP POSITIVE. AND

TRIGGER POINTS ARE AREAS IF THEY PRESS ON THE SHOULDER, ON

THE KNEE, ON THE HIP, ON THE BACK, IN PATIENTS WHO HAVE

FIBROMYALGIA, THEY HAVE A HYPERSENSITIVITY REACTION.

IF I PRESS OVER HERE, EVEN IF IT'S HARD, I

DON'T HAVE PAIN, AND I DON'T JUMP UP. BUT PATIENTS WHO

HAVE FIBROMYALGIA, WHEN YOU PRESS ON THEM, THEY HAVE REAL

REACTIONS.

YOU KNOW, EVERY TEST YOU DO ON FIBROMYALGIA

PATIENTS -- BLOOD TEST, URINE TEST, ELECTROCARDIOGRAM --

NOTHING SHOWS UP. AND IT'S A DIAGNOSIS THAT IS MADE AFTER

YOU RULE OUT OTHER DIAGNOSES.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 49: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

518

Q AND YOUR RESULTS OF YOUR TRIGGER POINT

INJECTION ON THE FIRST VISIT WAS WHAT? WAS IT -- AS YOU

SAY IN MEDICINE, WAS IT POSITIVE, IN OTHER WORDS,

SUGGESTIVE THAT SHE HAD SIGNS OF FIBROMYALGIA?

A I PUT DOWN "MULTIPLE TRIGGER POINT

TENDERNESS."

Q AND ON BOTH THE RIGHT AND LEFT SIDE,

CORRECT?

A I DIDN'T WRITE "RIGHT AND LEFT," BUT I PUT

"MULTIPLE TRIGGER POINT TENDERNESS."

AND MY QUESTIONING HER, THERE'S CERTAIN

THINGS THAT SHE SAID THAT WAS -- SHE HAD NUMBNESS IN HER

HANDS. SHE HAD SEEN A NEUROLOGIST, SO I WASN'T SURE.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE. SHE HAD A LOT OF

COMPLAINTS WITHOUT ME HAVING THE RIGHT ANSWERS TO IT.

Q AND THAT'S TYPICAL OF A PATIENT WITH

FIBROMYALGIA. THEY WILL HAVE LOTS OF SYMPTOMS, PAIN

COMPLAINTS WITHOUT AN ACTUAL EXPLANATION; IS THAT TRUE?

A FIBROMYALGIA USED TO BE CALLED FIBROSITIS.

IT'S A -- IT'S A VERY -- IT'S A DIAGNOSIS MADE -- SHE FIT

THE CRITERIA. SHE HAD THE TRIGGER POINT TENDERNESS.

SO WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION?

Q I WAS ASKING IF SHE FIT THE CRITERIA.

YOU'VE ANSWERED.

NOW, YOU MENTIONED THAT -- SO YOUR DIAGNOSIS

FOR HER INCLUDED ON THIS FIRST VISIT, AT LEAST YOUR

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS, INCLUDED FIBROMYALGIA, CORRECT?

A YES.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 50: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

519

Q OKAY. AND YOU FELT, BASED ON EVERYTHING YOU

KNOW ABOUT THIS PATIENT ON JANUARY 20TH, 2010, THAT IT WAS

APPROPRIATE TO TREAT HER PAIN SYMPTOMS FROM THE

FIBROMYALGIA IN PART WITH NORCO, AN OPIATE, CORRECT?

A SHE WAS ALREADY ON NORCO.

Q BUT YOU FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO CONTINUE

HER ON THE NORCO IN LIGHT OF WHAT YOU KNEW ABOUT THIS

PATIENT WITH FIBROMYALGIA AND PAIN, CORRECT?

A I WROTE -- YES.

Q OKAY. OKAY. NOW, YOU WROTE A PRESCRIPTION,

WE'VE ALREADY HEARD, DR. RAMIN, FOR 30 TABLETS. THAT

WOULD BE -- AND YOU SAID THAT SHE COULD TAKE IT AS OFTEN

AS FOUR TIMES A DAY EVERY 6 HOURS, IF NEEDED, CORRECT?

A "Q.6 P.R.N.," EVERY SIX AS NEEDED.

Q SO THAT WOULD BE ROUGHLY, IF SHE TOOK IT AS

NEEDED FOUR TIMES A DAY, THAT WOULD BE ROUGHLY A WEEK'S OR

SO WORTH OF PILLS, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q AND SHE NEXT RETURNED ON FEBRUARY THE 3RD,

2010, CORRECT? TAKE A LOOK.

A I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE 3RD OR THE 8TH. I

CAN'T SEE THE DATE VERY WELL, SO -- OKAY.

Q OKAY. CAN WE WORK WITH THE 3RD RIGHT NOW?

A OKAY.

Q SO FROM THE 20TH, DR. RAMIN, TO FEBRUARY THE

3RD, IF THAT'S THE DATE, THAT WOULD BE ABOUT TWO WEEKS,

CORRECT?

A YES.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 51: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

520

Q AND YOU HAD GIVEN HER A PRESCRIPTION THAT

COULD -- SHE COULD RUN OUT OF WITHIN SEVEN TO EIGHT DAYS

IF SHE USED IT EVERY 6 HOURS, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q ALL RIGHT. IN BETWEEN JANUARY THE 20TH,

2010, AND FEBRUARY THE 3RD, DID YOU RECEIVE ANY PHONE

CALLS FROM MS. DE ROGATIS ASKING FOR MORE NORCO BECAUSE

SHE HAD RUN OUT OF THE PILLS YOU PRESCRIBED HER?

A I DON'T ANSWER PHONES.

THE COURT: YOU DON'T ANSWER PHONES?

THE WITNESS: I HAVE -- I HAVE A STAFF THAT ANSWERS

THE PHONE, BUT -- BUT I DON'T THINK WE GOT A CALL THAT SHE

REQUESTED A REFILL.

SORRY, YOUR HONOR.

MS. MC BROOM: OBJECTION. SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. STRICKEN.

BY MR. BLESSEY:

Q DOCTOR, IF YOU GOT SUCH A PHONE CALL --

A WE HAVE A CALL LOG. WE KEEP A CALL LOG ON

PATIENTS.

Q RIGHT.

A IF THEY HAVE -- IF A PATIENT REQUESTS THIS,

THAT, YOU KNOW, IF I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE, EVERYTHING

GETS BACK IN THE CHART.

Q AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY SUCH RECORD, PHONE

LOG RECORD, OF A PHONE CALL FROM TARA DE ROGATIS BETWEEN

JANUARY THE 20TH, 2010, AND FEBRUARY THE 3RD, 2010, ASKING

FOR MORE NORCO, CORRECT? IS THERE ANY SUCH LOG IN THERE?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 52: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

521

A I CAN GO WITH MY RECORDS IN THE CHART THAT

YOU GUYS HAVE COPIED. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THERE'S NO

RECORD THAT SHE ASKED FOR MORE.

Q OKAY. NOW, DOCTOR, ON THIS SECOND VISIT,

AGAIN, WHICH WE THINK IS FEBRUARY 3RD, 2010, YOU MENTIONED

SHE WAS IN NO ACUTE DISTRESS, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q SHE APPEARED APPROPRIATE AS FAR AS HER

PRESENTATION TO YOU, CORRECT?

A CORRECT.

Q OKAY. NOW, ON THIS VISIT I THINK IT WAS THE

VISIT WHERE AT THE END YOU PRESCRIBED AGAIN NORCO. HOW

MANY TABLETS?

A 30.

Q 30. AND THE STRENGTH WAS WHAT; HOW MANY

MILLIGRAMS?

A 10.

Q AND YOU ALSO PRESCRIBED A DRUG CALLED

ULTRACET, ALSO KNOWN AS TRAMADOL, CORRECT?

A ULTRACET IS A COMBINATION OF TRAMADOL AND

TYLENOL.

Q IT CONTAINS TRAMADOL, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q HERE IS MY QUESTION FOR YOU: AS OF FEBRUARY

3RD, 2010, DID YOU SUSPECT THAT AFTER TARA DE ROGATIS LEFT

YOUR OFFICE, THAT SHE WOULD GO HOME AND INGEST LETHAL

LEVELS OF NORCO?

MS. MC BROOM: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. BEYOND THE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 53: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

522

SCOPE OF DIRECT, AND IT'S SPECULATIVE AND IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: WELL, DO YOU WANT ME TO HAVE HIM CALL

DR. RAMIN AS HIS OWN WITNESS OR WHAT?

OBJECTION OVERRULED. GO AHEAD.

THE WITNESS: ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN.

MR. BLESSEY: SURE.

Q ON FEBRUARY THE 3RD, 2010, WHEN YOU WROTE

THE PRESCRIPTION FOR NORCO, 30 PILLS, 10 MILLIGRAMS, DID

YOU SUSPECT AT THAT TIME THAT SHE WAS GOING TO GO HOME

AFTER LEAVING YOUR OFFICE AND INGEST A LETHAL LEVEL OF

NORCO?

A ABSOLUTELY NOT. I WOULD HAVE NOT GIVEN IT

TO HER. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Q SAME QUESTION FOR ULTRACET THAT CONTAINS

TRAMADOL.

DID YOU SUSPECT ON FEBRUARY THE 3RD, 2010,

THAT TARA DE ROGATIS WAS GOING TO LEAVE YOUR OFFICE AND

INGEST A LETHAL LEVEL OF ULTRACET, SLASH, TRAMADOL? DID

YOU SUSPECT THAT?

A ABSOLUTELY NOT.

MR. BLESSEY: THANK YOU, DOCTOR. NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. REDIRECT?

MS. MC BROOM: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MAY THE WITNESS BE EXCUSED?

MS. MC BROOM: YES.

THE COURT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DOCTOR, YOU'RE

EXCUSED. NICE TO SEE YOU.

NEXT WITNESS, PLEASE.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 54: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

523

MR. NEWHOUSE: YOUR HONOR, THE PLAINTIFF CALLS OUR

NEXT WITNESS, DR. PAUL BOHN.

THE COURT: I'M SORRY. WHO?

MR. NEWHOUSE: DR. PAUL BOHN, B-O-H-N.

THE COURT: WE'LL TRY AGAIN.

MR. DE ROGATIS: OH, THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MR. NEWHOUSE: SORRY, PETER. I DIDN'T SEE WHERE

YOU WERE HEADING.

DR. BOHN, WOULD YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE,

RIGHT BY THE WITNESS CHAIR, AND THE CLERK WILL SWEAR YOU.

THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SOLEMNLY STATE THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU

MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT SHALL

BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH,

SO HELP YOU GOD?

THE WITNESS: I DO.

THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS

STAND.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, DOCTOR.

THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING.

MR. NEWHOUSE: WOULD YOU LIKE A BOTTLE OF WATER?

THE WITNESS: THAT WOULD BE FINE.

THE COURT: I'LL TAKE THAT; I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT

CAME FROM.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.

THE CLERK: PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL IT FOR

THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: SAY AGAIN.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 55: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

524

THE CLERK: PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND THEN SPELL

YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: PAUL BOHN, AND THAT'S B-O-H-N.

MR. NEWHOUSE: THAT'S YOUR VERY OWN BOTTLE, DOCTOR.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.

PAUL BOHN, M.D.,

CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PLAINTIFFS, WAS DULY SWORN AND

TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. NEWHOUSE:

Q MORNING, DR. BOHN. MY NAME AGAIN IS GEORGE

NEWHOUSE, AND PRIOR TO OUR MEETING OUT IN THE HALLWAY 10

MINUTES AGO, WE'VE NEVER MET BEFORE, HAVE WE?

A NO.

Q AND, AGAIN, AS I SAID IN THE HALLWAY, I

REPRESENT THE PLAINTIFFS, PETER DE ROGATIS AND LINDA

DE ROGATIS.

HAVE YOU EVER MET EITHER OF THOSE TWO

INDIVIDUALS?

A NO.

Q WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION, SIR?

A I'M A PSYCHIATRIST.

Q AND YOU'VE BEEN IN SOLO PRACTICE SINCE 1989;

IS THAT RIGHT?

A CORRECT.

Q WHERE IS YOUR OFFICE LOCATED?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 56: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

525

A 12300 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD IN WEST L.A.

Q AND JUST SUMMARIZE FOR US YOUR EDUCATIONAL

BACKGROUND, BEGINNING WITH UNDERGRAD.

A I HAVE A B.A. IN PHARMACOLOGY FROM

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA. AND I HAVE AN

M.D. FROM UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE. AND I HAVE

A -- I DID MY RESIDENCY AT U.C.L.A. AND THEN I DID A

FELLOWSHIP IN ANXIETY DISORDERS AND COGNITIVE BEHAVIOR

THERAPY AT U.S.C. AND THEN I DID A -- I GOT A DOCTOR OF

PSYCHOLOGY IN PSYCHOANALYSIS FROM THE INSTITUTE FOR

CONTEMPORARY PSYCHOANALYSIS.

Q WHAT YEAR WAS THAT LAST DEGREE?

A I THINK IT WAS '95.

Q AND DO YOU SPECIALIZE IN SOMETHING CALLED

FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY?

A I'M CERTIFIED IN FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY, BUT I

DON'T SPECIALIZE IN IT.

Q AND BY "CERTIFIED," ARE YOU REFERRING TO

BOARD CERTIFICATION?

A YES.

Q AND WHAT IS BOARD CERTIFICATION?

A WELL, YOU HAVE TO PASS A TEST THAT HAS A LOT

OF QUESTIONS ABOUT FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; AND IF YOU PASS

IT, THEN THEY GIVE YOU THE CERTIFICATION.

Q AND WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THIS MORNING,

DR. BOHN, YOUR TREATMENT OF A PATIENT NAMED TARA

DE ROGATIS.

DO YOU RECALL HER?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 57: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

526

A YES.

Q WHEN DID YOU FIRST SEE TARA AS YOUR PATIENT?

A I BELIEVE IT WAS NOVEMBER OF 2007.

MR. NEWHOUSE: LET ME, IF I CAN APPROACH, YOUR

HONOR.

Q WE HAVE AN EXHIBIT BOOK, AND I'M GOING TO

DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO EXHIBIT 115. I'LL ASK YOU SOME

QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. THUMB THROUGH THAT BRIEFLY AND TELL

ME IF YOU RECOGNIZE THAT TO BE BASICALLY A COPY OF YOUR

CHART FOR MS. DE ROGATIS.

A YES.

Q IT IS?

A UH-HUH.

THE REPORTER: "YES"?

THE WITNESS: YES.

(MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION, JOINT

EXHIBITS 115-1 TO 115-106, MEDICAL

CHART OF PAUL BOHN, M.D.)

BY MR. NEWHOUSE:

Q WHO REFERRED TARA TO YOU?

A I BELIEVE IT WAS DR. STERNBACH AND

DR. BECKER.

Q ARE THEY MEDICAL -- THEY'RE PROBABLY MEDICAL

DOCTORS. ARE THEY PSYCHIATRISTS?

A ONE IS A PSYCHIATRIST. ONE IS AN INTERNIST.

Q NOW, TARA'S INITIAL VISIT WAS ON NOVEMBER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 58: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

527

1ST, 2007; IS THAT RIGHT?

A CORRECT.

Q AND WHAT DID SHE COME COMPLAINING TO YOU OF?

WHAT SYMPTOMS OR COMPLAINTS DID SHE ARTICULATE AT THAT

TIME?

A SHE WAS COMPLAINING OF ANXIETY, AND SHE WAS

COMPLAINING OF CRITICAL VOICES COMING FROM THE BACK OF HER

NECK AND BEING CONTROLLED BY THOSE VOICES.

Q ANY COMPLAINTS OF HALLUCINATIONS?

A WELL, THAT WOULD BE A HALLUCINATION. IT'S

AN AUDITORY HALLUCINATION, VOICES COMING FROM THE BACK OF

HER NECK.

Q DID YOU ASK HER OR DID SHE -- STRIKE THAT.

DID YOU AND TARA DISCUSS HER PRIOR DRUG USE

AT THAT TIME?

A YES, WE DID.

Q WHAT DID SHE TELL YOU?

A SHE TOLD ME THAT -- THAT SHE HAD BEEN USING

DRUGS FOR SEVERAL YEARS -- I THINK IT WAS THREE YEARS AT

LEAST -- AND HAD BEEN USING QUITE A BIT OF

METHAMPHETAMINE. AND THIS WAS WITH A BOYFRIEND NAMED

NIELS, I BELIEVE.

AND THAT SHE WAS LATER APPARENTLY KIDNAPPED

BY THIS BOYFRIEND, AND SHE --

Q WE DON'T ACTUALLY NEED TO GO INTO THE

DETAILS. SHE COMPLAINED ABOUT A RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS

NIELS PERSON.

NOW, LET ME ASK YOU, HER CURRENT BOYFRIEND,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 59: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

528

DAVID MAC EACHERN, DID HE COME ALONG ON THIS VISIT?

A I DON'T BELIEVE HE WAS THERE THE FIRST

VISIT.

Q DID TARA AT THIS INITIAL VISIT COMPLAIN OF

MEMORY PROBLEMS?

A I BELIEVE SO.

Q DID SHE -- WERE THERE -- DID YOU SEE AT THIS

INITIAL VISIT, SYMPTOMS OF PSYCHOSIS?

A YES.

Q WHAT SYMPTOMS OF PSYCHOSIS DID YOU OBSERVE?

A SHE COMPLAINED OF THESE VOICES THAT SHE SAID

WERE COMING FROM THE BACK OF HER NECK. SHE HAD THE

DELUSION THAT THE VOICES WERE CONTROLLING HER.

SHE HAD AND COMPLAINED OF PROFOUND

DISORGANIZATION, DIFFICULTY ORGANIZING THINGS, GETTING

THINGS TOGETHER, INITIATING THINGS.

AND ALTHOUGH IT WASN'T COMPLETELY APPARENT

YET, IT SEEMED THAT SHE HAD HAD A DETERIORATION IN HER

ABILITY TO FUNCTION.

Q LET ME ASK YOU TO TURN TO, IN THAT EXHIBIT,

WHICH IS 115, PAGE 4 AND 5 -- ACTUALLY, 114-4 THROUGH -6,

115 AND THEN PAGES 4 THROUGH 6.

A UH-HUH, YES.

MR. NEWHOUSE: YOUR HONOR, I'D OFFER THOSE PAGES

THESE EVIDENCE AT THIS TIME.

THE COURT: EXHIBIT 115, PAGES 4 THROUGH --

MR. NEWHOUSE: -- 4 THROUGH ACTUALLY 7.

THE COURT: 4, 5, 6 AND 7. ANY OBJECTION?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 60: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

529

MR. BLESSEY: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: RECEIVED.

BY MR. NEWHOUSE:

Q PUT PAGE 4 UP.

THE COURT: IF YOU DON'T MIND, LET'S TAKE OUR

MORNING RECESS AT THIS TIME, ALL RIGHT?

MR. NEWHOUSE: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'LL

RECESS AND PLEASE REMEMBER THE ADMONITION OF THE COURT.

15 MINUTES.

(RECESS.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD

IN OPEN COURT, OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE

OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: WE'RE ON THE RECORD OUTSIDE THE

PRESENCE OF THE JURY.

YES, SIR.

MR. NEWHOUSE: YOUR HONOR, YOUR CLERK HAS ADVISED

THAT JUROR NO. 1 SAID THAT SHE SOMETIMES FINDS IT HARD TO

SEE THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE'RE BLOWING UP ON THE SCREEN.

THE COURT: YEAH.

MR. NEWHOUSE: THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE IN EVIDENCE.

PERHAPS THE COURT CAN SAY THAT --

THE COURT: WELL, MAYBE I CAN HAVE HER MOVE UP AND

TAKE THE SEAT IN FRONT, AND WE CAN PULL THE SCREEN UP A

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 61: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

530

LITTLE CLOSER.

DOES SHE HAVE A VISION PROBLEM?

THE CLERK: SHE WEARS GLASSES AND SHE SAID --

THE COURT: I WEAR GLASSES, TOO.

THE CLERK: SHE SAID HER GLASSES ARE OLD.

MR. NEWHOUSE: MAYBE -- IT'S A GREAT IDEA BECAUSE

IF SHE SITS IN SEAT NO. 7, SHE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SEE

BETTER.

THE COURT: I'LL TRY TO ACCOMMODATE HER.

MR. NEWHOUSE: BUT THE OTHER THING YOU MIGHT BE

ABLE TO SAY, YOUR HONOR, IS REMIND THEM THAT THEY'RE GOING

TO HAVE THESE DOCUMENTS IN THE JURY ROOM WITH THEM.

THE COURT: IT'S STILL NICE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THEM

AS YOU TAKE THE TESTIMONY.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD

IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF

THE JURY:)

THE COURT: WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. ALL JURORS

ARE PRESENT AND IN PLACE. PARTIES ARE PRESENT. LAWYERS

ARE PRESENT. DR. BOHN HAS RESUMED THE WITNESS STAND.

I REMIND YOU, DOCTOR, THAT YOU REMAIN UNDER

OATH. UNDERSTOOD?

THE WITNESS: UH-HUH, YES.

THE COURT: JUROR NO. 1, IT'S BEEN REPORTED TO

ME -- JAIME?

JUROR NO. 1: YES.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 62: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

531

THE COURT: -- MS. JAIME, THAT YOU'RE HAVING

DIFFICULTY READING THE EXHIBITS.

JUROR NO. 1: YEAH. THEY'RE A LITTLE SMALL FOR ME.

THE COURT: OKAY. YOU KNOW, JUST TO HELP

EVERYBODY, WHEN THEY'RE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE, YOU WILL

HAVE THEM IN THE JURY ROOM TO REFER TO --

JUROR NO. 1: OKAY.

THE COURT: -- AND SEE THEM UP CLOSE. BUT IF YOU'D

LIKE TO GET A LITTLE CLOSER, I CAN HAVE YOU MAYBE TRADE

SPOTS WITH MR. WILLIAMS IN FRONT OF YOU.

JUROR NO. 1: NO. I'M OKAY. I MEAN, THAT IT'S

JUST IF THERE'S A CHANCE THAT THEY COULD JUST ZOOM.

THE COURT: I MUST TELL YOU, I'M PRETTY CLOSE TO

THIS RIGHT NOW, AND I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY DECIPHERING

WHAT'S THERE.

THE WITNESS: I HAVE TROUBLE READING IT, TOO.

THE COURT: MAYBE --

JUROR NO. 1: EVEN THE TYPED ONE IS KIND OF LIKE

IT'S JUST --

THE COURT: LET ME KNOW. RAISE YOUR HAND IF

THERE'S -- YOU KNOW, IF I CAN EVEN PUT YOU UP FRONT IN

FRONT OF THE RAIL IF NEED BE.

JUROR NO. 1: OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD.

MR. NEWHOUSE: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q GOOD MORNING, AGAIN, DR. BOHN.

I THINK WHEN WE BROKE, I WAS ASKING YOU

ABOUT SYMPTOMS OF PSYCHOSIS, AND YOU DESCRIBED THE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 63: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

532

SYMPTOMS. WERE YOU MAKING -- THIS FORM HERE -- I'M USING

A RED LASER. MR. BLESSEY HAS A GREEN LASER.

SO THIS IS THE INITIAL EVALUATION FORM.

THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE THE PATIENTS FILL OUT ON THE

FIRST -- IN THE INITIAL VISIT WITH THEM?

A NO. THAT'S WHAT I FILL OUT.

Q I'M SORRY. I KNOW THAT.

YOU TOOK THESE NOTES BASED UPON THE

INFORMATION THAT TARA WAS GIVING YOU AT THE FIRST VISIT,

CORRECT?

A CORRECT.

Q OKAY. SO LET'S SEE. SO THE DATE 11/1,

THAT'S NOVEMBER 1ST, 2007?

A YES.

Q AND WHAT DOES THIS SAY, "MEDS" SOMETHING?

A I ASKED HER WHAT BRINGS HER TO THE VISIT,

AND SHE SAYS, "MEDICATION AND MAYBE THERAPY." SO "C.C."

MEANS CHIEF COMPLAINT.

Q CHIEF COMPLAINT, SHE WANTED -- SHE WANTED

MEDICATION?

A MEDICATION AND THERAPY.

Q OKAY. AND "H.P.I.," WHAT DOES THAT STAND

FOR?

A HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS.

Q OKAY. AND CAN YOU READ YOUR NOTES FOR US

HERE?

A "3 YEARS AGO" -- LET'S SEE, SOMETHING ABOUT

DRUGS, "SHE TOOK DRUGS." OH, IT'S HERE. SHE "HEARD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 64: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

533

VOICES, SAW THINGS BOTH DURING AND AFTER" SHE WAS USING

THE DRUGS.

DO YOU WANT ME TO ADD TEXT OR JUST READ IT

EXACTLY AS IT IS?

Q NO. IF IT TRIGGERS YOUR RECOLLECTION OF

WHAT SHE WAS SAYING, PLEASE ADD EXPLANATION, YES.

A SO "METHAMPHETAMINE" SHE WAS USING FOR THE

LAST "8 MONTHS. MUSHROOMS, ECSTASY," EACH FOR THE LAST

YEAR. SHE "JUST CAME OUT OF A BREAKUP WITH A BOYFRIEND."

Q OKAY. YOU CAN GO PAST THAT. WE'VE COVERED

THAT. SO RIGHT HERE, "C.O.," CHIEF COMPLAINT?

A "COMPLAINS OF DECREASED SHORT-TERM MEMORY.

HAS TIME LOSS. CAN'T PLAN AHEAD. STARTED METHAMPHETAMINE

WITH DAVID." LET'S SEE. AND HAD WHAT SHE CALLED A

"CREATIVE EXPLOSION," STARTED "HEARING VOICES," AND WAS

HAVING -- SOME OF THE VOICES HAD "SPIRITUAL" CONTENT.

AUDITORY HALLUCINATIONS IS WHAT THE "A.H." MEANS.

Q OKAY.

A OKAY. "ATTACHED TO THE BACK OF HER NECK,

PULLING ON HER THROAT. PHYSICAL BODY STOPPED WORKING."

IN OTHER WORDS, SHE SAID SOMETHING TO THE

EFFECT THAT, "MY PHYSICAL BODY STOPPED WORKING. I HAVE

FATIGUE."

AND THEN SHE SAID ONE DOCTOR TOLD HER THAT

SHE HAD CANDIDA, WHICH IS A TYPE OF YEAST.

AND SHE ALSO SAW A NATUROPATH WHO GAVE HER

CORTACET, WHICH IS A STEROID. SHE "STOPPED ALL OF IT."

SHE'S BEEN TOLD SHE HAS AN "IMMUNE SYSTEM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 65: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

534

DISORDER OR ALLERGIES." SHE'S ALSO BEEN TOLD SHE HAS

"CHRONIC FATIGUE," AND SHE COMPLAINS OF "CHRONIC FATIGUE,

CONFUSION," QUOTE, "'MIND FOG' AND TROUBLE THINKING."

Q "CURRENT STRESSORS," WHAT ARE CURRENT

STRESSORS?

A THREE YEARS AGO SHE WAS STALKED, KIDNAPPED,

ASSAULTED --

Q OKAY. LET ME INTERRUPT YOU. THAT'S THE

INCIDENT THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. WE DON'T NEED TO HEAR

FURTHER ABOUT THAT.

"PRODUCED"?

A "PRODUCED AND ACTED IN OWN FILMS. BUDWEISER

COMMERCIAL."

SHE SAID IT WAS STRESSFUL WHEN SHE WAS

WORKING.

Q LET'S GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, WHICH IS 115-5.

THIS IS, AGAIN, A FORM THAT YOU HAVE THAT YOU FILL OUT

DURING THE VISIT?

A YES.

Q OKAY. SO YOU CHECKED SOME BOXES HERE, "FEAR

OF GOING CRAZY"?

A YES.

Q YOU ASKED HER ABOUT THAT?

A YES.

Q OKAY. "DEPERSONALIZATION"?

A WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO EXPLAIN WHAT THAT IS?

Q I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, SO IT WOULD BE

HELPFUL, YES.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 66: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

535

A NO. I MEAN, THAT SET OF SYMPTOMS?

Q YES, PLEASE.

A SO HERE I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT IF SHE HAS

PANIC ATTACKS. AND SO TO DIAGNOSE A PANIC ATTACK, IF

SOMEBODY ENDORSES -- THAT MEANS SAYS "YES" TO FOUR OR MORE

OF THESE SYMPTOMS, THEN THEY ARE CONSIDERED TO HAVE HAD A

PANIC ATTACK IF IT OCCURS WITHIN A SUDDEN PERIOD OF TIME,

USUALLY PEAKING WITHIN A FEW SECONDS OR A COUPLE MINUTES.

SO THOSE ARE DIFFERENT SYMPTOMS THAT SHE SAID THAT SHE HAD

DURING HER PANIC ATTACKS.

Q "SOCIAL ANXIETY," SHE COMPLAINED OF BEING

ANXIOUS?

A YES, SHE DID.

Q WHAT DID SHE SAY IN THAT REGARD?

A SO I PUT PLUSES NEXT TO THE SYMPTOMS THAT

SHE ENDORSED, AND SHE SAID THAT WOULD MAKE HER ANXIOUS.

LET'S SEE. SO I ASKED HER, "IS BEING EMBARRASSED OR

LOOKING STUPID AMONG YOUR WORST FEARS?"

SHE SAID "YES."

"DOES FEAR OF EMBARRASSMENT CAUSE YOU TO

AVOID DOING THINGS OR SPEAKING TO OTHERS?"

SHE SAID "YES."

"DO YOU AVOID ACTIVITIES IN WHICH YOU ARE

THE CENTER OF ATTENTION?"

SHE AGAIN SAID "YES."

AND THEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF SITUATIONS WHERE

SHE SAID SHE HAD ANXIETY WERE -- I CIRCLED THE PUBLIC

"SPEAKING"; AND THEN "GROUPS," SPEAKING UP IN GROUPS;

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 67: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

536

TALKING TO "AUTHORITY FIGURES; DATING; MEETING STRANGERS."

Q DID YOU SEE SIGNS OR DID SHE INDICATE TO YOU

ANY SIGNS OF DEPRESSION DURING THIS FIRST MEETING?

A SOME.

Q CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT?

A THAT WOULD BE ON THE NEXT PAGE.

Q OKAY.

A SO IN TERMS OF DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS, SHE SAID

SHE HAD "DECREASED SEX DRIVE," OR LIBIDO, "LOW MOTIVATION,

DECREASED CONCENTRATION. FATIGUE. SLEEP VARIES." HER

"APPETITE VARIED."

Q WHAT'S THIS? IT SAYS "S." SLASH "I." WHAT

DOES THAT STAND FOR?

A NO SUICIDAL THOUGHTS.

Q YOU ASKED HER ABOUT THAT?

A YES.

Q AND WHAT DOES THIS SAY?

A IT SAYS SHE HAD A HISTORY OF MAJOR

DEPRESSIVE EPISODE IN 1999 WHICH WAS TREATED WITH ZOLOFT.

Q AND THEN YOU WENT INTO DRUG USE WITH HER,

CORRECT?

A YES.

Q WHAT DID SHE TELL YOU?

A SHE SAID THAT SHE WAS USING METHAMPHETAMINE,

"2 TO 3 BINGES," WHICH WOULD LAST -- I'M SORRY -- "2- TO

3-DAY BINGES," WHICH AFTERWARDS SHE WOULD SLEEP FOR TWO

DAYS, AND SHE SAID SHE WAS DOING THAT OVER AN EIGHT-MONTH

PERIOD. SHE WAS "SMOKING" IT AND "SNORTING" IT. SAID SHE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 68: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

537

WAS NOT USING IT I.V.

SHE THEN SAID SHE HAD NOT USED ANY DRUGS FOR

"3 YEARS," WHICH, OF COURSE, DOESN'T MAKE SENSE GIVEN WHAT

SHE SAID PRIOR TO THAT.

AND THEN SHE ALSO SAID THAT SHE USED

"COCAINE IN PAST" AND SHE DENIED USING ALCOHOL AND

MARIJUANA.

Q DID YOU REACH A DIAGNOSIS BASED UPON YOUR

FIRST MEETING WITH HER?

A I'M SORRY. YOU SAY YOU WANT ME TO READ MY

DIAGNOSIS?

Q YES. DID YOU -- WELL, YOU REACHED A

DIAGNOSIS. COULD YOU TELL US WHAT THAT WAS? IS THAT ON

THE NEXT PAGE?

A IT'S ON THE LAST PAGE, WHICH IS NO. 10.

Q OKAY.

A ALL RIGHT. SO LET ME PREFACE THIS WITH THIS

WAS MY FIRST MEETING WITH HER, AND TO MAKE A DIAGNOSIS OF

SOMEBODY WITH PSYCHOSIS OR SCHIZOPHRENIA, WE HESITATE TO

MAKE THAT WITHOUT HAVING SEEN THE PERSON SEVERAL TIMES,

ESPECIALLY GIVEN HER SYMPTOMS SINCE SOME OF THEM WERE

UNUSUAL. SO AT THIS POINT I WAS HOPING THAT SHE WOULD FIT

A DIAGNOSIS THAT HAD A BETTER PROGNOSIS, WHICH WOULD BE

DISSOCIATIVE DISORDER, AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING --

Q SO THAT'S RIGHT HERE, ITEM NO. 1?

A YES.

Q WHAT IS DISSOCIATIVE DISORDER?

A WELL, IT'S A VARIETY -- THERE'S A FEW

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 69: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

538

DIFFERENT TYPES. SO IT'S WHEN SOMEBODY HAS EPISODES OF

AMNESIA. THEY CAN HAVE SYMPTOMS OF WHAT WE CALL

DEPERSONALIZATION OR DEREALIZATION.

Q WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

A THAT'S WHERE -- YOU KIND OF SEE IT IN THE

MOVIES WHERE DEPERSONALIZATION WOULD BE SORT OF OUT OF

BODY, LIKE YOU'RE WATCHING YOURSELF FROM ABOVE.

DEREALIZATION WOULD BE THE PEOPLE FEEL

REALLY SPACEY OR DETACHED. IT'S ALMOST LIKE THEY'RE

WATCHING A MOVIE. IT'S NOT REAL WHAT YOU'RE SEEING.

SO GIVEN HER HISTORY OF TRAUMA, I WAS HOPING

THAT THESE -- THAT THIS WAS SOME VARIATION OF MAYBE A

POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER WITH SIGNIFICANT

DISSOCIATIVE SYMPTOMS.

Q ANYTHING ELSE?

A SO SHE HAD A HISTORY OF "MAJOR DEPRESSIVE

EPISODE IN 1999, SOCIAL PHOBIA, SOCIAL ANXIETY," I SAID,

"WITH PANIC ATTACKS."

Q PROBABLY NOT A GOOD THING TO HAVE IF YOU'RE

AN ASPIRING ACTRESS?

A YES. IN HINDSIGHT I WONDER IF THAT WASN'T

MORE PART OF HER PSYCHOTIC ILLNESS.

Q OKAY. CARRY ON.

A SHE WAS -- THEN I WROTE, "DISORGANIZED, NO

STRUCTURE. PROBABLE HISTORY OF METH PSYCHOSIS, A HISTORY

OF METHAMPHETAMINE ABUSE. HYPOTHYROIDISM. PANIC ATTACKS

WITH DEPERSONALIZATION. AND POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

DUE TO KIDNAPPING AND ABUSE."

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 70: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

539

Q SOUNDS LIKE A RELATIVELY SERIOUS PROBLEM.

A VERY COMPLEX, YES.

Q AND WHAT WAS THE TREATMENT PLAN, IF ANY?

WHAT -- HOW DID YOU -- WHAT WAS YOUR THOUGHT IN TERMS OF

APPROACHING HOW TO TREAT THIS PATIENT?

A WELL, SO I WOULD -- I WOULD BREAK IT INTO

THREE PARTS: ONE WAS TO CONTINUE TO SEE HER, GET TO KNOW

HER BETTER, TRY TO FIGURE OUT A LITTLE MORE SPECIFICALLY

WHAT HER ISSUES WERE, SINCE THIS WAS ONLY THE FIRST TIME

I'D SEEN HER, SO CONTINUE WITH THE DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS.

SECONDLY, TO SEE HER FOR A WEEKLY THERAPY.

AND, THIRDLY, TO PUT HER ON MEDICATION TO

HELP HER WITH HER ANXIETY AND AGITATION.

Q WHAT MEDICATIONS DID YOU PRESCRIBE?

A FIRST VISIT LOOKS LIKE I STARTED HER ON JUST

THE KLONOPIN, 0.5 MILLIGRAMS.

Q OKAY. WHAT DOES KLONOPIN DO?

A KLONOPIN IS AN ANTIANXIETY AGENT,

TRANQUILIZER.

Q DID YOU PUT HER ON ANYTHING ELSE AT LEAST

INITIALLY?

A NO.

Q NOW, YOU SAW TARA FROM NOVEMBER 1ST, 2007,

AND YOUR FINAL VISIT WITH HER WAS EARLY FEBRUARY 2010; IS

THAT RIGHT?

A FINAL VISIT WAS -- YES, IT WAS EARLY

FEBRUARY. I CAN GIVE YOU THE DATE HERE. I'M SURE IT'S AT

THE END. 2/9/10.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 71: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

540

Q AND YOU'RE READING. JUST GIVE US THE PAGE

NUMBER ON THAT EXHIBIT 115.

A 34.

Q 34, OKAY. SO HOW MANY TIMES WOULD YOU SAY

YOU SAW TARA IN THAT TIME FRAME, 2007 TO 2010?

A I BELIEVE SHE WAS SCHEDULED FOR 22 VISITS,

BUT SHE MISSED ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE OF THOSE.

Q NOW, A PATIENT THAT HAS THIS DEGREE OF

SERIOUS AILMENTS, PSYCHIATRIC AILMENTS, IS IT UNUSUAL FOR

THOSE PATIENTS TO MISS APPOINTMENTS?

A NO.

Q NOW, BETWEEN THE FIRST AND THE LAST VISIT,

HOW DID TARA'S SYMPTOMS CHANGE, IF AT ALL?

A SHE BECAME MORE DRUG-SEEKING AND --

Q DID SHE BECOME BETTER OR WORSE OVER TIME AS

YOU SAW HER?

A I WOULD SAY WORSE.

Q AND BY DRUG-SEEKING, WHAT DO YOU MEAN --

A WELL, AFTER THE FIRST FEW APPOINTMENTS, SHE

WOULD ASK FOR EITHER STIMULANTS OR PAINKILLERS WHEN SHE

CAME IN.

Q AND BY "STIMULANTS," WHAT STIMULANTS WOULD

SHE ASK FOR?

A I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS SPECIFIED, BUT

PROBABLY RITALIN.

Q AND BY "PAINKILLERS," WHAT DID SHE

SPECIFICALLY ASK FOR CERTAIN PAINKILLERS?

A NOT THAT I RECALL.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 72: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

541

Q WHEN SHE ASKED YOU FOR PAINKILLERS, WHAT DID

YOU TELL HER?

A I TOLD HER TO SEE AN INTERNIST OR A

SPECIALIST AND THAT I DON'T PRESCRIBE OPIATE MEDICATION.

Q AND HOW DID SHE REACT TO THAT WHEN YOU TOLD

HER THAT YOU WOULD NOT PROVIDE HER WITH ANY OPIATES?

A SHE WAS UNHAPPY.

Q DID YOU ON OCCASION -- WELL, LET ME ASK YOU,

YOU HAD MORE THAN 20 VISITS WITH HER OR APPROXIMATELY 20.

HOW MANY OF THOSE VISITS DID HER FIANCEE

DAVID MAC EACHERN ATTEND?

A PERHAPS A THIRD.

Q AND WERE THERE OCCASIONS WHEN YOU TOLD TARA

AND DAVID TOGETHER THAT YOU STRONGLY DISCOURAGED THE USE

OF METHAMPHETAMINES?

A MOST CERTAINLY.

Q DID YOUR DIAGNOSIS OF TARA CHANGE OVER TIME?

A YES.

Q HOW DID IT CHANGE?

A I STARTED TO SEE HER AS BEING MORE

SCHIZOPHRENIC.

Q FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE NOT PSYCHIATRISTS,

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN TERMS OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE

PATIENT'S HEAD?

MAYBE WE SHOULD START WITH, WHAT IS

SCHIZOPHRENIA?

A WELL, SCHIZOPHRENIA, WE'RE STILL SORTING IT

OUT, OF COURSE, SO YOU MIGHT THINK OF IT AS BOTH A

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 73: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

542

DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDER AND -- WE CAN SEE THAT EVEN IN

YOUNG CHILDREN SOMETIMES THERE CAN BE CHANGES IN THE

BRAIN, BUT ALSO WE'RE STARTING TO SEE IT AS A

NEURODEGENERATIVE DISORDER, SOMETHING LIKE PARKINSON'S OR

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS WHERE THE BRAIN IS DETERIORATING OVER

TIME. SO IT'S BOTH.

THERE'S PROBABLY -- YOU'RE PROBABLY BORN

WITH SOME SORT OF -- SOME SORT OF CONGENITAL

PREDISPOSITION FOR IT, AND THERE MAY EVEN BE SOME BRAIN

ABNORMALITIES THAT SHOW UP OVER TIME. AND THEN AS LIFE

GOES ON AND THE MORE EPISODES SOMEBODY HAS, YOU CAN

ACTUALLY SEE DETERIORATION OF THE BRAIN OVER TIME.

Q AND BY "DETERIORATION OF THE BRAIN," IS

THERE A CONCERN FOR NEUROTRANSMITTERS NOT REACTING THE WAY

THEY SHOULD BE IN THE BRAIN?

A THAT CAN BE PART OF IT, YES.

Q DID YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO THE CAUSE OF

THE PSYCHOSIS THAT YOU SAW DEVELOPING?

A YES. I THOUGHT THAT MORE THAN LIKELY SINCE

SHE WAS ATYPICAL, IT'S VERY UNUSUAL FOR SOMEONE TO SAY

THAT THEY HAVE VOICES PULLING FROM THE BACK OF THEIR NECK.

TYPICALLY, IT'S "I HEAR VOICES AND THEY'RE

CRITICAL AND/OR THEY'RE SAYING RELIGIOUS THINGS." IT'S

UNUSUAL TO HAVE THAT KIND OF ALMOST FLAIR TO THEM TO BE A

LITTLE UNUSUAL IN THAT SENSE.

AND ALSO SHE -- HER SOCIAL SKILLS WERE

MOSTLY INTACT, WHICH MADE IT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO

RECOGNIZE WHAT SHE WAS SUFFERING FROM.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 74: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

543

SINCE SHE WAS SO -- STILL NOT REALLY

IMPAIRED SOCIALLY, YOU WOULDN'T REALLY KNOW THAT SHE HAD

THESE KIND OF PROBLEMS UNLESS YOU ASKED HER SPECIFIC

QUESTIONS.

BUT WITH HER AUDITORY HALLUCINATIONS AND HER

DELUSIONS THAT THESE VOICES WERE CONTROLLING HER AND HER

EXTREME DISORGANIZATION, ALONG WITH HER DIFFICULTY, WE

CALL THEM NEGATIVE SYMPTOMS WHERE PEOPLE HAVE TROUBLE

MOTIVATING THEMSELVES, LACK INITIATIVE, AND IT'S LIKE --

IT'S ALMOST LIKE THEIR WILL POWER HAS SORT OF EVAPORATED.

NOW, SHE -- SO SHE STRUGGLED HARD AGAINST THAT.

AND THEN THE OTHER MAIN THING YOU SEE IS A

DETERIORATION IN FUNCTIONING, THAT I BELIEVE SHE WAS ABLE

TO GO TO COLLEGE AND GRADUATE. AND THE TARA THAT I SAW

WAS NOT AT THAT LEVEL. THAT MUST HAVE BEEN WHEN SHE WAS

IN COLLEGE. SO SHE HAD HAD A DETERIORATION IN

FUNCTIONING.

SHE WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT DIFFICULTY JUST

GETTING IT TOGETHER TO GO OUT OF THE HOUSE.

Q NOW, YOU SAID SOMETHING THAT WAS

INTERESTING. HER SOCIALIZATION SKILLS APPEARED TO BE

INTACT.

AND BY THAT DO YOU MEAN THAT SHE COULD

FUNCTION FOR THE MOST PART IN THE REAL WORLD? SHE COULD

DEAL WITH PEOPLE AND COMMUNICATE WITH THEM?

A YES.

Q AND IS IT A FACT THAT SOMEONE SUFFERING FROM

HER PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESSES ON A GIVEN DAY COULD APPEAR TO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 75: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

544

BE 100 PERCENT NORMAL AND IN FULL POSSESSION OF HER

FACULTIES?

A YES.

Q WHAT WAS TARA'S PROGNOSIS, SAY, IN 2008

AFTER YOU BEGAN TO SEE SOME OF THIS DETERIORATION?

A WELL, I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT BECAME CLEAR

THAT SHE WAS CONTINUING TO ABUSE DRUGS AT THAT POINT OR

NOT. BUT ONCE IT BECAME CLEAR THAT SHE WAS CONTINUING TO

ABUSE METHAMPHETAMINE, DESPITE DIRE WARNINGS THAT I GAVE

HER ABOUT THAT, AND BESIDES TELLING HER THAT I THINK THAT

THAT MAY BE WHAT LIKELY TRIGGERED HER PSYCHOSIS IN THE

FIRST PLACE, IT BECAME POOR.

Q IS IT -- WELL, DO YOU RECALL WHETHER TARA

CONTINUED TO COMPLAIN OF HEARING THESE VOICES THROUGHOUT

YOUR TREATMENT OF HER?

A THROUGHOUT TREATMENT WITH ME, YES.

Q I'D LIKE TO GO TO PAGE 34.

MR. NEWHOUSE: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO MOVE THE

ENTIRE EXHIBIT FOR DR. BOHN IN EVIDENCE BECAUSE I'D LIKE

TO SHOW CERTAIN PAGES FROM IT.

THE COURT: ANY OBJECTION?

MR. BLESSEY: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: RECEIVED.

(RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE, JOINT

EXHIBITS 115-1 TO 115-106.)

BY MR. NEWHOUSE:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 76: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

545

Q LET'S LOOK AT 115-34. DO YOU HAVE THE PAGE

THERE?

A YES.

Q SO THIS, FEBRUARY 9TH, 2010, IS THAT THE

LAST VISIT?

A YES.

Q AND WOULD YOU -- IS ALL THE LANGUAGE ON THIS

FORM WHEN YOU WRITE IT IN EACH TIME OR WOULD YOU START

WITH THE FORM FILLED OUT WITH SOME OF THE INFORMATION

ALREADY ON IT? WHAT WAS YOUR PRACTICE?

A WELL, SO WHAT I DO IS SINCE I DIDN'T WANT TO

SPEND THE TIME AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET A COMPUTER TO

PRINT IT OUT, I WOULD JUST WRITE IT OUT LONG-HAND, AND

THEN I WOULD COPY IT EACH TIME SO THAT I HAD ALL OF HER

PERTINENT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME. AND THEN I WOULD

ADD TO -- ADD TO IT WHENEVER THERE WAS A CHANGE.

Q SO YOU'RE SAYING A LOT OF THIS INFORMATION

WAS INFORMATION YOU RECORDED DURING PRIOR VISITS INCLUDING

THE FIRST VISIT?

A YES.

Q ALL RIGHT. SO UP HERE AT THE TOP IT SAYS,

"FEELS ABILIFY DOESN'T HELP WITH VOICES"; IS THAT RIGHT?

A YES.

Q WHAT IS ABILIFY?

A ABILIFY IS AN ANTIPSYCHOTIC MEDICATION.

Q AND YOU ACTUALLY LIST HERE UNDER -- LET ME

KICK IT OUT OF THE WAY.

DO YOU HAVE THE MEDICATIONS LISTED HERE ON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 77: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

546

THE RIGHT?

A YES.

Q AND WHAT MEDICATIONS AS OF FEBRUARY 9, 2010,

DID YOU HAVE HER ON?

A WELL, LET'S SEE. I HADN'T SEEN HER FOR A

WHILE BEFORE THAT. I THINK IT HAD BEEN ABOUT SEVEN

MONTHS, SO --

Q WAS THAT BECAUSE YOU TOLD HER THAT SHE

DIDN'T NEED TO COME IN AND SEE YOU?

A NO. SHE WAS -- WE CALL IT LOST TO FOLLOW

UP. SO IN OTHER WORDS, I MEAN, SOMEONE LIKE HER I PREFER

TO SEE WEEKLY, IF POSSIBLE, BUT SHE, I THINK, HAD GONE

BACK EAST, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH HER

FOR SEVERAL MONTHS.

SO THIS IS WHEN SHE CAME BACK IN, AND IT

SOUNDED LIKE SHE WANTED TO RESUME TREATMENT WITH ME, SO I

HAD HAD HER ON EFFEXOR 75 AND RISPERDAL. YOU SEE BOTH OF

THOSE ARE CROSSED OUT.

Q WHERE ARE THEY, RIGHT HERE?

A YEAH, THAT'S EFFEXOR.

Q WHAT IS EFFEXOR?

A ANTIDEPRESSANT.

Q COURT REPORTER WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU

CAN SPELL IT FOR HER.

A E-F-F-E-X-O-R AND THEN CAPITAL "X," CAPITAL

"R," AND 75 MILLIGRAMS.

Q OKAY. AND WHAT DOES THAT DRUG DO?

A IT HAS ANTIDEPRESSANT EFFECTS AND

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 78: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

547

ANTIANXIETY EFFECTS.

Q WHEN WAS SHE TAKING THAT OR -- STRIKE THAT.

WHEN HAD YOU PRESCRIBED THAT MEDICATION TO

HER?

A WHEN I FIRST PRESCRIBED IT? YOU WANT TO

KNOW WHEN I FIRST PRESCRIBED IT, OKAY.

Q APPROXIMATE DATE WOULD BE FINE.

A SHE HAD BEEN ON IT FOR QUITE A WHILE. IT

LOOKS LIKE -- HERE, I'M GOING BACK TO MARCH 2008, JANUARY

2008.

Q THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR PRESENT PURPOSES.

LET ME ASK YOU, HAD YOU PRESCRIBED HER ANY

ANTIDEPRESSANTS?

A THAT'S WHAT EFFEXOR IS.

Q STRIKE THAT.

HOW ABOUT CYMBALTA; WHAT KIND OF A DRUG IS

THAT?

A IT'S SIMILAR TO EFFEXOR.

Q DID YOU PUT HER ON CYMBALTA?

A NO.

Q WHAT OTHER MEDICATION -- WHAT'S THIS SAY

RIGHT UNDER "EFFEXOR"?

A "NORCO EVERY 6 HOURS."

Q I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T PRESCRIBE

OPIATES FOR HER.

A I DON'T, BUT THIS IS ALL THE MEDICINES THAT

SHE'S ON, WHETHER OR NOT I PRESCRIBE THEM.

Q "ABILIFY." THEN WE HAVE "VALIUM"?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 79: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

548

A YES. "5 MILLIGRAMS AS NEEDED."

Q DO YOU KNOW WHO PRESCRIBED THE NORCO FOR HER

AS OF FEBRUARY 9, 2010?

A NO. AGAIN, I HADN'T SEEN HER FOR SEVERAL

MONTHS.

Q WHAT IS T4, T3?

A THAT'S THYROID REPLACEMENT.

Q AND THEN KLONOPIN?

A YES.

Q THAT IS A DRUG THAT YOU PRESCRIBED FOR HER

EARLY ON?

A YES.

Q WAS SHE -- HOW LONG WAS SHE TAKING KLONOPIN?

A I PRESCRIBED IT THE FIRST VISIT, AND SHE

FOUND THAT MORE HELPFUL THAN ANYTHING ELSE I GAVE HER, AND

AS FAR AS I KNOW, SHE WAS ON THAT CONSISTENTLY.

Q AND AMBIEN IS THE SLEEPING PILL?

A YES.

Q MOST PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT IT. VERY COMMON.

LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO -- GO

TO PAGE 16, WHICH LOOKS LIKE A TELEPHONE MESSAGE DATED

JANUARY 8, 2008.

SO THIS IS -- WHOSE HANDWRITING IS THIS?

A MINE.

Q OKAY. AND YOU'VE WRITTEN, "JANUARY 8,

2008"?

A YES.

Q IS THIS A TELEPHONE MESSAGE?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 80: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

549

A I WAS PAGED.

Q YOU WERE PAGED AT WHAT TIME?

A 8:00 P.M.

Q AND YOU WROTE, "TARA," THE PATIENT'S NAME?

A YES.

Q PHONE NUMBER, IS THAT THE NUMBER THAT WAS

PAGING YOU?

A YES.

Q AND THEN YOU WROTE, "AND DAVID"?

A I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE "O" IS.

Q DAVID WOULD HAVE BEEN -- YOU WERE PAGED BY

MR. MAC EACHERN?

A IS THAT DAVID'S LAST NAME?

Q YES.

A YES.

Q AND WHAT WAS -- WHY WAS DAVID PAGING YOU?

WHAT DID HE SAY -- WELL, STRIKE THAT.

DID YOU CALL HIM BACK?

A YES.

Q AND YOU SPOKE TO DAVID?

A I'M NOT SURE IF I SPOKE TO HIM OR TARA OR

BOTH.

Q OKAY. AND WHAT WAS RELATED TO YOU WHEN YOU

SPOKE TO EITHER TARA OR DAVID ON JANUARY 8, 2008?

A THAT SHE HAD DECREASED MOOD, SUICIDAL

THOUGHTS, THAT SHE WAS GOING TO AMSTERDAM, AND SHE WAS

GOING TO TAKE HER PILLS.

AND THEN I ASKED WHAT MEDICINES SHE WAS ON.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 81: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

550

SHE SAID, "KLONOPIN; SEROQUEL," WHICH IS AN

ANTIPSYCHOTIC; AND "EFFEXOR," WHICH IS THE ANTIDEPRESSANT

WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE.

Q SO THESE THREE -- KLONOPIN, SEROQUEL, AND

EFFEXOR -- WERE DRUGS THAT YOU PRESCRIBED FOR THE

TREATMENT OF HER PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESSES, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q SO WITH RESPECT TO AMSTERDAM, WAS IT RELATED

TO YOU THAT TARA WAS TALKING ABOUT GOING TO AMSTERDAM SO

SHE COULD COMMIT SUICIDE?

A I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I THINK I WOULD HAVE

WRITTEN THAT.

Q YOU SAID, "GOING TO AMSTERDAM AND TAKE

PILLS." AND THAT'S RIGHT BELOW "SUICIDAL IDEATION,"

CORRECT?

A I THINK THAT I MEANT THAT SHE WAS GOING TO

TAKE HER MEDICATIONS WITH HER.

Q WERE THERE OTHER INSTANCES IN YOUR

THREE-YEAR TREATMENT OF TARA WHERE YOU EXPERIENCED OR SAW

SIGNS OF WHAT WE CALL SUICIDAL IDEATION?

A YES, SHE HAD SUICIDAL THOUGHTS ON AND OFF

THROUGH A LOT OF THE TIME THAT I SAW HER.

Q TELL THE JURY WHAT SUICIDAL IDEATIONS ARE.

HOW WOULD A PSYCHIATRIST DEFINE THAT?

A WELL, SO THERE'S WHAT WE CALL A SPECTRUM OF

SUICIDAL THOUGHTS, AND THEY CAN GO ALL THE WAY FROM, "IT

WOULD BE OKAY IF I DON'T WAKE UP TOMORROW" TO "I'M NOT

SURE IF I WANT TO LIVE ANYMORE" TO "I'M GOING TO DO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 82: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

551

SOMETHING TO HURT MYSELF" TO HAVING A PLAN OF WHAT ONE

MIGHT DO, MIGHT -- "I'M EITHER GOING TO HANG MYSELF OR

SHOOT MYSELF."

AND THEN AT THE HIGHER END OF THE SPECTRUM

WOULD BE A SPECIFIC PLAN. "I'M GOING TO BUY A GUN AT THIS

STORE AND SHOOT MYSELF AT THIS TIME AND THIS PLACE."

AND THEN, OF COURSE, WHEN IT GETS MORE

SPECIFIC LIKE THAT, THEN -- AND ALSO SOMETHING WE CALL

INTENT, WHICH IS, "SO YOU'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. IS THAT

SOMETHING YOU THINK YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY ACT ON?"

"NO, NO, I WOULD NEVER DO THAT BECAUSE DA,

DA, DA." AND THEN YOU TAKE IT A LITTLE -- YOU'RE STILL

CONCERNED, OF COURSE, BUT YOU MAY NOT PUT THE PERSON IN

THE HOSPITAL AT THAT POINT. SO IT DEPENDS ON WHERE THEY

ARE IN THE SPECTRUM.

SUICIDAL THOUGHTS ARE EXTREMELY COMMON;

THEY'RE PART OF ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION. AND SO YOU ONLY

TAKE THE EXTREME APPROACH OF PUTTING SOMEBODY IN THE

HOSPITAL -- ESPECIALLY IF IT'S AGAINST THEIR WILL BECAUSE

MOST THE TIME PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO GO -- IF YOU THINK THAT

THEY'RE ACUTELY SUICIDAL, WHICH MEANS YOU THINK THAT

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO ACT ON IN THE NEAR

FUTURE.

Q SO IF YOU HEAR SUICIDAL TALK AND IT'S

SERIOUS ENOUGH TO INDICATE AN INTENT, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE

THE PATIENT COMMITTED. IS THAT PURSUANT TO 5150 OF THE

WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA?

A FIRST, YOU'D SEE IF THEY WOULD GO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 83: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

552

VOLUNTARILY, BUT IF NOT, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO --

ACTUALLY, THESE DAYS YOU WOULD HAVE TO CALL THE POLICE,

AND THEN THEY WOULD DO THE 5150.

THE COURT: IS THAT THE 72-HOUR?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. NEWHOUSE: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q SO THAT ALLOWS THE PATIENT TO BE HELD FOR 72

HOURS INVOLUNTARILY WHILE A CLOSER IN-DEPTH EXAMINATION OF

THE PATIENT VIS-A-VIS SUICIDE CAN BE DONE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A YES. BASICALLY TO KEEP THEM SAFE UNTIL THE

SUICIDAL THOUGHTS DECREASE OR GO AWAY, YES.

Q SO WOULD YOU MAKE NOTES -- WELL, STRIKE

THAT.

LEAVING ASIDE THAT, I TAKE IT TARA'S

EXPRESSIONS OF SUICIDE TO YOU NEVER REACHED THE POINT

WHERE YOU DEEMED THAT THEY WERE AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF

EXERCISING A PRESENT PLAN AND INTENT, CORRECT?

A CORRECT.

Q SO SHE WAS NEVER INSTITUTIONALIZED PURSUANT

TO 5150 OF THE WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE, RIGHT?

A AS FAR AS I KNOW.

Q BUT IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU STILL SAW

SUICIDAL IDEATION OR EXPRESSIONS AS SOMETHING SERIOUS THAT

YOU WANTED -- YOU WOULD TRACK AS HER PSYCHIATRIST, KEEP

TRACK OF?

A ABSOLUTELY.

Q AND WHERE ON YOUR MEDICAL FORM OR YOUR MED

FOLLOW-UP -- LET'S LOOK AT PAGE 33, EXHIBIT 115-33.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 84: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

553

JUST A SECOND. LET'S GET THE DATE FIRST.

THIS IS LIKE A FOLLOW-UP VISIT WITH TARA?

A YES.

Q YOU DON'T HAVE THE DATE ON IT?

A OH, THAT'S MY TEMPLATE.

Q THAT'S YOUR TEMPLATE. OKAY. SO THIS WAS --

THIS YOU WOULD USE AT EVERY VISIT?

A YES. AND THEN I WOULD STRIKE OUT OR CHANGE

OR ADD DEPENDING ON WHAT WAS DIFFERENT THAT VISIT.

Q SO IF THERE WAS SUICIDAL INTENT OR -- STRIKE

THAT -- SUICIDAL IDEATION, THEN YOU WOULD MAKE A NOTE OF

IT HERE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A YES. AND I CIRCLED IT TO BE SURE TO DRAW MY

ATTENTION TO IT SO THAT I ASK HER ABOUT IT EVERY VISIT.

Q OKAY. IS IT CORRECT THAT TARA DENIED

SUICIDAL THOUGHTS ON HER FIRST VISIT?

A YES.

Q WHAT'S THE FIRST MENTION OF -- AM I ALSO

CORRECT, THAT JANUARY 8, 2008, PAGE, WAS THAT THE FIRST

TIME THAT TARA EXPRESSED AN INTENT TO COMMIT SUICIDE THAT

YOU KNOW OF?

A IS THAT THE ONE WE LOOKED AT?

Q YES.

A I BELIEVE SO.

Q HOW MANY TIMES OVER THE TREATMENT OF THE

SEVERAL YEARS DID TARA TELL YOU THAT SHE WAS CONTEMPLATING

SUICIDE OR THINKING ABOUT IT OR TALKING ABOUT IT, ANY OF

THOSE?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 85: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

554

A I THINK AFTER THAT DATE THAT YOU MENTIONED

AND THAT WE LOOKED AT EARLIER, THAT PRETTY MUCH EVERY

VISIT, I BELIEVE.

Q SHE WOULD TALK ABOUT IT EVERY VISIT?

A I WOULD ASK HER ABOUT IT EVERY VISIT, AND

SHE WOULD -- SHE WOULD TELL ME THAT IT'S STILL A THOUGHT,

BUT THEN I WOULD TRY TO ASCERTAIN HOW INTENSE IT WAS AT

THAT POINT.

Q LET'S CHANGE THE TOPIC A LITTLE BIT.

DID THERE COME A TIME WHEN TARA WAS ADMITTED

TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM AT CEDARS-SINAI DUE TO A PSYCHIATRIC

EMERGENCY?

A I KNOW SHE WAS ADMITTED. I'M NOT SURE WHAT

THE CHIEF COMPLAINT WAS AT THE TIME OF ADMISSION THERE.

Q WELL, LET'S GO TO PAGE 54.

MR. NEWHOUSE: ALL IN EXHIBIT 115, YOUR HONOR.

Q 115-54 APPEARS TO BE A TELEPHONE MESSAGE.

DO YOU HAVE THAT DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF YOU

SIR?

A YES.

Q YOU RECOGNIZE THIS TO BE A TELEPHONE

MESSAGE, THAT THIS UPPER PORTION LOOKS LIKE HANDWRITING OF

SOMEONE WHO IS CLEARLY NOT YOU?

A UH-HUH.

THE REPORTER: "YES"?

BY MR. NEWHOUSE:

Q IT'S READABLE?

THE REPORTER: "YES"?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 86: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

555

THE WITNESS: YES.

BY MR. NEWHOUSE

Q OKAY. WHOSE HANDWRITING IS THE UPPER

PORTION OF THE NOTE?

A MY SECRETARY.

Q WHAT'S HER NAME?

A LATASHA.

Q LATASHA. AND SO SHE'S TAKEN A NOTE.

THEN THERE'S SOME HANDWRITING AT -- BELOW

THAT THAT LOOKS LIKE YOUR HANDWRITING?

A YES.

Q SO LET'S GO TO THE FIRST ONE.

CAN WE MAKE OUT THE DATE, SOME POINT IN '09?

A LOOKS LIKE A 7.

Q BUT IT'S HARD TO SAY BECAUSE IT'S SOMEWHAT

OBLITERATED, RIGHT?

A YEAH.

Q OKAY. SO A CALL CAME IN AT 11:21 A.M.,

RIGHT?

A YES.

Q "TARA DE ROGATIS," AND THERE'S A PHONE

NUMBER, AND THEN IT SAYS, "HAVING AN EMERGENCY. I NEED TO

SPEAK" --

WHAT DOES THIS SAY?

A "WITH YOU."

Q "WITH YOU." WHY DON'T YOU JUST READ THE

MESSAGE FOR US.

A "HAVING AN EMERGENCY. I NEED TO SPEAK WITH

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 87: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

556

YOU. I'M IN A LOT OF PAIN, BECOMING SUICIDAL BECAUSE OF

ALL THE PAIN."

Q AND YOU RETURNED THE CALL, AND YOU SPOKE TO

THE PATIENT, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q WHAT DID SHE TELL YOU?

A I BELIEVE IT WAS SIMILAR TO WHAT THE -- WHAT

WE JUST READ. AND, AGAIN, THIS WAS WHILE SHE WAS IN THE

DRUG-SEEKING MODE OF ASKING FOR OPIATE MEDICATION, AND SO

I MUST HAVE TOLD HER, "I DON'T PRESCRIBE OPIATE

MEDICATION," AND THAT IF SHE'S HAVING INTENSE PAIN, SHE

NEEDS TO SEE HER -- "P.C.P." MEANS PRIMARY CARE DOCTOR.

Q LET ME STOP YOU RIGHT HERE. SO THIS SAYS

"TOLD"?

A YES.

Q "DON'T PRESCRIBE OPIATES"?

A OH, I TOLD HER, "I DON'T PRESCRIBE OPIATES."

Q SHE ALREADY KNEW THAT BECAUSE SHE'D ASKED

YOU ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS BY THAT POINT, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q YOU TOLD HER AGAIN?

A UH-HUH.

THE REPORTER: "YES"?

THE WITNESS: YES.

BY MR. NEWHOUSE:

Q AND BELOW THAT, WHAT DOES IT SAY, SOMETHING

ABOUT ABILIFY?

A I SAID -- I ASKED HER TO INCREASE HER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 88: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

557

ABILIFY BY 2 MILLIGRAMS TO HELP WITH HER AGITATION. AND

THEN I'M SURE I WOULD HAVE ALSO ASKED HER TO COME IN AND

SEE ME, WHICH IS STANDARD PROCEDURE.

Q OF COURSE. IS IT YOUR MEMORY, WAS THIS

BEFORE OR AFTER OR AT THE SAME TIME AS THE FEBRUARY 2009

CEDARS ADMISSION?

A I'M NOT SURE, ALTHOUGH I THINK -- ISN'T

THERE A NOTE HERE SOMEWHERE ABOUT THAT?

Q THERE COULD BE.

A I BELIEVE THERE IS.

Q LET'S SEE IF WE CAN FIND IT. WE KNOW THE

DATE OF THE ADMISSION WAS FEBRUARY 2009.

MR. BLESSEY: ACTUALLY, YOUR HONOR, THAT STATEMENT

OF COUNSEL IS INCORRECT AS TO THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE

BUT --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO WE KNOW WHAT -- I HAVE

IT IN MY NOTES SOMEPLACE. I'M SURE WE CAN FIND IT.

MR. NEWHOUSE: ACTUALLY, LET ME -- IF I CAN

APPROACH THE EXHIBIT VOLUME.

Q JUST FOR A SECOND, JUST TO REFRESH YOUR

RECOLLECTION, LET ME REFER YOU TO EXHIBIT 103-1. IT'S A

MULTI-PAGE TREATMENT RECORD FROM CEDARS-SINAI THAT --

LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE A DATE.

APRIL 11, 2009, DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR

RECOLLECTION?

A UH-HUH.

THE REPORTER: "YES"?

THE WITNESS: YES.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 89: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

558

BY MR. NEWHOUSE

Q HAVE YOU EVER OBSERVED OR REVIEWED THE

CEDARS-SINAI CHART FOR HER ADMISSION IN APRIL OF 2009?

A NO.

Q YOU WERE TOLD ABOUT THE CEDARS ADMISSION,

WERE YOU NOT?

A YES. I BELIEVE I SPOKE TO THE DOCTOR.

Q DR. LUTSKY?

A I DON'T REMEMBER HER NAME.

Q AND TELL US WHAT THAT DOCTOR TOLD YOU WHAT

HAPPENED.

A THAT SHE WAS COMPLAINING OF PAIN.

Q I'M SORRY. I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOU TO PAGE

71. WE FOUND THE REFERENCE.

A I HAVE IT.

Q OKAY. CARRY ON. THE DOCTOR WAS DESCRIBING

WHAT HAD OCCURRED?

A YES. THAT SHE HAD TACTILE HALLUCINATION,

MEANING SHE MUST HAVE BEEN FEELING SOMETHING ON HER SKIN.

Q RIGHT.

A "AUDITORY HALLUCINATIONS, THAT SHE WAS

OVERWHELMED, HAD SUICIDAL THOUGHTS, WAS COMPLAINING OF

PAIN AND BURNING ON THE LEFT SIDE OF HER HEAD, WAS

GIVEN" -- LET'S SEE.

AND THEN SHE WAS DISCHARGED EVENTUALLY WITH

HER BOYFRIEND FROM THE EMERGENCY ROOM AND WAS GIVEN

"SEROQUEL, 50 MILLIGRAMS; BENADRYL; AND ATIVAN."

Q THESE SYMPTOMS THAT WERE BEING DESCRIBED AS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 90: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

559

OF FEBRUARY 2009 -- "TACTILE HALLUCINATIONS, AUDITORY

HALLUCINATIONS. SHE'S FEELING OVERWHELMED. SUICIDAL

THOUGHTS, PAIN, BURNING IN THE THROAT" -- THESE WERE

SYMPTOMS THAT YOU HAD BEEN HEARING FROM TARA FOR THE LAST

TWO YEARS BY THAT POINT, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q SO THESE SEEMED TO BE A PERSISTENT, CHRONIC

CONDITION, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q WOULD IT COME AND GO, THOUGH; WOULD SHE HAVE

GOOD DAYS AND THEN BAD DAYS, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE?

A YES.

Q AND DID CEDARS INFORM YOU THAT THEY

DISCHARGED HER -- NOW, SEROQUEL, THAT'S -- AGAIN, YOU TOLD

US, BUT I'VE ALREADY FORGOTTEN.

A IT'S AN ANTIPSYCHOTIC.

Q OKAY. APPROPRIATE TO GIVE HER, GIVEN WHAT

YOU CAN SEE HERE AS HER COMPLAINTS?

A YES.

Q BENADRYL WOULD BE FOR THE ITCHING?

A PERHAPS OR FOR SLEEP. IT'S ALSO USEFUL

SOMETIMES FOR SIDE EFFECTS OF SEROQUEL.

Q AND ATIVAN, WHAT IS ATIVAN?

A ATIVAN IS LIKE XANAX. IT'S LIKE KLONOPIN.

IT'S A TRANQUILIZER FOR ANXIETY.

Q THE CEDARS PEOPLE WHO WERE INFORMING YOU

ABOUT WHAT MEDICATIONS, DID THEY TELL YOU THEY HAD GIVEN

HER ANY OPIATES?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 91: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

560

A NOT THAT I KNOW OF.

Q AND AS OF FEBRUARY -- STRIKE THAT -- APRIL

2009, YOU STILL HAD NOT GIVEN HER ANY OPIATES WHATSOEVER

EVEN FOR HER PAIN, CORRECT?

A CORRECT.

Q IS THERE A REASON FOR THAT?

A I DON'T PRESCRIBE OPIATES.

Q WHY DON'T YOU PRESCRIBE OPIATES -- STRIKE

THAT.

SHE WAS IN PAIN, RIGHT?

A YES.

Q AND WITH PATIENTS WHO ARE COMPLAINING OF

INTENSE PAIN, WOULDN'T AN OPIATE, NORCO, HELP HER DEAL

WITH THE PAIN?

MR. BLESSEY: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS VAGUE AS TO TIME.

WE KNOW SHE'S ON NORCO IN THE LAST VISIT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

BY MR. NEWHOUSE

Q CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION?

A WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?

Q THE QUESTION IS: YOU DON'T PRESCRIBE

OPIATES. YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT FOR A PATIENT WHO IS

COMPLAINING OF SEVERE PAIN, A NARCOTIC LIKE NORCO MIGHT

HELP THE PATIENT FEEL BETTER AT LEAST INITIALLY, RIGHT?

A YES.

Q SO WHAT IS THE REASON THAT YOU DON'T

PRESCRIBE OPIATES?

A IT'S NOT PART OF MY SCOPE OF PRACTICE.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 92: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

561

Q YOU COULD. YOU'RE A PHYSICIAN. YOU COULD

PRESCRIBE IT, CORRECT?

A CORRECT.

Q BUT YOU DON'T DO IT AS A PRACTICE?

A CORRECT.

Q THEY'RE RELATING TO YOU IN THIS

CONVERSATION -- THE CEDARS DOCTORS ARE TELLING YOU ABOUT

THE MEDICATIONS THAT THEY WERE GIVING.

IS THAT -- TELL THE JURY WHY THAT'S

IMPORTANT. WAS IT IMPORTANT TO YOU -- STRIKE THAT.

WAS IT IMPORTANT TO YOU AS A TREATING

PSYCHIATRIST THAT YOU BE FULLY INFORMED ABOUT ALL THE

MEDICATIONS THAT YOUR PATIENT WAS BEING GIVEN,

PARTICULARLY MEDICATIONS THAT ARE PSYCHIATRIC IN NATURE?

IS THAT IMPORTANT?

A YES.

Q WHY?

A SO I KNOW WHAT MEDICATION SHE'S ON.

Q I MEAN, IS IT -- IN YOUR EXPERIENCE IS IT

POSSIBLE IF ONE DOCTOR IS GIVING A MEDICATION AND YOU'RE

GIVING ANOTHER MEDICATION, CAN THOSE MEDICATIONS SOMETIMES

COME INTO CONFLICT?

A YES.

Q AND THAT COULD CAUSE A SERIOUS CONDITION

WITH THE PATIENT, COULD IT NOT?

A IT COULD, ALTHOUGH, MY GUESS IS AT THIS

POINT SHE WAS NOT TAKING THE OTHER MEDICATION. SHE MIGHT

HAVE BEEN -- I DON'T REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY, BUT SHE MAY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 93: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

562

VERY WELL HAVE BEEN NONCOMPLIANT WITH THE OTHER

MEDICATION.

Q AND I'VE SEEN THAT IN YOUR CHART.

WERE THERE INSTANCES WHERE MS. DE ROGATIS

WAS NOT COMPLIANT WITH HER MEDICATION, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE?

A YES.

Q AGAIN, IS THAT COMMON OR UNCOMMON WITH A

PATIENT WHO HAD THE HISTORY OF SERIOUS PSYCHIATRIC

AILMENTS THAT SHE PRESENTED?

A IT'S COMMON.

Q LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS

WITH TARA'S OTHER TREATING PHYSICIANS.

DID THERE COME A TIME WHEN YOU SPOKE TO OR

COMMUNICATED WITH A DR. LATIMER, A PSYCHIATRIST IN NEW

JERSEY?

A I RELAYED SOME INFORMATION TO HIM. WHAT WE

MIGHT CALL HEADLINES, IN OTHER WORDS, A MAJOR OUTLINE OF

HER DIAGNOSES AND MEDICATIONS.

Q LET ME INTERRUPT YOU AND PUT UP -- DIRECT

YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 47 OF YOUR CHART, SIR. AND THIS

APPEARS TO BE A TELEPHONE MESSAGE DATED DECEMBER 22ND,

2008, 10:14 A.M. "TARA." THERE'S A PHONE NUMBER AND --

LATASHA OR LATASHA?

A LATASHA.

Q LATASHA HAS WRITTEN, "DR. LATIMER'S NUMBER

IS" -- THERE'S A TELEPHONE NUMBER. I HAVE A -- ACTUALLY,

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO READ HER HANDWRITING.

WHAT DOES SHE WRITE TO YOU?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 94: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

563

A "I HAVE AN APPOINTMENT WITH HIM AT 3 P.M.

TODAY. 12 O'CLOCK YOUR TIME. CAN YOU CALL HIM BEFORE I

SEE HIM?"

Q AND YOU DID SPEAK TO HER?

A I BELIEVE I LEFT THIS MESSAGE FOR

DR. LATIMER.

Q WHAT DID YOU TELL DR. LATIMER IN THE

MESSAGE?

A I TOLD DR. LATIMER THAT SHE HAD CHRONIC

SYMPTOMS THAT INCLUDED "DISORGANIZATION, DECREASED

FUNCTIONING" -- LET'S SEE -- THAT SHE WAS "DRUG-SEEKING."

Q THAT'S RIGHT HERE, "DRUG-SEEKING"?

A YES.

Q AND BY "DRUG-SEEKING," AGAIN, YOU'RE

REFERRING TO THE FACT THAT SHE WAS CONSTANTLY ASKING FOR

OPIATES?

A YES.

Q KEEP GOING.

A AND "PARANOIA, AUDITORY HALLUCINATION," AND

THEN I CIRCLED "SCHIZOAFFECTIVE," WHICH WAS MY DIAGNOSIS

AT THAT POINT.

Q "SCHIZOAFFECTIVE."

AND THEN WHAT'S UNDER THAT?

A "PSYCHOSIS, NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED."

Q A VERY SERIOUS SET OF AFFLICTIONS, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q AND DID YOU SPEAK TO DR. LATIMER?

A NO. I BELIEVE GIVEN THE TIME FRAME, SHE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 95: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

564

CALLED ME THAT SAME DAY AND WAS SEEING HIM A FEW HOURS

LATER. I CALLED AND DIDN'T GET HIM DIRECTLY, SO I LEFT A

MESSAGE ON HIS MACHINE.

Q THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LET'S DISCUSS NOW

THE FINAL APPOINTMENT WITH TARA ON FEBRUARY 9, 2010.

A WHAT PAGE IS THAT?

Q WE'RE GOING TO GO TO PAGE 34, I THINK.

SO WHAT WAS YOUR DIAGNOSIS OF TARA'S

PSYCHIATRIC CONDITION AS OF FEBRUARY 9, 2010?

A I HAVE, "SCHIZOAFFECTIVE DISORDER VERSUS

PSYCHOTIC DISORDER NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED."

Q SO THAT'S RIGHT HERE, THE FIRST LINE?

A YES.

Q OKAY. WELL, TELL ME WHY DID -- TARA CAME IN

TO SEE YOU AND SHE HAD NOT BEEN IN FOR, I THINK YOU

TESTIFIED, SEVEN OR EIGHT MONTHS?

A YES.

Q TELL US ABOUT YOUR MEETING WITH HER ON THAT

DAY. WHAT WERE HER COMPLAINTS?

A WELL, IT WAS CHAOTIC. I HADN'T SEEN HER FOR

A WHILE, AND SHE WAS TRYING TO UPDATE ME ON WHAT HAD BEEN

HAPPENING.

SHE WAS ALSO, I BELIEVE, ASKING ME FOR

OPIATES AGAIN. LOOKS LIKE I WROTE HERE IN THE -- IN THE

LEFT-HAND COLUMN, I SAID, "FEELS ABILIFY DOESN'T HELP HER

VOICES."

Q RIGHT HERE AT THE TOP, RIGHT?

A YEAH.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 96: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

565

Q OKAY.

A "FEELS ABILIFY DOESN'T HELP HER VOICES.

FEELS NOT DEPRESSED." THEREFORE, STOPPED HER EFFEXOR AND

ABILIFY.

Q OKAY. SO SHE SAID SHE DIDN'T FEEL DEPRESSED

SO SHE DIDN'T THINK SHE NEEDED THE ANTIDEPRESSANT?

A CORRECT.

Q OKAY.

A AND THEN, "COMPLAINS OF HEAD-TO-TOE PAIN."

SHE SAID THAT SHE WAS SEEING A PAIN DOCTOR WHO WAS GIVING

HER NORCO.

Q DID SHE TELL YOU THAT WAS DR. SPIEGEL OUT IN

THOUSAND OAKS?

A NOT THAT I RECALL.

Q OKAY.

A AND THEN SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT SEEING AN

INTERNIST WHO WAS WORKING HER UP FOR FIBROMYALGIA, AND

THEN I WROTE, "RULE OUT H.S.P."

Q WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

A WELL, IT'S NOT REALLY A MEDICAL TERM. A

HIGHLY SENSITIVE PERSON IS SOMEBODY -- THERE'S SOME

LITERATURE ON IT. IT'S PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPER SENSITIVE TO

THINGS LIKE SMELLS AND SOUNDS AND THAT KIND OF THING.

Q OKAY. WHAT ELSE DID SHE TELL YOU?

A SHE SAID SHE'S ON IT, I ASSUME, NORCO, ONE

MONTH, AND IT HELPS HER TO GO BACK TO SCHOOL.

Q ACTING SCHOOL? DID SHE TELL YOU IT WAS

ACTING SCHOOL?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 97: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

566

A I DON'T RECALL.

Q NOW, WHEN YOU HEARD THAT SHE HAD

CONTINUED -- DISCONTINUED A NUMBER OF HER PSYCHIATRIC

MEDICATIONS BUT WAS TAKING OPIATES, DID THAT CONCERN YOU

AS HER TREATING PSYCHIATRIST?

A YES AND NO.

Q EXPLAIN.

A WELL, WHEN PEOPLE HAVE PAIN, IT'S REASONABLE

TO TREAT IT. YOU JUST HAVE TO BE CAREFUL AND KEEP AN EYE

ON HOW MUCH THEY'RE TAKING.

ON THE OTHER HAND, SHE HAS A LONG HISTORY OF

DRUG-SEEKING AND DRUG ABUSE, AND SO OPIATES TEND TO BE ONE

OF THE MOST DIFFICULT DRUGS TO GET OFF OF AND CONTROL.

Q THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE ADDICTIVE, CORRECT?

A YES. BUT I'M NOT -- WHEN YOU SAY

"ADDICTIVE," THAT HAS CERTAIN CONNOTATIONS TO IT. THERE

ARE LOTS OF DRUGS THAT PEOPLE FORM DEPENDENCY ON.

"ADDICTIVE" CONJURES UP IMAGES OF, YOU KNOW, ROBBING

STORES TO SUPPORT YOUR HABIT, THAT KIND OF THING.

Q I THINK I'M REFERRING MORE TO DEPENDENCY,

THAT YOU NEED TO TAKE THE DRUG CONSTANTLY; AND TOLERANCE,

WHICH IS YOU NEED EVER-INCREASING AMOUNTS OF THE DRUGS.

WEREN'T THOSE FACTORS THAT YOU WOULD BE

CONCERNED ABOUT WITH OPIATES WITH THIS PATIENT?

A YES.

Q DID YOU TELL HER THAT SHE SHOULD NOT OR SHE

SHOULD DISCONTINUE THE OPIATES?

A I WARNED HER ABOUT THE DANGER IN HER TAKING

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 98: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

567

OPIATE MEDICATION, GIVEN HER SUBSTANCE-ABUSE HISTORY; AND

THE FACT THAT WHEN MIXED WITH HER TRANQUILIZERS, THAT

THERE COULD BE A DRUG INTERACTION THAT CAN LEAD TO MORE

SEDATION OR, IF TAKEN IN LARGE AMOUNTS, DEATH.

Q SO YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS?

A YES.

Q WAS DAVID AT THIS MEETING ON FEBRUARY 9,

2010?

A I BELIEVE SO.

Q WOULD YOU HAVE MADE A NOTE OF THAT ON THE

CHART HERE?

A I TRY TO, BUT I'M NOT -- IT DOESN'T LOOK

LIKE I DID.

Q SO YOU'RE NOT CERTAIN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER

WHETHER DAVID WAS THERE?

A I BELIEVE HE WAS THERE.

Q WHAT, IF ANY, DRUGS DID YOU PRESCRIBE FOR

TARA ON FEBRUARY 10, 2010?

A FEBRUARY 9, 2010?

Q STRIKE THAT. FEBRUARY 9, 2010. THANK YOU.

A IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S CUT OFF AT THE BOTTOM

THERE, WHICH IS WHERE I WOULD HAVE WRITTEN WHAT I

PRESCRIBED.

Q AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, RIGHT?

A UH-HUH. OH, HERE WE GO. SO I PRESCRIBED

STRATTERA AND SEROQUEL AND LOOKS LIKE LUNESTA.

Q WHAT IS STRATTERA?

A STRATTERA, IT IS A -- IT'S A DRUG THAT'S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 99: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

568

USED TO TREAT ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER. IT'S SIMILAR TO

THE ANTIDEPRESSANTS AND CAN HAVE SOME ANTIDEPRESSANT

EFFECTS.

I THINK MY THINKING AT THE TIME WAS THAT I

DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE HER STIMULANTS BECAUSE IT MIGHT MAKE

HER PSYCHOSIS WORSE AND TO SEE IF PERHAPS SOMETHING LIKE

STRATTERA MIGHT HELP WITH HER DISORGANIZATION AND MIGHT

ALSO HELP WITH HER MOOD.

Q WHY DID YOU GIVE HER THE SEROQUEL?

A SEROQUEL IS AN ANTIPSYCHOTIC.

Q SO THAT WOULD HELP HER ATTEND TO WHAT WAS

GOING ON IN REALITY?

A YES. REMEMBER, SHE CONTINUED TO HAVE THE

AUDITORY HALLUCINATIONS FROM THE BACK OF HER NECK

THROUGHOUT.

Q SO THE SEROQUEL HELPS HER DEAL WITH THE

HALLUCINATIONS THAT SHE'S EXPERIENCING?

A YES.

Q WERE YOU AWARE IN FEBRUARY THAT TARA WAS

PLANNING SOME -- TO HAVE SOME SURGERY, ELECTIVE SURGERY?

DID SHE TELL YOU ABOUT THAT?

A I AM NOT SURE IF SHE TOLD ME.

Q DID ANYONE ELSE TELL YOU ABOUT THAT?

A YOU MEAN DAVID, IF HE WAS AT THE VISIT?

Q YES, DAVID OR A PHONE CALL. IN OTHER WORDS,

FROM ANY SOURCE, INCLUDING YOUR MIND, ON FEBRUARY 9, 2010,

DID YOU HAVE AN AWARENESS SHE WAS PLANNING ON --

A I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 100: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

569

Q IS THERE A PROBLEM WHEN A PATIENT IS ON AN

ANTIDEPRESSANT AND THEN SUDDENLY GOES OFF IT? DOES THAT

PRESENT ANY COMPLICATIONS FROM A PSYCHIATRIC POINT OF

VIEW?

A IT CAN. SOMETIMES PEOPLE HAVE WITHDRAWAL

SYMPTOMS, SO WE DON'T -- OFTEN IT'S NOT TALKED ABOUT OR

KNOWN, BUT ANTIDEPRESSANTS ALSO CAN HAVE WITHDRAWAL, THE

SAME AS TRANQUILIZERS OR OPIATES WHEN YOU STOP THEM

SUDDENLY.

Q AND WHEN YOU STOP ANTIDEPRESSANTS, IS THERE

A CONCERN IN THE PSYCHIATRIC COMMUNITY ABOUT INCREASING

THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUICIDE, FOR EXAMPLE? IS THAT A

CONCERN?

A WELL, YOU WOULD WORRY ABOUT A RETURN OF

SYMPTOMS THAT THEY WERE TREATING.

Q SO THE ANSWER IS "YES"?

A I'M SORRY. WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION?

Q MY QUESTION IS: IS THERE A CONCERN IF A

PATIENT HAS BEEN ON AN ANTIDEPRESSANT, SAY, ONE YOU DIDN'T

PRESCRIBE, CYMBALTA, AND THEY SUDDENLY COME OFF IT? IS

THERE A CONCERN THE PSYCHIATRIST MIGHT WANT TO KNOW ABOUT

THAT BECAUSE THE PATIENT MIGHT BE AT A HIGHER RISK FOR

SUICIDE?

A WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT SHE WAS ON

CYMBALTA.

Q I KNOW. BUT ANY OTHER ANTIDEPRESSANT. SAY

THE ANTIDEPRESSANTS YOU WERE GIVING HER, IF THE PATIENT

WERE TO SUDDENLY COME OFF, DOES THAT LEAD TO A CONCERN,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 101: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

570

NOT THAT YOU CAN'T PREDICT THE FUTURE, BUT DOES THAT LEAD

TO A CONCERN THE PATIENT MIGHT BE AT HIGHER RISK FOR

SUICIDE?

A I DON'T KNOW ABOUT SUICIDE. BUT, AGAIN, A

RETURN OF DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS.

Q DURING HER FINAL VISIT ON FEBRUARY 9, WERE

THERE -- DID YOU OBSERVE ANY SUICIDAL IDEATIONS? YOU'VE

GOT THAT BOX CIRCLED HERE.

A YES. AND SINCE I DIDN'T EXTRAPOLATE ON IT,

IT MUST NOT HAVE BEEN A SIGNIFICANT FOCUS OF OUR VISIT, SO

I WOULD SAY NO.

Q WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME IT'S NOT DOCUMENTED

CLEARLY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER? IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT YOU DIDN'T

DOCUMENT IT?

A NO. IF THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT SUICIDAL

IDEATION, I WOULD HAVE DOCUMENTED IT, IN PART, IF ONLY FOR

THE RECORD AND PARTLY TO PROTECT MYSELF.

Q AS OF FEBRUARY 9, THE FINAL VISIT, WHAT WERE

YOUR VIEWS ABOUT TARA'S PROGNOSIS?

A I WOULD SAY POOR.

Q CAN YOU EXPLAIN?

A AGAIN, GIVEN HER CONTINUED DRUG-SEEKING

BEHAVIOR AND HER CONTINUED CHRONIC PSYCHOTIC SYMPTOMS.

Q NOW, HAVING INTERACTED WITH THIS PATIENT

OVER AN ALMOST TWO-AND-A-HALF-YEAR TIME FRAME, DO YOU HAVE

AN OPINION WHETHER TARA'S PAIN WAS ORGANICALLY CAUSED BY

SOME PHYSICAL CONDITION IN HER BODY AS OPPOSED TO BEING

PSYCHIATRIC IN ORIGIN?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 102: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

571

A I THINK IT WAS PROBABLY BOTH.

Q CAN YOU EXPLAIN?

A WELL, YOU CAN'T -- IT'S VERY HARD TO

DIFFERENTIATE THINGS, PSYCHIATRIC ISSUES FROM THE -- FROM

GENERAL MEDICAL ISSUES, AND THERE'S VERY OFTEN AN OVERLAP.

SO I THINK SHE WAS BEING TREATED FOR FIBROMYALGIA.

SOMEBODY WHO'S HAD A CHRONIC PSYCHIATRIC CONDITION IS

GOING TO BE MORE LIKELY, PROBABLY, TO DEVELOP SOMETHING

LIKE FIBROMYALGIA. AND YOU MIGHT EVEN SAY VICE VERSA,

SOMEBODY WITH FIBROMYALGIA MAY BE LIKELY TO DEVELOP

PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS AS A RESULT OF HAVING TO COPE WITH

THE PAIN AND LACK OF SLEEP.

Q THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE IS A DOCTOR NAMED

DR. KAREN SHAINSKY, AND SHE'S SITTING NEXT TO COUNSEL.

DO YOU SEE HER IN THE COURTROOM?

A YES.

Q HAVE YOU EVER MET DR. SHAINSKY?

A NO.

Q AT ANY POINT UNTIL TARA DE ROGATIS PASSED

AWAY ON MARCH 22ND, DID YOU EVER SPEAK WITH DR. SHAINSKY

ON THE PHONE OR IN PERSON?

A BEFORE SHE PASSED AWAY?

Q BEFORE SHE PASSED AWAY.

A I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q AT ANY POINT BETWEEN FEBRUARY 9TH, THE DAY

OF YOUR LAST VISIT WITH HER, AND MARCH 22ND, DID ANYONE

FROM DR. SHAINSKY'S OFFICE CONTACT YOU AND SAY, "DR. BOHN,

WE'D LIKE TO SEE A COPY OF THE CHART FOR TARA SO WE CAN BE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 103: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

572

FULLY INFORMED ABOUT THE EXTENT OF THIS PATIENT'S

PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY"?

A NO.

Q IS IT COMMON OR UNCOMMON FOR A TREATING

PHYSICIAN FOR ONE OF YOUR PATIENTS WHO YOU'VE BEEN

TREATING FOR YEARS TO CONTACT YOU TO SAY, "I'D LIKE TO

KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE PATIENT FROM A PSYCHIATRIC

POINT OF VIEW"? DOES THAT HAPPEN?

A WELL, YOU'RE ASKING IS IT COMMON AND DOES IT

HAPPEN?

Q STRIKE THAT. BAD QUESTION.

DOES IT HAPPEN ON OCCASION THAT YOU GET A

REQUEST FROM A TREATING PHYSICIAN FROM THE SAME PATIENT

YOU HAVE, AND THAT PATIENT WANTS TO GET A COPY OF THE

CHART?

A YES.

Q AND AFTER YOU CONSULT, I ASSUME, WITH THE

PATIENT TO GET THEIR PERMISSION --

A BACKTRACK. IT'S NOT THE PATIENT I SEND THE

CHART TO. IT WOULD BE THE PHYSICIAN.

Q BUT YOU GET THE PATIENT'S PERMISSION, I

ASSUME?

A YES.

Q AND THEN YOU SEND THE CHART TO THE

PHYSICIAN, CORRECT?

A CORRECT.

Q SO IF DR. SHAINSKY AT ANY POINT BETWEEN

FEBRUARY 2010 AND MARCH 22ND HAD CONTACTED YOU AND

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 104: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

573

REQUESTED A COPY OF THE CHART, YOU WOULD HAVE SENT THAT TO

THE DOCTOR?

A CORRECT.

Q BUT YOU NEVER GOT THAT REQUEST?

A CORRECT.

Q AND, IN FACT, AM I RIGHT THAT THE ONLY

CONTACT THAT YOU RECEIVED FROM DR. SHAINSKY UP THROUGH THE

DATE OF HER DEATH WAS A TELEPHONE MESSAGE THAT YOUR OFFICE

RECEIVED? LET'S GO TO PAGE 35 OF YOUR CHART.

DO YOU HAVE THAT DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF YOU?

A YES.

Q THIS WAS A TELEPHONE MESSAGE THAT WAS

RECEIVED BY YOUR ASSISTANT ON MARCH 22ND, 2010, AT 4:21

P.M., ASSUMING YOUR ASSISTANT GOT THE DATE AND THE TIME

CORRECT?

A YES.

Q AND IT SAYS, "DR. KAREN SHANS." THAT'S

BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T KNOW THE FULL SPELLING OF

DR. SHAINSKY'S NAME, CORRECT?

A CORRECT.

Q AND THEN A PHONE NUMBER, "RE TARA

DE ROGATIS." THEN THERE'S SOME NOTES HERE.

SO AM I CORRECT THAT YOU DIDN'T SPEAK WITH

DR. SHAINSKY ON 4/21 ON MARCH -- STRIKE THAT -- ON MARCH

22ND AT 4:00 IN THE AFTERNOON?

A CORRECT.

Q WHEN DID YOU RECEIVE THIS -- WHEN DID YOU

FIRST LISTEN TO THIS VOICE MAIL MESSAGE?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 105: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

574

A THE FOLLOWING MORNING ON MARCH 23RD.

Q AND YOU WROTE "RHEUMATOLOGIST"; IS THAT

BECAUSE DR. SHAINSKY IDENTIFIED HERSELF AS TARA'S

RHEUMATOLOGIST?

A YES.

Q AND SHE GAVE HER CALLBACK NUMBER?

A YES.

Q AND SHE TOLD YOU THAT SHE WAS TREATING TARA

FOR FIBROMYALGIA?

A CORRECT.

Q AND SHE TOLD YOU THAT THERE WERE SIGNS WITH

THIS PATIENT OF ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION?

A YES.

Q AND THEN SHE MENTIONED TO YOU IN THE VOICE

MAIL MESSAGE, DID SHE NOT, THAT THERE HAD BEEN TALK IN HER

OFFICE ABOUT SUICIDAL IDEATION ON MARCH 22ND? SHE WANTED

YOU TO KNOW ABOUT IT, RIGHT?

A YES.

Q DO YOU RECALL ANY DISCUSSION IN THIS VOICE

MAIL MESSAGE ABOUT DR. SHAINSKY TAKING THE PATIENT OFF

CYMBALTA? DO YOU RECALL THAT AS PART OF THE VOICE MAIL?

A NOT THAT I RECALL.

Q AND YOU DIDN'T WRITE IT DOWN HERE EITHER,

DID YOU? YOU DIDN'T WRITE "CYMBALTA," RIGHT?

A CORRECT.

Q AND, IN FACT, AS OF MARCH 22ND, YOU HAD NO

IDEA THAT ANYONE ELSE HAD PRESCRIBED CYMBALTA FOR YOUR

PATIENT, CORRECT?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 106: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

575

A CORRECT.

Q WOULDN'T THAT HAVE BEEN INFORMATION YOU

WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE KNOWN DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR

TREATMENT?

A CERTAINLY LIKE TO ALWAYS KNOW WHAT

MEDICATIONS PEOPLE ARE GETTING.

Q IT WOULD HAVE BEEN USEFUL, WOULD IT NOT?

A YES. TARA WAS QUITE CHAOTIC AND WAS

PROBABLY ON AND OFF LOTS OF DIFFERENT MEDICATIONS THAT I

NEVER KNEW ABOUT.

Q LET ME ASK YOU THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: IF

YOU HAD SPOKEN TO DR. SHAINSKY ON MARCH 22ND AND SHE HAD

INFORMED YOU THAT SHE WAS ABOUT TO WRITE A PRESCRIPTION

FOR 100 PERCOCET TABLETS, GIVE IT TO TARA, WOULD YOU HAVE

HAD ANY RESPONSE AT ALL? WOULD YOU HAVE TOLD HER, "I

DON'T THINK THAT'S SUCH A GOOD IDEA"?

MR. BLESSEY: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. RELEVANCE.

LACKS FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

BY MR. NEWHOUSE:

Q WHEN SOMEONE CALLS YOUR OFFICE AND THEY

LEAVE A MESSAGE FOR YOU, DO YOU HAVE INSTRUCTIONS ON THERE

FOR HOW THEY CAN GET AHOLD OF YOU IF IT'S URGENT?

A YES.

Q THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION, CERTAINLY NOT

DIRECTED AT YOU, BUT THAT SOMETIMES IT'S HARD TO GET AHOLD

OF PSYCHIATRISTS DURING THE DAY.

HAVE YOU HEARD THOSE COMPLAINTS?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 107: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

576

A I'VE CERTAINLY HEARD COMPLAINTS ALONG THOSE

LINES.

Q AND IS THAT BECAUSE PSYCHIATRISTS TEND TO BE

IN SESSION DURING THE DAY WITH THEIR PATIENTS, SO

SOMETIMES IT'S HARD TO GET THEM DIRECTLY ON THE PHONE?

A YES. BUT USUALLY I -- I'M ABLE TO GET BACK

TO PEOPLE WITHIN AN HOUR OR 2.

Q SO YOU TRY TO BE RESPONSIVE, DO YOU NOT?

A YES.

Q AND IF SOMEONE -- IF ANOTHER DOCTOR IS

CALLING AND THAT DOCTOR THINKS IT'S URGENT, IS THERE A WAY

OF GETTING THROUGH TO YOU?

A YES.

Q HOW -- WHAT IS YOUR PROCEDURE TO ENSURE THAT

PEOPLE WHO HAVE AN URGENT MESSAGE CAN REACH YOU?

A THEY CAN CALL MY EMERGENCY NUMBER, AND THEN

MY EXCHANGE PAGES ME.

Q DID THAT HAPPEN IN THIS CASE?

A NO.

Q YOU DID FINALLY SPEAK WITH DR. SHAINSKY THE

DAY AFTER TARA'S DEATH; IS THAT CORRECT?

A YES.

Q DID DR. SHAINSKY CALL YOU OR DID YOU CALL

HER?

A I MIGHT HAVE BEEN RETURNING HER CALL. OH,

LET'S SEE.

Q LET'S GO TO 60, PAGE 60, MARCH 23RD, 2010,

1:48 -- I GUESS MUST BE P.M. HERE IT IS. 2:00 P.M.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 108: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

577

LET'S LOOK AT THE FIRST -- LET'S LOOK AT THE TOP ONE

FIRST.

YOU GOT A CALL FROM DAVID?

A YES.

Q IS THAT HOW YOU LEARNED THAT TARA HAD TAKEN

HER LIFE?

A YES.

Q AND THEN THE NEXT MESSAGE AT 2:02 -- AT 2:02

P.M. YOU GOT A CALL FROM DR. SHAINSKY, DID YOU NOT?

A YES.

Q AND WHAT DID YOUR ASSISTANT WRITE AS THIS

MESSAGE?

A IT SAYS, "I LEFT YOU A MESSAGE YESTERDAY. I

STILL HAVEN'T HEARD FROM YOU. PLEASE CALL BACK ON MY

CELL. TARA HAS TAKEN HER LIFE."

Q SO THAT GOT YOUR ATTENTION?

A YES.

Q AND YOU CALLED HER BACK?

A CAN I LET YOU KNOW WHAT I DID PREVIOUS TO

THAT?

Q PLEASE.

A SO PREVIOUS, WHEN I SAW THAT I -- SAW HER

MESSAGE THE FOLLOWING MORNING ON THE 23RD, THEN I CALLED

TARA TO GET PERMISSION TO SPEAK TO DR. SHAINSKY, AND SO I

WAS WAITING TO HEAR BACK FROM TARA, WHO, OF COURSE,

COULDN'T CALL ME BACK, TO GIVE ME PERMISSION.

SO, YES, I WAS --

Q AT THIS POINT TARA'S PERMISSION CANNOT BE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 109: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

578

OBTAINED?

A THAT'S RIGHT.

Q SO YOU CALLED DR. SHAINSKY?

A SO I RETURNED HER CALL, YES.

Q AND DESCRIBE THAT CONVERSATION WITH

DR. SHAINSKY.

A WE BOTH TALKED ABOUT HOW TRAGIC THIS WAS AND

THAT -- AND I DON'T THINK THERE WAS MUCH MORE THAN THAT.

I DON'T REALLY REMEMBER ANY OTHER SPECIFIC CONTENT, JUST

TALKING ABOUT HOW DISTURBING IT WAS THAT SHE HAD TAKEN HER

LIFE.

Q DID DR. SHAINSKY SAY THAT TARA SEEMED

STRESSED IN THE MEETING WITH HER THE DAY BEFORE?

A I DON'T RECALL.

Q DID DR. SHAINSKY TELL YOU THAT SHE HAD

PRESCRIBED THE DAY BEFORE 100 TABLETS OF PERCOCET TO THIS

PATIENT?

A I DON'T BELIEVE SO, ALTHOUGH DAVID TOLD ME

THAT.

MR. NEWHOUSE: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.

THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. CROSS-EXAMINATION?

MR. BLESSEY: YES, YOUR HONOR.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. BLESSEY:

Q GOOD MORNING, DR. BOHN.

A GOOD MORNING.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 110: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

579

Q ARE YOU ABLE TO BE WITH US THIS AFTERNOON?

A NO, I CAN'T. I HAVE PATIENTS SCHEDULED.

MR. BLESSEY: YOUR HONOR, WE'LL NEED TO DEAL WITH

THAT.

THE COURT: UNFORTUNATELY, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO

ORDER YOU BACK AT 1:30.

THE WITNESS: I HAVE --

THE COURT: EITHER THAT OR I'M GOING TO HAVE TO

STRIKE ALL YOUR TESTIMONY. IT'S ONLY FAIR TO THE OPPOSING

SIDE THAT THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO CROSS-EXAMINE YOU.

THE WITNESS: HOW ABOUT WE GO UNTIL 12:30 OR SO?

THE COURT: WE CAN DO THAT. WE NEED TO TAKE A

BREAK AT NOON PERHAPS FOR 10 MINUTES; CAN WE DO THAT?

MR. BLESSEY: YOUR HONOR, WHATEVER YOU DO --

THE COURT: I'M TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE YOU, BUT YOU

UNDERSTAND, I'VE GOT JURORS HERE, YOU KNOW, AND PARTIES,

MYSELF.

THE WITNESS: I UNDERSTAND, ALTHOUGH, AGAIN, I WAS

HERE AT NINE O'CLOCK.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M JUST TELLING

YOU THAT THOSE ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND, YOU KNOW, I'VE

GOT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT EVERYBODY HAS THEIR FAIR SHARE IN

THIS COURTROOM. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

THE WITNESS: YES.

THE COURT: SO IT'S IMPORTANT IF WE WANT YOUR

TESTIMONY, THAT THEY HAVE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO

CROSS-EXAMINE YOU. I'LL DO WHAT I CAN DO. LET'S GET

STARTED.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 111: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

580

BY MR. BLESSEY:

Q OKAY. DR. BOHN, YOU HEARD A LOT ABOUT THREE

OR SO YEARS THAT YOU TREATED MS. DE ROGATIS. YOU KNEW HER

WELL FROM A PSYCHIATRIC STANDPOINT; WOULD YOU AGREE?

A RELATIVELY WELL. AGAIN, I ONLY SAW HER

MAYBE 18 TIMES OR SO.

Q 18 TIMES OVER THE PERIOD OF 2007, UP UNTIL

FEBRUARY 9, 2010, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q ALL RIGHT. AND YOU TOLD THE JURY ABOUT THIS

SPECTRUM OF SUICIDE IDEATION PROGRESSING ALL THE WAY UP TO

SUICIDE INTENT; IS THAT FAIR TO SAY?

A YES.

Q AND YOU TOLD THE JURY THAT SUICIDE IDEATION

IS NOT THAT UNCOMMON A PHENOMENON IN A PATIENT WHO IS

DEPRESSED FROM TIME TO TIME OR ANXIOUS, CORRECT?

A ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, YES.

Q KNOWING EVERYTHING THAT YOU KNEW ABOUT

MS. DE ROGATIS UP TO THE TIME OF FEBRUARY THE 9TH, 2010,

YOU TOLD US IN DEPOSITION THAT YOU ASSESSED HER RISK OF

SUICIDE ON THE LOW END OF THE SPECTRUM, TRUE?

A TRUE.

Q NOW, I WANT YOU TO TAKE A LOOK BACK AT YOUR

NOTE, AND I BELIEVE IT'S 115-34.

AND WHAT I'D LIKE YOU TO DO, DOCTOR, IS TO

TELL US THE NAMES -- WELL, LET ME DO IT THIS WAY: MAYBE

IT WILL BE QUICKER ONCE YOU'RE ON THAT PAGE.

WE'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED -- IT LOOKS LIKE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 112: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

581

YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PAGE RIGHT NOW, CORRECT?

A CORRECT.

Q WE'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT YOU KNEW

EVERYTHING YOU TOLD US ABOUT IN REGARDS TO TARA

DE ROGATIS, PLUS THE FACT THAT SHE HAD BEEN TREATED AT

THIS POINT IN TIME WITH AN OPIATE, NORCO, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q YOU WERE AWARE OF THAT?

A YES.

Q DID YOU PICK UP THE PHONE AT ANY POINT IN

TIME OR ATTEMPT TO FIND OUT THE NAME OF THE DOCTOR THAT

WAS PRESCRIBING NORCO FOR YOUR PATIENT AND ADVISE THAT

DOCTOR THAT, "HEY, THEY BETTER STOP THAT NORCO RIGHT

AWAY"? DID YOU DO THAT?

A NO.

Q WHY NOT?

A IT'S A REASONABLE TREATMENT FOR PAIN. AND,

ALSO, I EXPECTED HER TO SEE ME AGAIN ON A REGULAR BASIS.

Q IN FACT, YOU EXPECTED HER TO COME AND SEE

YOU ON MARCH THE 24TH, 2010, CORRECT?

A ORIGINALLY, I ASKED HER TO COME IN THE

FOLLOWING WEEK, BUT THEN SHE POSTPONED IT UNTIL THE 24TH.

Q DID YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE ON

FEBRUARY THE 9TH, 2010, KNOWING EVERYTHING THAT YOU KNEW

ABOUT THIS YOUNG LADY FROM A PSYCHIATRIC STANDPOINT, THAT

SHE WOULD GO HOME AND TAKE A LETHAL LEVEL OF NORCO AT SOME

POINT AFTER SHE LEFT YOUR OFFICE?

MR. NEWHOUSE: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 113: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

582

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: ABSOLUTELY NOT.

BY MR. BLESSEY:

Q NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT MEDICATIONS YOU

PRESCRIBED ON FEBRUARY THE 9TH, AND I THINK THE QUICKEST

WAY TO DO IT, YOU -- ONE OF THE MEDICATIONS YOU WANTED

MS. DE ROGATIS TO TAKE AS OF THIS DATE WAS LUNESTA,

CORRECT?

A CORRECT.

Q AND DID YOU -- AS OF FEBRUARY THE 9TH, 2010,

DID YOU HAVE A CONCERN WHEN YOU PRESCRIBED LUNESTA TO

MS. DE ROGATIS THAT SHE WOULD LEAVE YOUR OFFICE, GO HOME

AND TAKE A LETHAL TO TOXIC AMOUNT OF LUNESTA?

MR. NEWHOUSE: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE.

THE COURT: IT WILL BE SUBJECT TO BEING STRICKEN IF

YOU CAN'T TIE IT UP. OVERRULED.

MR. NEWHOUSE: THANK YOU.

THE WITNESS: NO.

BY MR. BLESSEY:

Q HOW ABOUT AMBIEN? DID YOU HAVE A CONCERN --

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, BACK UP.

YOU WERE RECOMMENDING THAT SHE TAKE AMBIEN

AS OF FEBRUARY THE 9TH, 2010, CORRECT?

A I WANTED HER TO SLEEP. I CAN'T REMEMBER

EXACTLY WHAT THE MEDICATIONS WERE, IF THEY WERE -- I KNOW

LUNESTA WAS ONE OF THEM. I DON'T REMEMBER IF AMBIEN WAS

ONE.

Q YOUR NOTE SAYS "AMBIEN" ON IT.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 114: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

583

A OKAY. SO IN A PATIENT LIKE HER, IT'S VERY

IMPORTANT TO SLEEP. AND IF PEOPLE WITH HER TYPES OF

SYMPTOMS DON'T SLEEP, THEN THEY CAN GET WORSE.

Q ALL RIGHT. AND YOU ALSO PRESCRIBED SEROQUEL

FOR MS. DE ROGATIS AS OF FEBRUARY THE 9TH, 2010, CORRECT?

A CORRECT.

Q DID YOU HAVE A CONCERN THAT SHE MIGHT LEAVE

YOUR OFFICE ON FEBRUARY THE 9TH, 2010, AND INGEST A LETHAL

LEVEL OF SEROQUEL?

MR. NEWHOUSE: OBJECTION. IT'S NOW CUMULATIVE,

YOUR HONOR. IT'S THE SAME ANSWER.

THE COURT: THIS IS A SEPARATE DRUG. OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO.

BY MR. BLESSEY:

Q WHY NOT? AS TO ALL THREE DRUGS, YOU

PRESCRIBED LUNESTA, AMBIEN, SEROQUEL.

WHY DIDN'T YOU HAVE A CONCERN THAT SHE MIGHT

LEAVE YOUR OFFICE, GO HOME, AND INGEST TOXIC TO LETHAL

LEVELS OF THESE MEDICATIONS?

A I DIDN'T PERCEIVE ANY CHANGE IN HER CHRONIC

LEVEL OF SUICIDAL THOUGHTS.

Q AND YOU FELT COMFORTABLE, KNOWING HER THE

WAY YOU KNEW, TO PRESCRIBE THESE DRUGS FOR HER, CORRECT?

A YES.

Q THE DILEMMA THAT A PHYSICIAN LIKE YOU HAS,

AND ANY PHYSICIAN TREATING A PATIENT LIKE THIS HAS, YOU

HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO TREAT THEIR CONDITIONS, CORRECT?

A YES.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 115: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

584

Q AND AT ANY POINT IN TIME AGAINST MEDICAL

ADVICE, POTENTIALLY, THEY COULD GO HOME AND INGEST

MULTIPLE MEDICATIONS AND TAKE THEIR OWN LIFE, CORRECT?

A YES. AND IN ADDITION, IF YOU DON'T TREAT

THEIR SYMPTOMS, THEIR SUICIDAL THOUGHTS WILL GET WORSE.

Q INCLUDING PAIN, IF YOU DON'T TREAT THEIR

PAIN, CORRECT?

A PERHAPS.

Q NOW, LET'S TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT SUICIDE.

YOU WOULD AGREE, WOULD YOU NOT, THAT SUICIDE

COMMONLY IS UNPREDICTABLE AND UNPREVENTABLE; WOULD YOU

AGREE WITH THAT?

A NO, NOT EXACTLY.

Q WELL, DID YOU PREDICT ON FEBRUARY THE 9TH --

A I'M SORRY. COULD YOU STATE YOUR QUESTION

AGAIN?

THE COURT: LET'S DEAL WITH THIS PARTICULAR

INDIVIDUAL.

MR. BLESSEY: SURE.

Q DID YOU COME TO FORM AN IMPRESSION AS TO

MS. DE ROGATIS, THAT HER ACT OF SUICIDE WAS IMPULSIVE?

A YES.

Q AND DID YOU HAVE A BELIEF BASED ON

EVERYTHING THAT YOU KNEW THAT THAT IMPULSIVE ACT WAS

UNPREDICTABLE?

A YES.

MR. NEWHOUSE: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION,

YOUR HONOR.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 116: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

585

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

BY MR. BLESSEY:

Q AND THEREFORE, UNPREVENTABLE, CORRECT?

MR. NEWHOUSE: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. AGAIN,

THERE'S NO BASIS --

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. NEWHOUSE: THERE'S NO BASIS FOR THIS OPINION.

IT'S IRRELEVANT.

BY MR. BLESSEY:

Q YOU CAN ANSWER.

THE COURT: YOU'RE A TREATING PSYCHIATRIST. GO

AHEAD. YOU CAN TELL US.

THE WITNESS: NO. I THINK IT WAS VERY IMPULSIVE

AND SURPRISING AND, I THINK, SHOCKED EVERYBODY, INCLUDING

DAVID, WHO LIVED WITH HER.

MR. BLESSEY: OUT OF RESPECT TO DR. BOHN'S TIME,

YOUR HONOR, I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR HIM.

THE COURT: OKAY. REDIRECT?

MR. NEWHOUSE: NO REDIRECT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, DOCTOR. YOU'RE EXCUSED.

DOES THAT GET YOU OUT IN TIME?

THE WITNESS: YES, IT DOES. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU FOR COMING IN.

LET'S TAKE OUR NOON RECESS, LADIES AND

GENTLEMEN, UNTIL 1:30. AGAIN, PLEASE REMEMBER THE

ADMONITIONS OF THE COURT. DO NOT DISCUSS THE FACTS OF

THIS CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES OR WITH ANYBODY ELSE. DO NOT

FORM ANY OPINIONS OR CONCLUSIONS ON THIS MATTER UNTIL IT'S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 117: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

586

FINALLY SUBMITTED TO YOU. COURT'S IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30.

(THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL

1:38 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 118: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

587

CASE NUMBER: BC457891

CASE NAME: DE ROGATIS VS. SHAINSKY

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2013

DEPARTMENT P HON. JAN A. PLUIM, JUDGE

APPEARANCES: (AS HERETOFORE NOTED)

REPORTER: KAREN E. KAY, CSR NO. 3862 TIME: P.M. SESSION

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD

IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF

THE JURY:)

THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. ALL JURORS ARE PRESENT AND IN

PLACE. PARTIES ARE PRESENT. LAWYERS ARE PRESENT.

AND, SIR, CAN YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND TO

BE SWORN?

THE CLERK: DO YOU SOLEMNLY STATE THAT THE

TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE

THIS COURT SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND

NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD?

THE WITNESS: I DO.

THE CLERK: COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND

SPELL YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: MY NAME IS PETER DE ROGATIS,

P-E-T-E-R, D-E, CAPITAL R, -O-G-A-T-I-S.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, SIR.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 119: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

588

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. YOU MAY PROCEED.

MR. NEWHOUSE: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

PETER DE ROGATIS,

A PLAINTIFF HEREIN, WAS DULY SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS

FOLLOWS:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. NEWHOUSE:

Q GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. DE ROGATIS.

A GOOD AFTERNOON.

Q YOU'RE ONE OF THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS IN THIS

CASE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A THAT IS CORRECT.

Q ARE YOU CURRENTLY MARRIED, SIR?

A YES, I AM.

Q WHO IS YOUR CURRENT WIFE?

A MY CURRENT WIFE IS LINDA DE ROGATIS, LINDA

B. DE ROGATIS.

Q AND YOUR CO-PLAINTIFF IS ALSO LINDA

DE ROGATIS?

A YES. THAT IS LINDA A. DE ROGATIS.

Q A LITTLE CONFUSING AT TIMES?

A JUST A BIT.

Q ALL RIGHT. BUT TWO DIFFERENT LINDA'S?

A TWO DIFFERENT LINDA'S, YES.

Q TARA DE ROGATIS WAS YOUR DAUGHTER?

A YES, SHE WAS.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 120: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

589

Q HOW ARE YOU CURRENTLY EMPLOYED?

A I WORK WITH WEICHERT FINANCIAL SERVICES.

I'M A MORTGAGE CONSULTANT.

Q AND WHERE DO YOU CURRENTLY RESIDE?

A I RESIDE IN STEWARTSVILLE, NEW JERSEY.

Q WHERE IS THAT LOCATED?

A THAT'S LOCATED WEST -- WEST NEW JERSEY

TOWARDS THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, JUST ABOUT ON THE

BORDER NEAR A WELL-KNOWN TOWN THAT'S KNOWN AS

PHILLIPSBURG, WHICH IS A BIGGER CITY.

Q HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED THERE?

A I'VE LIVED THERE APPROXIMATELY 11 YEARS.

Q JUST IN A SUMMARY FASHION, TRACE YOUR

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY SINCE YOU RETURNED -- WELL, STRIKE

THAT.

WHEN DID YOU RETURN TO NEW JERSEY AFTER

LIVING IN CALIFORNIA WITH LINDA A.?

A I RETURNED TO NEW JERSEY IN EARLY TO LATE

'90, 1992.

Q AND JUST IN A NUTSHELL, GIVE US -- TRACE

YOUR EMPLOYMENT HISTORY SINCE YOU RETURNED TO NEW JERSEY

IN 1992.

A WELL, IN 1992 I WENT BACK TO WORK WITH A

COMPANY I ORIGINALLY WORKED FOR WITH WEICHERT FINANCIAL

SERVICES, WHO I'M CURRENTLY WITH, AND I WORKED FOR THEM

ABOUT EIGHT-AND-A-HALF YEARS PRIOR TO THE 2007 MELTDOWN,

WHERE WE WERE DISPERSED AND LET GO, AND TOOK UP A JOB AS A

BANKER INSIDE OF A SMALL BANK, OR A BIG BANK NOW, KNOWN AS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 121: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

590

PNC MORTGAGE.

Q AT THE TIME OF TARA'S DEATH IN MARCH 2010,

WHO WERE YOU WORKING FOR?

A AT THE TIME IN 2010, I WAS WORKING FOR PNC

BANK AT THAT TIME.

Q AND YOUR POSITION WAS SENIOR LOAN OFFICER?

A THAT IS CORRECT.

Q AND WHAT WERE YOUR TYPICAL HOURS AT THAT

TIME?

A I WOULD WORK AN AVERAGE OF 8 TO 10,

SOMETIMES 12 HOURS A DAY BASED ON MY CUSTOMERS' NEEDS. I

SECURE -- I WORK WITH INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES THAT LOOK

TO SECURE MORTGAGES FOR THEIR DREAM OF HOMEOWNERSHIP. AND

I SECURE VETERAN ADMINISTRATION LOANS AND THE FEDERAL

HOUSING ADMINISTRATION LOANS FOR THOSE LESS FORTUNATE WHO

NEED VERY LIBERAL GUIDELINES FOR LENDING AS WELL AS VERY

LITTLE BIT OF MONEY DOWN. SO IT'S -- IT'S A LITTLE BIT

MORE IN DEPTH AS FAR AS REQUIREMENTS FOR THEM, BUT

CERTAINLY THE TIME PUT INTO THEIR NEED IS VERY KEY IN

GETTING THEM TO GET TO OBVIOUSLY OBTAINING THAT DREAM OF

HOMEOWNERSHIP.

Q HOW DID YOU MEET LINDA A. DE ROGATIS, SIR?

A I MET LINDA A. DE ROGATIS IN EMERSON

COLLEGE. I WAS A SENIOR, GOING INTO MY SENIOR YEAR, AND

LINDA WAS ATTENDING EMERSON INTO HER JUNIOR YEAR.

Q AND, AGAIN, HOW MANY YEARS WERE YOU AND

LINDA A. DE ROGATIS MARRIED?

A JUST ABOUT 13 YEARS.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 122: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

591

Q NOW, I'M GOING TO FOCUS THE REST OF OUR TALK

ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH TARA, OKAY?

A YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

Q DID YOU LOVE TARA AS A PARENT LOVES A CHILD?

A YES, I DID.

Q LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION -- WE HAVE SOME

EXHIBITS FOR YOU. LET'S LOOK FIRST AT EXHIBIT 121-3.

SHOULD BE A PHOTOGRAPH -- WE HAVE THE BINDERS HERE,

MR. DE ROGATIS.

(MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION, JOINT

EXHIBIT 121-3, PHOTO OF

MR. DE ROGATIS, TARA DE ROGATIS,

AND P.J. DE ROGATIS.)

BY MR. NEWHOUSE:

Q LET'S LOOK AT 121. DO YOU HAVE THAT?

A YES, I DO.

Q CAN YOU IDENTIFY THAT PHOTOGRAPH, PLEASE?

A YES. THAT'S ME, MY DAUGHTER TARA TO MY

LEFT, AND MY SON P.J. TO MY RIGHT.

MR. NEWHOUSE: YOUR HONOR, I'D OFFER 121-3 IN

EVIDENCE.

MS. TAZZARA: NO OBJECTION.

THE COURT: RECEIVED.

(RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE, JOINT

EXHIBIT 121-3.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 123: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

592

MR. NEWHOUSE:

Q I SEE A MUCH YOUNGER PETER DE ROGATIS; IS

THAT CORRECT?

A YEAH, MUCH YOUNGER INDEED.

Q WHEN WAS THIS PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN?

A THIS WAS MY RETURN TO NEW JERSEY, I WOULD

SAY, '90, '92, EARLY '93.

Q AND TARA IS -- TARA IS HERE ON YOUR LEFT?

A YES, SHE IS.

Q AND WAS SHE LIVING WITH YOU AT THE TIME?

A NO, SHE WASN'T.

Q WHO WAS SHE LIVING WITH?

A SHE WAS LIVING WITH HER MOM. THAT WAS A

FAMILY GATHERING. I HAVE A LARGE FAMILY IN NEW JERSEY,

MANY, MANY BROTHERS AND SISTERS. AND THEY HAVE A LOT OF

PARTIES, SO THEY ATTENDED THIS PARTY WITH ME, AND THEY

WERE THERE WITH ME. AND EVERYBODY OF COURSE WAS GLAD TO

SEE THEM. IT WAS A VERY, VERY FESTIVE AND WONDERFUL TIME

AND EXPERIENCE TOGETHER. I HAD NOT SEEN THEM FOR A COUPLE

OF MONTHS PRIOR TO LEAVING.

Q THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IN WHAT AREAS DID TARA SHOW TALENT OR

INTEREST AS A CHILD?

A TARA SHOWED A LOT OF INTEREST VERY EARLY ON.

I NOTICED A VIBRANCE IN HER NATURE, MAKEUP AS A CHILD.

SHE ALSO WAS VERY ARTISTIC. I NOTICED THAT SHE HAD A

PASSION FOR ATHLETICS AND A KEEN SENSE OF UNDERSTANDING.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 124: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

593

SHE SEEMED TO KNOW EARLY ON -- LIKE UNDERSTANDING WORDS

AND REPEATING WORDS TO ME OR TO HER MOM AS WELL. AS LINDA

INDICATED EARLIER, SHE WAS A VERY BRIGHT YOUNG CHILD.

Q DID YOU PARTICIPATE EVEN AFTER TARA WAS

LIVING WITH MOM IN CALIFORNIA IN TARA'S UPBRINGING?

A VERY MUCH SO.

Q YOU MENTIONED ATHLETICS. DID YOU COACH ANY

OF HER TEAMS?

A FUNNY YOU SHOULD BRING THAT UP. YES, I DID.

I WAS A COACH IN THE -- IN CALIFORNIA. WE HAD -- WE WERE

ASKED -- WE WERE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN A FLAG FOOTBALL

TEAM IN OUR LOCAL DISTRICT, AND WE WERE THE LAST TEAM TO

ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE BECAUSE THEY WERE RUNNING SHORT ON

KIDS.

AND FLAG FOOTBALL, BASICALLY, IF YOU KNOW

THAT, IT'S MOSTLY A LOT OF YOUNG BOYS, AND THEY WERE

BETWEEN THE AGES OF LIKE EIGHT AND 12. AND WE KIND OF IN

THE DRAFT GOT IN LATE, SO WE DIDN'T HAVE A GOOD DRAFT. SO

WE WERE SHORT A PERSON, AND THEY SAID WE COULD PLAY WITH

ONE PERSON SHORT OR WE COULD RECRUIT ANOTHER PERSON. SO I

APPROACHED MY DAUGHTER, WHO WAS -- ALWAYS HAD THE ZEAL TO

WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN ATHLETICS. BEING THAT SHE WAS VERY

GOOD AT DANCE, AS WELL AS GYMNASTICS, SHE SAID, "I WOULD

LOVE TO, DAD. I'D LOVE TO PLAY FLAG FOOTBALL." SO I

RECRUITED HER. AND I SAID, "TARA, OKAY, YOU'RE GOING TO

BE -- IT'S FLAG FOOTBALL. YOU'RE GOING TO BE ON THE LINE

DEFENSIVELY." SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANT.

SHE SAID, "WHAT DO I DO, DAD?"

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 125: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

594

I SAID, "WELL, YOU BASICALLY -- YOU SEE,

THERE'S WHERE THE LINEUP IS. YOU SEE THE QUARTERBACK

THERE? HE'S GOT TWO FLAGS ON. YOU GET TO HIM AND GET

THAT FLAG AND YOU PULL THE FLAG OFF HIM."

SHE SAYS, "I CAN DO THAT."

SURE ENOUGH, THE BALL IS HIKED. THERE'S

TARA FLYING RIGHT BY EVERYBODY. SHE GRABBED THE TAG, THE

FLAG, AND PULLED IT DOWN. SO I'M WATCHING THIS AND I'M

SAYING, YOU KNOW, HOW IS SHE -- SHE WAS DOING THIS EVERY

SINGLE DOWN, GETTING INTO THE QUARTERBACK. AND I AM

SAYING TO MYSELF, HOW IS SHE DOING THIS? AND SHE WOULD GO

IN. AS I WATCHED HER, SHE WOULD GO IN LIKE THIS. AND THE

BOYS, THEY WERE AFRAID BECAUSE SHE WAS A GIRL. SHE MAY

HAVE HAD NAILS AND WOULD SCRATCH THEM. SO SHE WOULD COME

AT THEM LIKE THIS, I GUESS FRIGHTEN THEM, AND THEY WOULD

MOVE AWAY AND MAKE AN EASY LINE FOR HER TO GET RIGHT TO

THE QUARTERBACK. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT WORKED KIND OF WELL.

TARA BEING WHAT SHE WAS, SHE SAID, "YOU

KNOW, DAD. I'M DOING THIS A LOT, AND IT'S KIND OF BORING

ME. CAN I CATCH THE BALL, TOO?"

I SAID, "ABSOLUTELY, TARA. THIS IS WHAT YOU

DO." WE WENT INTO A HUDDLE. I SAID, "OKAY. TARA, YOU'RE

JUST GOING TO RUN A LITTLE, 5 YARDS OUT, TURN AROUND AND

THE QUARTERBACK'S GOING TO THROW YOU THE BALL. AND YOU

JUST RUN -- TURN AROUND AND RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN TO THE

OTHER END OF THE FIELD." SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT A GOAL WAS

OR ANYTHING.

SO SURE ENOUGH, TARA GETS ON THE LINE. THEY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 126: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

595

HIKED THE BALL. SHE RUNS A LITTLE FLARE. YOU HIT HER

WITH A PASS. TARA TURNED AROUND, AND ALL I COULD SEE

GOING DOWN THE LEFT END OF THE FIELD WAS TARA LIKE THIS,

PUSHING PEOPLE AWAY WHILE SHE'S RUNNING FOR THE TOUCHDOWN,

AND SHE MADE IT. AND SHE WAS, OF COURSE, OVERJOYED, AND

EVERYBODY WAS OVERJOYED.

AND I THINK SHE KIND OF AT THAT POINT WON

THE TRUST OF HER TEAMMATES, THE PEOPLE ON THE -- THE

PEOPLE WE WERE PLAYING. AND THE REST OF THE SEASON, YOU

KNOW, WENT AS IT DID. WE DIDN'T FARE TOO WELL BECAUSE WE

DIDN'T HAVE MUCH OF A RUNNING GAME.

Q I THINK ACTUALLY YOU'VE ANSWERED THE

QUESTION.

A OH, SORRY ABOUT THAT. I GET CARRIED AWAY

WITH THE EVENT.

Q SORRY TO INTERRUPT.

I WANT TO SWITCH GEARS A LITTLE BIT AND TALK

ABOUT HER ACTING CAREER.

AT WHAT POINT IN HER LIFE DID SHE SHOW AN

AFFINITY FOR ACTING?

A WELL, LET ME CLARIFY SOMETHING, OKAY? I'VE

HEARD A LOT OF TESTIMONY ABOUT TARA THE ACTRESS, YOU KNOW.

Q YES.

A TARA DID NOT GO TO SCHOOL AS AN ACTRESS;

THAT WAS NOT HER INTENTION. TARA WENT TO SCHOOL TO STUDY

FILM, MIXED MEDIA, AND PHOTOGRAPHY; THAT WAS HER PASSION.

AS HER MOTHER IT INDICATED IN THE TESTIMONY

EARLIER, SHE WAS A FABULOUS ONE AT WRITING SCENES,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 127: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

596

PERFORMING THEM. HER AND HER GIRLFRIEND WOULD COME OVER,

USING MY SON AS A BUTLER OR, YOU KNOW, AN EXTRA IN A PLAY

OR A MOVIE. THAT WAS TARA. TARA WAS CREATIVE IN HER

MIND, THAT WHEN SHE HAD SOMETHING TO DO AS FAR AS A PLAY

OR A MOVIE, SHE WOULD RECORD IT, WRITE IT, AND THEY WOULD

PRODUCE IT, THE TWO LITTLE KIDS. THESE KIDS COULDN'T BE

MORE THAN 11 OR 12 YEARS OLD. AND THIS IS WHAT SHE DID.

THAT WAS NOT HER INTENTION, TO GO TO EMERSON

TO BECOME AN ACTRESS. TARA BECAME INTERESTED IN ACTING

MUCH LATER, AFTER SCHOOL, WHEN SHE GRADUATED IN 2004 AND

DID START TO PURSUE AN ACTING CAREER AS AN AVOCATION --

GET THAT STRAIGHT, AVOCATION -- PROBABLY AROUND THE END OF

2006 AND EARLY 2007.

Q DID THERE COME A TIME WHEN YOU ASSISTED

TARA, HOWEVER, WITH HER ACTING OR AUDITIONS?

A MANY TIMES. WHEN TARA DID DECIDE TO PURSUE

ACTING AS AN AVOCATION, SHE CONSULTED IN ME. I WOULD CALL

HER. SHE WOULD SAY, "DAD, I'M GOING TO GO FOR THIS

AUDITION. I HAVE THIS SIDE. COULD YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND

WHAT I NEED TO DO IN THIS SCENE?"

AND I'D SAY, "OKAY. READ IT TO ME."

SHE WOULD READ ME THE SCENE.

I'D GO OVER SOME OF THE OBSTACLES, ACTIONS,

YOU KNOW, THE OBJECTIVES IN THE SCENE, WHICH IS BASICALLY

WHAT ACTORS WOULD DO TO RIP APART A PLAY OR A SCENE TO

UNDERSTAND WHO THE CHARACTER WAS.

AND, YOU KNOW, SHE WOULD SAY, "DAD, YOU

KNOW, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT HERE?"

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 128: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

597

I SAID, "THINK ABOUT WHAT IS YOUR GOAL IN

THIS SCENE, TARA? WHAT DO YOU WANT TO GET TO? YOUR GOAL

IS SOMETHING YOU WANT. YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT. YOUR

OBSTACLE IS WHAT'S PREVENTING YOU FROM GETTING YOU THERE.

AND THE ACTION IN THE SCENE IS WHAT YOU DO TO GET IT, TO

THAT GOAL AND WHETHER YOU SUCCEED OR FAIL." AND THAT'S IN

EVERY SINGLE SCENE AND EVERY FILM OR PLAY THAT YOU WOULD

EVER OBSERVE.

Q DID YOU HAVE ANY ACTING -- DO YOU HAVE AN

ACTING BACKGROUND?

A WELL, YEAH. I STUDIED DRAMATIC ARTS AND

COMMUNICATIONS AT EMERSON. TARA WAS A SECOND-GENERATION

EMERSONIAN. MY DEGREE IS IN COMMUNICATIONS AND THEATER

ARTS. THEREFORE, I DID HAVE A BACKGROUND AND KNOWLEDGE OF

WHAT AN ACTOR DOES AND HOW HE PREPARES AND STIPULATES AND

BREAKS DOWN A CHARACTER AND CREATES THEM AS THEIR OWN.

I'D ALWAYS TELL TARA, "YOUR LIFE IS YOUR

EXPERIENCE AS A ACTOR, AND YOU GOT TO DRAW FROM YOUR LIFE

EXPERIENCE TO MAKE IT REAL, WHETHER YOU'RE IN FILM, IN

FRONT OF THE CAMERA, OR IF YOU'RE ON STAGE, MORE SO IN THE

SPECTACLE OF THE STAGE BECAUSE YOU'RE IN FRONT OF PEOPLE,

AND THEY HAVE TO BELIEVE IN A LARGER SENSE OF LIFE WHAT

YOU'RE TRYING TO CONVEY TO THEM."

Q WHEN YOU MOVED BACK TO NEW JERSEY IN 1991

AND REMARRIED, DID TARA CONTINUE FOR A WHILE TO LIVE WITH

HER MOM?

A YES, SHE DID.

Q HERE IN L.A., CORRECT?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 129: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

598

A YES, SHE DID.

Q DID SHE NONETHELESS REMAIN CLOSE TO YOU AND

YOUR FAMILY?

A TARA LOVED MY FAMILY. SHE REMAINED VERY

CLOSE. I WOULD SEE MY DAUGHTER THREE TO FOUR TIMES A

YEAR. SHE WOULD COME OUT DURING THE SUMMERS.

IN FACT, I RECALL ONE SUMMER SHE HAD

ACTUALLY APPLIED FOR A SCHOLARSHIP FOR CHOREOGRAPHY AND

DANCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTCLAIR STATE IN NEW JERSEY.

Q MR. DE ROGATIS, YOU'VE ANSWERED THE

QUESTION.

A SORRY.

Q I WANT TO TRANSITION AND HAVE YOU LOOK AT

EXHIBIT 121-5, WHICH SHOULD BE ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPH.

(MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION, JOINT

EXHIBIT 121-5, PHOTO OF

MR. DE ROGATIS, MS. LINDA B.

DE ROGATIS, SAMANTHA, AND TARA

DE ROGATIS.)

BY MR. NEWHOUSE:

Q HANDSOME-LOOKING GROUP.

DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT PHOTOGRAPH, SIR?

A YES, I DO.

Q WHAT DO YOU RECOGNIZE IT TO BE?

A EXCUSE ME?

Q WHAT DO YOU RECOGNIZE IT TO BE?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 130: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

599

A THAT IS A PICTURE OF OUR FAMILY WITH LINDA

B., MY NEW WIFE, TO MY LEFT, MY DAUGHTER TARA TO MY RIGHT,

MY YOUNGER DAUGHTER SAMANTHA IN THE MIDDLE, AND MYSELF.

MR. NEWHOUSE: OFFER THAT EXHIBIT, YOUR HONOR, IN

EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: ANY OBJECTION?

MS. TAZZARA: NO OBJECTION.

THE COURT: RECEIVED.

(RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE, JOINT

EXHIBIT 121-5.)

BY MR. NEWHOUSE:

Q OKAY. SO HERE WE SEE A MUCH OLDER PETER

DE ROGATIS?

A CLOSER TO WHERE I AM NOW, RIGHT.

Q CLOSER TO WHERE YOU ARE NOW?

A YES.

Q ON THIS SIDE, THAT'S LINDA B.?

A YES.

Q YOUR CURRENT WIFE?

A YES.

Q TARA?

A TARA.

Q THEN WHO'S THIS LITTLE ONE RIGHT HERE?

A THAT'S LITTLE SAMANTHA, WHO ABSOLUTELY

ADORED HER OLDER SISTER.

Q AND WHEN WAS THAT PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 131: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

600

A THAT WAS AT MY SON P.J.'S -- HIS ENGAGEMENT

PARTY AT HIS IN-LAWS' HOME.

Q SUMMER OF 2009?

A THAT IS CORRECT.

Q DID YOU CONTINUE TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL

SUPPORT TO TARA AFTER SHE COMPLETED COLLEGE?

A YES, I DID.

Q WHAT KIND OF SUPPORT DID YOU PROVIDE?

A I HAD TARA -- I ACTUALLY HELPED HER

ESTABLISH SOME CREDIT BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO GO

ABOUT ESTABLISHING CREDIT, AND THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF MY

BACKGROUND, EDUCATION, UNDERSTANDING OF HOW TO LOOK AT

CREDIT REPORTS AND HOW IMPORTANT CREDIT IS. SO I GOT A

CARD FOR HER, CAPITAL ONE, AND I WAS THE MAIN CARD HOLDER

AND SHE WAS A SECONDARY SIGNER. I ALLOTTED 5- TO $600

ACCOUNT ON THAT CARD FOR HER WHILE SHE WAS OBTAINING --

ATTENDING EMERSON COLLEGE FOR FOOD AND INCIDENTALS AND

THINGS OF THAT NATURE THAT SHE WOULD NEED.

Q AT WHAT -- STRIKE THAT.

AT SOME POINT IN TARA'S LIFE WHEN SHE MOVED

TO CALIFORNIA, SHE DEVELOPED AN INTEREST IN ART,

PAINTINGS.

DO YOU --

A YES. I REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY IN LATE '05,

'06, SHE HAD THIS DESIRE TO PAINT, AND I WAS GOING OUT FOR

A VACATION AND SPENDING IT WITH HER AND DAVID AT THEIR

HOME. AND SHE TOOK ME DOWN TO THE CONVERTED GARAGE, WHICH

WAS HER STUDIO, AND THERE I WITNESSED THESE WONDERFUL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 132: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

601

PAINTINGS ALL OVER THE STUDIO AND AN ABUNDANT AMOUNT OF

PAINTS AND BRUSHES AND DIFFERENT SCULPTING TOOLS AND

CANVASES. AND I SAID -- I SAID, "TARA, YOU KNOW, HOW DO

YOU BEGIN TO START" -- BECAUSE I WAS INTERESTED. ART

REALLY -- I DIDN'T REALLY -- I DIDN'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT. SO

I ASKED HER, "HOW DO YOU BEGIN -- HOW DO YOU BEGIN YOUR

PAINTING?"

AND SHE SAID, "OH, DADDY, DO THIS." AND SHE

WHIPPED OUT A CANVAS, PUT IT ON THE FLOOR.

NOW, GRANTED, THERE'S PAINT DRIED UP

EVERYWHERE ON THE FLOOR. THERE'S PAINT CANS AND BRUSHES

ALL OVER THE PLACE ON LEVELS EVERYWHERE, AND SHE HAD ALL

HER -- YOU KNOW, HER OLD CLOTHES ON, AND SHE SAID, "OKAY.

NOW, HERE'S HOW I START. I PLACE DOWN MY CANVAS, AND I

START WITH JUST BROAD BRUSHES." IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS

JUST A BUNCH OF MESSY PAINT ON A CANVAS.

AND THEN WHILE IT WAS SETTING, SHE'D START

IN WITH ANOTHER COLOR AND MAYBE ANOTHER DIRECTION. AND

THEN SHE HAD THIS LITTLE SOFT MUSIC PLAYING IN THE

BACKGROUND. I GUESS IT KIND OF HELPED HER MOVE WITH

CERTAIN STROKES THAT SHE WAS MAKING. I SAID, "IS THE

MUSIC HELPING YOU MAKE THE STROKES ON THIS CANVAS?" SHE

SAID, "SOMETIMES IT HELPS ME. I GET A FEELING FROM THE

MUSIC, AND IT MAKES ME MOVE IN A CERTAIN DIRECTION."

Q WAS THERE ONE PAINTING IN PARTICULAR THAT

WAS ONE OF YOUR FAVORITES?

A THERE WAS. I HAVE IT WITH ME, ACTUALLY.

Q DID YOU HAPPEN TO BRING IT WITH YOU TODAY?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 133: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

602

A I DID.

Q OKAY.

A IT'S RIGHT HERE.

MR. NEWHOUSE: YOUR HONOR, WE'VE SHOWED THIS TO

DEFENSE.

IF THE WITNESS COULD DISPLAY THAT, I'LL

ASSIST YOU.

THE COURT: DO WE HAVE AN 8-1/2-BY-11 OF THAT?

MR. NEWHOUSE: I THINK THERE IS. I THINK WE HAVE A

SMALL VERSION OF THIS.

MS. MC BROOM: THERE ISN'T.

THE WITNESS: I CAN HOLD IT UP. THIS IS -- TARA

LOVED THIS PAINTING, IT'S CALLED "LADY LIBERTY."

BY MR. NEWHOUSE:

Q CAN YOU SHOW IT TO THE JUDGE?

A YEAH. THIS IS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE

UNITED STATES.

Q TAKE YOUR TIME.

A SHE PARTICULARLY LIKED THIS BECAUSE AT THE

TIME THERE WAS A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON IN THE WORLD AND

IT WAS HER -- HER REPRESENTATION OF THE STRENGTH OF THIS

COUNTRY. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT LIBERTY STATUE HERE, AND

HERE IS THE CONSTITUTION. AND IT'S ALMOST LIKE AS IF

SHE'S SAYING SOMETIMES THE CONSTITUTION ISN'T REALLY BEING

ADHERED -- YOU KNOW, HELD UP.

Q ADHERED TO?

A ADHERED TO AND HELD UP. AND YOU CAN SEE

THERE'S A MAZE THAT'S GOING THROUGH IT. AND I WAS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 134: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

603

PARTICULARLY IMPRESSED BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING FOR THE CROWN

OF THE LIBERTY, AND I THOUGHT I WOULD FIND IT LIKE UP IN

HERE WHERE THERE'S SOME REALLY DISTINCT POINTS AND CURVES,

BUT I -- I NEVER ASKED HER REALLY WHY IT WASN'T SO

DEFINED.

AND SHE JUST SAID THAT, "WELL, THERE'S A LOT

OF THINGS IN LIFE THAT ARE NOT DEFINED BUT MOST DEFINITELY

THE LIGHT AND THE LIBERTY IS WHAT KEEPS THIS COUNTRY

GOING, AND THE CONSTITUTION NEEDS TO BE, YOU KNOW, OF

COURSE UPHELD." AND SHE WENT ON TO SAY THAT THAT'S WHAT

IT'S ALL ABOUT. AND SHE SIGNED IT. AND THIS IS MY PIECE

THAT I KEEP.

Q HER SIGNATURE IS IN THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND

CORNER?

A YES.

MR. NEWHOUSE: YOUR HONOR, WE'LL MAKE A COPY FOR

THE RECORD OF THIS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. NEWHOUSE: THANK YOU.

MS. MC BROOM: WHAT NUMBER WILL THAT BE?

THE COURT: WE'LL MAKE IT --

MR. NEWHOUSE: MS. MC BROOM, CAN YOU GIVE US THE

NEXT IN ORDER?

MS. MC BROOM: 135.

MR. NEWHOUSE: 135.

MS. MC BROOM: I THINK THAT'S THE NEXT AVAILABLE

NUMBER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MARK IT AS 135.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 135: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

604

MR. NEWHOUSE: THANK YOU.

(MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION, JOINT

EXHIBIT 135, PAINTING BY TARA DE

ROGATIS TITLED "LADY LIBERTY.")

THE COURT: 8-1/2-BY-11.

BY MR. NEWHOUSE:

Q DID TARA RECIPROCATE YOUR FEELINGS OF LOVE

AND AFFECTION, SIR?

A VERY MUCH SO.

Q LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO

EXHIBIT 125-3 TO 125-4, WHICH ACTUALLY IS THE -- YOU HAVE

THE ORIGINAL OF THIS, RIGHT?

A YES.

(MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION, JOINT

EXHIBIT 125-3 AND 125-4, BIRTHDAY

CARD TO PETER DE ROGATIS FROM TARA

DE ROGATIS.)

BY MR. NEWHOUSE:

Q CAN YOU HOLD THAT UP? THE CARD.

A OH, THIS CARD.

Q YES.

A YES.

MR. BLESSEY: HOLD THE CARD UP.

Q SHOW THE JURY.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 136: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

605

MR. NEWHOUSE: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS JUST A CARD FROM

TARA. WE'D OFFER THIS IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T WE LAY A FOUNDATION.

BY MR. NEWHOUSE:

Q OKAY. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT CARD, SIR?

A VERY MUCH SO.

Q WHAT DO YOU RECOGNIZE IT TO BE?

A WELL, IT WAS A CARD THAT TARA SENT TO ME

EXPLAINING THAT SHE WAS --

Q BEFORE YOU GET INTO THE CONTENT, WHEN DID

SHE SEND YOU THIS CARD?

A SHE SENT THIS TO ME -- IT HAD TO BE PROBABLY

CLOSE TO LATE '07, EARLY '08.

Q AND DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE HANDWRITING?

A VERY MUCH SO.

Q TARA'S HANDWRITING?

A YES, IT IS.

MR. NEWHOUSE: OFFER 125-3 AND -4, YOUR HONOR.

MS. TAZZARA: NO OBJECTION.

THE COURT: BE RECEIVED.

(RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE, JOINT

EXHIBIT 125-3 AND 125-4.)

BY MR. NEWHOUSE:

Q SO DON'T READ US THE WHOLE CARD, BUT IS

THERE ANY PARTICULAR LANGUAGE ON THE BACK OF THE CARD THAT

YOU FEEL IS EMBLEMATIC OF YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 137: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

606

DAUGHTER?

A WELL, SHE SAYS -- SHE STARTS IN WITH, "DAD,

DADDY, FATHER, FRIEND. THANKS FOR REMEMBERING ME ON MY

BIRTHDAY. THANKS FOR ALWAYS BEING THERE AS A FRIEND AND A

FATHER. THANKS FOR ALL THE THOUGHTFULNESS AND GUIDANCE

YOU'VE GIVEN ME. I'M LUCKY TO HAVE A FATHER LIKE YOU.

HAPPY BELATED BIRTHDAY. SORRY FOR THE PACKAGE THAT YOU

NEVER RECEIVED. I WILL MAKE IT UP TO YOU. MAYBE WE CAN

IF I'M ABLE TO SHOW UP. ALWAYS KNOW THAT YOU HAVE A

DAUGHTER WHO LOVES AND CARES FOR YOU. YOU'RE ALWAYS WITH

ME IN MY HEART, THAT YOU MEAN EVERYTHING TO ME. I HOPE

ALL IS WELL FOR YOU IN YOUR LIFE. HOPE TO SEE YOU SOON,

SPEND SOME QUALITY TIME WITH YOU. SAY HELLO TO LINDA AND

SAM. GOOD LUCK AT WORK. SAY HI TO EVERYONE FOR ME. TELL

THEM I MISS THEM AND LOVE THEM. YOUR DAUGHTER. T-BONE."

Q THANK YOU.

A T-BONE, SHE WAS ALWAYS TOUGH, TARA, SO I

NAMED -- SHE SIGNED "T-BONE" BECAUSE I IDENTIFIED WITH THE

SOLID STRENGTH OF A BONE AND HER NAME BEING TARA, SO IT

STAYED WITH HER AND I FOR MANY YEARS TO GO.

Q WAS T-BONE YOUR NICKNAME FOR TARA?

A YES, IT WAS.

Q I'M GOING TO SWITCH GEARS A LITTLE BIT NOW,

IF WE CAN, PETER. I WANT TO GO THROUGH THAT PORTION OF

TARA'S LIFE WHERE SHE BEGAN TO EXPERIENCE SOME EMOTIONAL

DIFFICULTIES. BUT BEFORE YOU GET TO THAT, AS TARA WAS

GROWING UP -- DO YOU NEED A MOMENT?

A I'M ALL RIGHT.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 138: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

607

Q AS TARA WAS GROWING UP, WERE YOU AWARE OF

ANY ISSUES THAT SHE HAD WITH DRUGS, PSYCHIATRIC STUFF,

OUTBURSTS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT?

A I DID NOT BECOME AWARE OF TARA'S SICKNESS

UNTIL '07. SHE SHARED WITH ME ON THE PHONE THAT SHE

WASN'T FEELING WELL, AND SHE WAS SEEING A DOCTOR ABOUT IT,

AND IT KIND OF CENTERED IN HER SOLAR PLEXUS AND PARTS OF

HER LEGS AND NECK, AND THAT SHE WAS GETTING HELP FOR IT.

TARA DIDN'T LIKE TO SHARE THE THINGS THAT

SHE WOULD SHARE WITH HER MOM ABOUT HER PSYCHOLOGICAL

PROBLEMS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

Q SHE FOUND IT MORE DIFFICULT TO SHARE THOSE

PROBLEMS WITH HER DAD RATHER THAN HER MOM?

A YEAH, UNTIL A POINT LATER ON WHEN DURING THE

HOLIDAYS, WE HAD A HEART TO HEART, AND SHE SHARED WITH ME

THE THINGS THAT WERE REALLY GOING ON WITH HER.

Q WHEN DID YOU FIRST HEAR FROM TARA ABOUT

SPECIFIC SYMPTOMS THAT WERE BOTHERING HER?

A IT WAS PROBABLY LATE '08, EARLY '09.

Q AND WHAT DID SHE TELL YOU?

A SHE TOLD ME THAT SHE WAS SEEING A

PSYCHIATRIST, THAT SHE WAS HEARING VOICES, VERY MUCH LIKE

EVERYONE'S DESCRIBED, THE VOICES COMING OUT THE BACK OF

HER NECK, THE TIGHTNESS OF HER THROAT, THE ITCHING OF THE

SKIN, THE ABILITY -- YOU KNOW, THE DISCOMFORT, THE

TORMENT, THAT IT WAS WITH HER ALL THE TIME. SHE COULDN'T

SLEEP.

THESE THINGS, THEY REALLY UPSET ME, AND I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 139: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

608

OFFERED TO STAY WITH HER AND PRAY WITH HER FOR A WHILE,

AND THEN, OF COURSE, ADVISED HER TO CONTINUE BECAUSE SHE

WAS GETTING HELP, AS DR. BOHN TESTIFIED. HE WAS HER

PSYCHIATRIST. AND SHE CONTINUED TO SEE HIM.

AND WHAT REALLY FRIGHTENED ME WAS THAT --

Q BEFORE WE GO ON TO THAT, LET ME ASK YOU, IN

2008 DID SHE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBE THESE VOICES COMING OUT

OF HER THROAT THAT SHE COULDN'T CONTROL?

A YES, SHE DID, SHE DID.

Q DID YOU -- THIS WAS OVER THE PHONE WITH YOU?

A WELL, ORIGINALLY, IT WAS OVER THE PHONE.

SHE TOLD ME SHE WAS HEARING VOICES, AND I SAID, "YOU'RE

COMING OUT VERY SOON. LET'S HAVE A FURTHER DISCUSSION

ABOUT IT. LET'S SIT DOWN" LIKE WE ALWAYS WOULD.

YOU KNOW, SHE WOULD GIVE ME A MASSAGE. SHE

KNEW ALL ABOUT THE -- YOU KNOW, THE MUSCLE AND SKELETAL

SETUP. AND SHE'D HIT SOME OF THE POINTS FOR ME ABOUT

WORKING OUT BECAUSE SHE STUDIED YOGA AND RECEIVED

CERTIFICATES IN IT AND MASSAGE. AND WE WOULD SIT DOWN,

AND SHE WOULD DO THAT FOR ME.

AND THEN WE'D GET INTO A CONVERSATION ABOUT

WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH HER. AND SHE TOLD ME THAT THE

VOICES WERE STRONGER. THEY WERE AS IF SHE WAS IN A ROOM

SUCH AS THIS MAYBE, AND THERE WERE LIKE 700 PEOPLE, AND

THEY WERE JUST COMING FROM ALL OVER, AND SHE COULDN'T MAKE

ANY OF THEM OUT. AND IT REALLY UPSET HER AND IT ANNOYED

HER AND IS WITH HER CONSTANTLY.

NOW, HOW COULD THAT -- HOW COULD THAT BE?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 140: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

609

IT BLEW ME AWAY BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO RESPOND TO

THAT. "WHAT DO YOU MEAN? YOU CAN'T HEAR -- YOU CAN'T

TELL THE VOICES? IS IT WITH YOU ALL THE TIME?"

SHE SAID, "DAD, IT'S NONSTOP." AND THAT'S

WHEN SHE FIRST TOLD ME, "I CAN'T LIVE LIKE THIS ANYMORE."

AND I -- I WAS TAKEN ABACK, AND I SAID,

"WELL, THAT'S" -- YOU KNOW, SHE'S JUST SAYING THAT.

"TARA, YOU DON'T SAY THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT YOU CAN'T LIVE

LIKE THIS ANYMORE. YOU'RE GETTING HELP. YOU'RE GOING TO

GET HELP. WE'LL GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT. WE'LL FIND OUT

WHAT IT IS. WE'LL GET YOU HELP. YOU'LL BE BETTER. DON'T

WORRY ABOUT IT."

AND TARA BEING THE FIGHTER, WE PRAYED, WE

SAT, AND WE JUST MOVED ON WITH -- YOU KNOW, WITH THE

COURSE OF THE DAY, AND I STAYED WITH HER, WATCHED HER A

LITTLE CLOSER, AND I COULD SEE -- I COULD SEE THAT TARA --

EVEN DURING THESE HOLIDAY TIMES WHEN SHE CAME OUT, I COULD

SEE THAT SHE WAS KIND OF REALLY WORKING HARD TO TRY AND BE

SOCIABLE, REALLY WORKING HARD TO TRY AND TALK TO ONES THAT

SHE HADN'T SEEN, AND LOVED, YOU KNOW, AND SHE WOULD HUG

THEM.

AND THEN SHE'D BE -- I'D FIND HER. I'D LOOK

OVER, AND I'D ASK HER TO SIT WITH ME. AND THEN SHE'D

ALWAYS WIND UP GOING TO ANOTHER TABLE, AND I'D FIND HER

SITTING THERE BY HERSELF, SO I'D GO OVER. AND I'D SEND

OVER MY NEPHEWS OR MY NIECES TO GO OVER THERE AND SPEND

SOME TIME WITH TARA, YOU KNOW, TALK WITH HER.

BECAUSE I REALLY STARTED GETTING CONCERNED

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 141: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

610

ABOUT, IF THIS WAS A 24-HOUR THING, THE TORMENT AND

ANGUISH HAD TO BE OVERWHELMING, AND HOW WAS SHE -- HOW WAS

SHE SUSTAINING, YOU KNOW, HOW WAS SHE SUSTAINING --

Q LET ME ASK YOU.

A -- IF THAT'S WHAT SHE WAS EXPERIENCING ALL

THE TIME?

Q EXCUSE ME FOR INTERRUPTING.

I WANT TO ASK YOU, DID YOU GET THE SENSE --

IN THIS TIME FRAME, 2008, 2009, WHEN YOU WERE INTERACTING

WITH TARA, DID YOU GET THE SENSE THAT SHE WANTED TO GET

BETTER?

A ABSOLUTELY.

Q WAS SHE FIGHTING?

A TARA WAS A FIGHTER FROM THE DAY SHE WAS

BORN. EVERYTHING SHE DID, SHE FOUGHT. SHE WANTED TO DO

THE BEST THING FOR HERSELF. SHE WANTED TO DO THE BEST FOR

PEOPLE. SHE LOVED PEOPLE. SHE LOVED ANIMALS. SHE TOOK

CARE OF ANIMALS. THERE WASN'T AN ANIMAL, A STRAY IN HER

NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DIDN'T WIND UP IN HER HOME AND THAT SHE

DIDN'T TAKE CARE OF. SHE LOVED HORSES. TARA WAS --

MS. TAZZARA: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. UNRESPONSIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. NEWHOUSE: I THINK YOU'VE ANSWERED THE

QUESTION. THANK YOU.

THE WITNESS: TARA WAS A FIGHTER.

BY MR. NEWHOUSE:

Q DID THERE COME A TIME -- I WANT TO DIRECT

YOUR ATTENTION NOW BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT SOME OF

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 142: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

611

THESE SYMPTOMS, AND I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT UNNECESSARILY.

WAS THERE A TIME WHEN TARA WAS AT YOUR HOME

OVER THE HOLIDAYS IN 2009 WHEN SHE SEEMED PARTICULARLY

TROUBLED, MORE TROUBLED THAN SHE HAD BEEN IN THE PAST?

A YES.

Q DESCRIBE WHAT HAPPENED.

A WELL, SHE WAS -- SHE WAS PERPLEXED. SHE WAS

ANNOYED. SHE DIDN'T WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN SOME OF THE

FAMILY FUNCTIONS. SHE DIDN'T WANT TO PARTICULARLY GO AND

SEE MY SISTERS AND BROTHERS AND THEIR NIECES -- AND THEIR

CHILDREN, MY NIECES AND NEPHEWS, HER COUSINS, A LOT. SHE

WANTED TO STAY IN BED. SHE LOOKED KIND OF LIKE DISHEVELED

A LOT, DIDN'T REALLY DRESS.

I HAD TO REALLY PLEAD WITH HER TO COME WITH

US FOR CHRISTMAS EVE DINNER, FAMILY DINNER, AND IT WAS --

IT TOOK EVERYTHING FOR HER TO PREPARE TO DO THAT, TO DO

THAT EVENT.

Q SO SHE DIDN'T LOOK -- WHEN YOU SAY "SHE

LOOKED DISHEVELED," SHE DIDN'T LOOK ANYTHING LIKE THE WAY

SHE LOOKS IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WITH YOU?

A NO. TARA -- THAT IS -- THAT IS THE

BEAUTIFUL SIDE OF TARA, AND THE SIDE THAT SHE BECAME WAS

SOMEONE THAT WAS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, PALE, NO MAKEUP,

OLD CLOTHES ON. KIND OF -- I EVEN WENT UPSTAIRS ONE TIME

IN THE HOUSE AND WAS CALLING HER, AND SHE WASN'T

RESPONDING. AND I LOOKED IN BED, AND I SAID, "TARA, TARA,

ARE YOU OKAY?" AND SHE JUST KIND OF WAS IN THIS FETAL

POSITION LIKE, ALMOST LIKE ATROPHIED.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 143: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

612

AND WHEN I WENT OVER AND SHOOK HER AND SHE

WOKE UP, SHE SAID, "WHAT DAD, WHAT?"

I SAID, "COME ON, HONEY. YOU GOT TO GET

READY. WE'RE GOING TO GO. YOU GOT TO GET READY. YOU

HAVE TO GO. YOU CANNOT NOT GO TO A FAMILY GATHERING ON

CHRISTMAS EVE. THERE'S GOING TO BE 50 PEOPLE, FAMILY,

LOOKING TO SEE YOU." SO, NEVERTHELESS, WE GOT HER UP AND

SHE GOT READY AND SHE CAME.

AGAIN, TALKING ABOUT THE FIGHTER, THAT WAS

THE FIGHTER IN HER, THAT WAS THE FIGHTER, A PERSON WHO

COULD NOT DO IT YET FORCED HERSELF TO PREPARE HERSELF TO

GO THERE AND PRESENT HERSELF AS IF NOTHING WAS BOTHERING

HER, TRYING TO CARRY THAT ON FOR 24 HOURS AND BEING

TORMENTED THE WAY SHE WAS.

Q SO IN THIS TIME FRAME, LATE 2009 INTO EARLY

2010, DID YOU NOTICE AN INCREASE OR A DECREASE IN THE

NUMBER OF TIMES THAT TARA TALKED ABOUT KILLING HERSELF?

A TARA TALKED MORE RAPIDLY, MORE REGULARLY, I

SHOULD SAY, ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO LIVE LIKE THIS. "DAD,

I CAN'T LIVE LIKE THIS ANY LONGER. I CAN'T TAKE IT."

I SAID, "ARE YOU STILL HEARING THE VOICES?

"I HEAR THEM ALL THE TIME. I STILL HAVE --

I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, MY SKIN IS FALLING OFF ME. I FEEL

LIKE THERE'S BUGS IN MY HAIR."

ALL THE SYMPTOMS THAT EVERYONE THAT'S

TESTIFIED HERE ARE TRUE TO THAT -- EXACTLY TO THAT

DESCRIPTION.

Q I WANT TO REDIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 144: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

613

SPECIFICALLY FEBRUARY 2009, MARCH 2009, THAT TIME FRAME,

OKAY?

A YEAH.

Q DID YOU HAVE -- WELL, LET ME ASK YOU:

DURING THIS ENTIRE TIME FRAME, ALL OF 2009 UNTIL THE END

OF HER DEATH, DID YOU SPEAK TO TARA REGULARLY?

A MORE SO, BECAUSE I WAS CONCERNED THAT WHAT

SHE WAS DOING WASN'T HELPING HER.

I WOULD CALL LINDA. WE WOULD DISCUSS ABOUT,

YOU KNOW --

Q SPECIFICALLY, WOULD YOU CALL HER ON THE

PHONE?

A YES, I DID.

Q ON OCCASION WOULD YOU USE THIS NEW

TECHNOLOGY --

A SKYPE, YES.

Q -- SKYPE?

A YES. ACTUALLY, THE REASON I WANTED TO GET

SKYPE WAS SO THAT I COULD ACTUALLY SEE HER AS I -- AS WE

SPOKE. ANYBODY KNOWS WHAT -- MUST KNOW WHAT SKYPE IS.

YOU CAN SEE THE PERSON IN THE CAMERA AS YOU'RE TALKING ON

THE COMPUTER.

AND I WOULD CALL, AND SHE WOULD COME. AND

SHE WAS LEARNING HOW TO PLAY THE PIANO. DAVID WAS

TEACHING HER TO PLAY THE PIANO. THEY HAD A PIANO IN THEIR

SECOND-FLOOR AREA, AND SHE HAD LEARNED A COUPLE OF SONGS.

AND I WOULD SAY, "TARA, WHAT DID YOU LEARN TODAY? SHOW ME

WHAT YOU LEARNED." AND SHE WOULD PLAY.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 145: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

614

AND THEN THIS ONE MORNING I WAS ACTUALLY --

Q LET ME STOP YOU BECAUSE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT

WE JUST PINPOINT THE TIME. THIS IS IN FEBRUARY 2010?

A FEBRUARY 2010.

Q OKAY. AND YOU WERE GOING TO SKYPE WITH

TARA?

A RIGHT. WELL, BEFORE THAT, TARA WOULD COME

TO THE PHONE. SHE WOULD CALL ME AND SHE WOULD PLAY.

AND IN FEBRUARY 2010 OR THEREABOUTS, I

WOULD -- I CALLED ON THE SKYPE, AND I ASKED DAVID IF HE --

I SAID, "WHERE'S TARA?"

BECAUSE WHENEVER I SKYPED, HE WOULD SAY,

"TARA, YOUR DAD'S HERE, AND HE WANTS TO TALK TO YOU," AND

SHE WOULD COME, YOU KNOW, TO THE COMPUTER, AND I'D SEE

HER, AND SHE'D PLAY.

SO THIS ONE MORNING I CALLED AND I SAID,

"WHERE'S TARA?"

HE GOES, "SHE'S STILL IN BED."

I SAID, "WELL, CAN YOU GET HER UP? I'D LIKE

TO TALK TO HER."

HE SAID, "SURE, NO PROBLEM."

HE'S CALLING HER, "TARA, TARA, TARA."

FINALLY AFTER ABOUT 5 MINUTES --

Q IT TOOK SOME TIME, DID IT?

A IT TOOK SOME TIME. I WAS TALKING TO DAVID

AND I'M WONDERING, YOU KNOW, WHERE IS TARA? FINALLY, TARA

SHOWS UP, AND SHE KIND OF WALKED IN THE ROOM WITH THESE

WHITE -- THEY WERE WHITE SWEATPANTS, AND I THINK IT WAS A

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 146: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

615

BLUE SWEATSHIRT, AND IT LOOKED LIKE HER HAIR WAS LIKE

KNOTTED, LIKE AS IF SOMEONE HADN'T COMBED IT FOR ABOUT A

WEEK. AND SHE LOOKED LIKE SHE WAS PALE, REAL WHITE PALE,

LIKE ALMOST A DEAD PERSON WALKING, LIKE I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE

HER. I SAID, "TARA," I SAID, "WHAT THE HECK? ARE YOU

SICK? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?"

AND SHE LITERALLY SAID, "NO. I'M OKAY. I'M

ALL RIGHT." JUST DISTANT, SO DETACHED, SO, SO TORMENTED.

IT LOOKED LIKE -- WHILE I WAS TALKING TO

HER, I SAID, "WHY DON'T YOU PLAY ON THE PIANO?

"NO, I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT TODAY. I'M NOT --

I'M NOT PLAYING THE PIANO."

AND DAVID WOULD SAY, "COME ON, TARA, SIT

DOWN. YOUR DAD ALWAYS LIKES TO HEAR YOU PLAY THE PIANO.

SHOW HIM WHAT YOU LEARNED, WHAT YOU'VE BEEN LEARNING.

"NO, NOT TODAY. I DON'T FEEL -- I DON'T

FEEL UP TO IT, DAD."

Q DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER SHE WAS SLURRING HER

SPEECH DURING THAT INTERACTION?

A OH, YES, SHE WAS. SHE WAS, YOU KNOW, JUST

VERY -- HER WORDS WERE VERY SHORT, SOMEWHAT SLURRED, AND

"I REALLY DON'T FEEL LIKE IT."

AND THEN IN BETWEEN THE WORDS, SHE WOULD

KIND OF LIKE JUST LOOK OFF, YOU KNOW. AND I WAS SAYING,

"TARA, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? LET'S GO TO THE DOCTOR.

DAVID, CAN YOU TAKE HER TO THE DOCTOR? I WANT YOU TO TAKE

HER TO THE DOCTOR."

HE SAID, "I'M GOING TO TAKE HER TO THE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 147: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

616

DOCTOR. WE HAVE DOCTOR VISITS THIS WHOLE COMING WEEK AND

NEXT WEEK."

I SAID, "DID ANYBODY DO A WORKUP ON HER?

DID ANYBODY ADDRESS WHAT'S GOING ON?" I SAID, "ARE YOU

STILL HEARING VOICES?"

SHE WOULDN'T RESPOND TO ME.

"DAVID," I SAID, "SHE'S STILL HEARING

VOICES? SHE'S STILL COMPLAINING OF HEARING VOICES?

"YES.

"IS SHE STILL COMPLAINING? IS IT CONSTANT?

"YES."

YOU KNOW.

Q EXCUSE ME. WAS THAT THE ONLY OCCASION IN

FEBRUARY OR MARCH WHERE SHE WAS SLURRING HER WORDS AND HAD

THIS DEPRESSED AFFECT OR WERE THERE OTHER OCCASIONS?

A THERE WAS AN OCCASION WHILE DAVID WAS AWAY.

I BELIEVE HE WAS ON BUSINESS IN SEATTLE AT THE TIME, AND

TARA WAS HOME BY HERSELF, AND I WAS CALLING BECAUSE I KNEW

HE WAS AWAY. SO I CALLED AND I CALLED. SHE DIDN'T

ANSWER. AND THEN I CALLED ANOTHER HALF HOUR LATER. SHE

STILL DIDN'T ANSWER. THEN FINALLY IN AN HOUR I WAS ABLE

TO CALL HER, AND SHE PICKED UP THE PHONE. I SAID, "TARA,

WERE YOU HOME THE WHOLE TIME?"

SHE SAID "YEAH."

I SAID, "WELL, WHY DIDN'T YOU PICK UP THE

PHONE? HOW ARE YOU FEELING?

"OH, NOT FEELING TOO GOOD TODAY. I FEEL

KIND OF TIRED. EVERYTHING IS BOTHERING ME. I HAVE ACHES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 148: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

617

AND PAINS."

I SAID, "ARE YOU STILL HEARING VOICES?

"YES. I CAN'T LIVE LIKE THIS," SHE SAID.

"I CAN'T LIVE LIKE THIS. I CAN'T TAKE THIS ANYMORE, DAD."

I SAID, "HANG IN THERE, KID. WE'RE GOING TO

GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT. WE'LL GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT.

DON'T WORRY. HANG IN THERE. ARE YOU SEEING THE DOCTORS?

"YES, I'M GOING TO BE SEEING THE DOCTORS,

YOU KNOW."

Q WAS THAT THE LAST TIME YOU SPOKE WITH TARA?

A THAT WAS THE LAST TIME I SPOKE.

Q HOW DID YOU LEARN OF TARA'S TRAGIC PASSING?

TAKE A MOMENT.

A THANK YOU. TARA -- I GOT A CALL AT, LIKE, I

THINK IT WAS SIX O'CLOCK, NINE O'CLOCK MY TIME. IT MUST

HAVE BEEN CLOSE TO SIX O'CLOCK IN L.A. DAVID, HE WAS ON

THE OTHER PHONE ON THE OTHER SIDE, AND HE'S SAYING,

"PETER, PETER," HE SAID, "I -- I DIDN'T WANT TO -- I

DON'T -- I DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE THIS PHONE CALL, BUT YOU

NEED TO KNOW." HE SAID, "PARAMEDICS ARE HERE AND TARA

DOESN'T LOOK VERY GOOD. DOESN'T LOOK LIKE SHE'S GOING TO

MAKE IT."

I SAID, "DON'T TELL ME THAT, DAVID. WHAT DO

YOU MEAN, 'SHE'S NOT GOING TO MAKE IT'?"

HE SAID, "THEY'VE GOT DEFIBRILLATORS ON HER.

SHE'S NOT RESPONSIVE."

I SAID -- I COULDN'T COMPOSE MYSELF. I FELL

ON THE FLOOR. I STARTED SCREAMING OUT TO GOD, "PLEASE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 149: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

618

GOD, DON'T MAKE THIS TRUE, PLEASE. TAKE ME. TAKE ME." I

SCREAMED, "GOD, TAKE ME, PLEASE, TAKE ME. DON'T TAKE MY

GIRL. DON'T TAKE MY BABY."

Q PETER, I'M SORRY. TAKE A MOMENT HERE.

A IT JUST DIDN'T SEEM REAL. IT DIDN'T SEEM

REAL. IT WAS LIKE SURREAL, LIKE IT WASN'T HAPPENING. IT

WAS LIKE THE DREAM THAT YOU DREAM ABOUT, AND THERE IT IS

HAPPENING BEFORE YOUR VERY EARS AND EYES. THERE'S NOTHING

YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. YOU COULDN'T BRING HER BACK.

SHE WAS SUCH A GOOD PERSON. SHE LOVED

PEOPLE. SHE CARED ABOUT PEOPLE, SHE HAD A GOOD HEART.

SHE WAS A FIGHTER. SHE COULDN'T GET OVER THIS.

I COULDN'T BELIEVE -- I COULDN'T BELIEVE

THAT SHE WOULD TAKE HER LIFE LIKE THAT.

Q PETER, I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU HOW YOUR

DAUGHTER'S DEATH HAS AFFECTED YOUR LIFE, BUT I THINK

YOU'VE ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION, SO I'M GOING TO

PASS ON AND ASK YOU ONE FINAL QUESTION.

DO YOU MISS TARA EVERY DAY OF YOUR LIFE?

A DO YOU SEE THIS PIN?

Q YES.

A THIS IS -- MY DAUGHTER LEFT ME THIS. SHE

GAVE IT TO ME, AND THERE'S NOT A DAY OR A GARMENT THAT I

DON'T WEAR THIS TO REMIND ME OF MY DAUGHTER AND HER LOSS.

NOT A DAY, NOT A MINUTE. EVERY ONE OF MY PASSWORDS HAVE

HER NAME IN IT. SHE'S WITH ME ALWAYS.

WILL I MISS HER? I CAN'T WAIT TO BE WITH

HER. I CAN'T WAIT UNTIL I GO AND LEAVE THIS PLACE AND

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 150: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

619

JOIN UP WITH HER IN GLORY. THIS WAS -- THIS WAS SOMETHING

WE GOT FROM THEIR HOUSE WHEN WE WERE OUT THERE. LINDA

GAVE ME THIS, AND SHE SAID --

Q AFTER HER PASSING?

A THIS WAS ON HER REFRIGERATOR. IT SAID,

"GIVE GOD THE GLORY," AND THESE ARE LISTS THAT SHE WOULD

MAKE OF HER THINGS THAT SHE NEEDED TO REMEMBER TO GET WHEN

SHE WOULD GO TO THE STORE: "SCRUBBING BUBBLES, PAPER

TOWELS, BONE FOR THE DOG, SOFT SCRUB, DRY SWEEPING

REFILLS." THESE ARE MY MEMORIES. THIS IS ALL I HAVE OF

HERS.

THIS IS A PICTURE OF GRADUATION. THERE'S A

KID THAT HAD HERSELF TOGETHER.

SHE WASN'T A SCUM. THEY MADE HER OUT TO BE

LIKE SOME KIND OF A DRUG ADDICT. SHE WAS NO DRUG ADDICT.

SHE HAD TROUBLES AND SHE SOUGHT TO FIND AN ANSWER TO THOSE

TROUBLES. AND WHEN SHE COULDN'T, SHE TOOK HER LIFE, AND

THAT'S MY TAKE ON IT.

MR. NEWHOUSE: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. CROSS?

MS. TAZZARA: YES, YOUR HONOR.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MS. TAZZARA:

Q GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. DE ROGATIS.

THE COURT: DO YOU NEED TO TAKE A COUPLE MINUTES OR

ARE YOU GOOD TO GO FOR ABOUT 10 OR 15 MORE MINUTES?

THE WITNESS: YES, YOUR HONOR, THANK YOU.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 151: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

620

BY MS. TAZZARA:

Q JUST A FEW QUESTIONS FOR YOU,

MR. DE ROGATIS.

A YES.

Q I'M GOING TO BRING YOU BACK A LITTLE BIT IN

TIME, THEN, AND ASK YOU TO FOCUS A LITTLE BIT ON JUST THE

FEW YEARS BEFORE TARA'S DEATH. IF WE GO BACK TO 2007 AND

2008 AND 2009, YOU WERE LIVING IN NEW JERSEY, OF COURSE,

AND TARA IS LIVING IN LOS ANGELES, AND SHE'S LIVING WITH

MR. MAC EACHERN, WHO WE HAVE MET IN THIS COURTROOM; IS

THAT TRUE?

A THAT IS CORRECT.

Q AND AS TARA'S DAD, YOU -- OF COURSE, YOU

TOLD US YOU'D SEE HER A FEW TIMES A YEAR, CORRECT?

A YES, MORE THAN A FEW.

Q AND CERTAINLY EVERY CHRISTMASTIME TARA WOULD

SPEND SOME TIME --

A DEFINITELY.

Q -- IN JERSEY --

A ALWAYS.

Q -- WITH YOU AND WITH OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS?

A ME AND MY ENTIRE FAMILY, FRIENDS. EVERYBODY

ADORED TARA.

Q AND NOW, YOU WOULD ALSO CALL HER OR YOU

WOULD SORT OF CATCH EACH OTHER BY PHONE ABOUT ONCE A WEEK;

IS THAT TRUE?

A NO, MORE THAN THAT. WE TALKED SEVERAL TIMES

DURING THE WEEK, TWO OR THREE TIMES A WEEK.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 152: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

621

Q OKAY. AND I THINK YOU MENTIONED THIS, BUT

YOU WOULD ACTUALLY -- YOUR AND TARA'S CONVERSATIONS WERE

KIND OF DIFFERENT TOPICS THAN YOUR EX-WIFE LINDA'S AND

TARA'S CONVERSATIONS?

A I ASSUME SO, YES.

Q IN OTHER WORDS, TARA AND YOU DID NOT TALK

ABOUT PERSONAL THINGS LIKE HER PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH,

AT LEAST UNTIL LATER ON?

A MUCH LATER ON FACE TO FACE, AND THEN AGAIN

ON THE SKYPE AND A FEW TIMES ON THE PHONE.

Q RIGHT. LET'S SAY BEFORE '08, LATE '09, YOU

AND TARA WOULD NOT TALK ABOUT WHO HER DOCTORS WERE AND

WHAT HER MEDICATIONS WERE AND ALL THOSE DETAILS OF HER

DAY-TO-DAY LIFE; IS THAT TRUE?

A NOT IN GREAT DETAIL, NO.

Q YOU AND TARA SPOKE A LOT ABOUT THE ARTS AND

ABOUT ACTING, CORRECT?

A YEAH. WE WOULD TALK WHEN SHE HAD AN

AUDITION EARLY ON.

Q AND, SIR --

A WHEN SHE WAS PURSUING IT, YOU KNOW, IN A

MORE THAN REGULAR BASIS, SHE WOULD CALL ME WITH THE SIDES,

AND WE'D GO OVER THE SCRIPT OR THE SIDE, AND I'D GIVE HER

MY ADVICE AND LEAD HER ON --

Q AND, SIR --

MR. NEWHOUSE: YOUR HONOR, I'M SORRY. I THINK IF

THE WITNESS COULD BE ALLOWED TO FINISH HIS RESPONSE.

THE COURT: I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD AND FINISH.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 153: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

622

THE WITNESS: NO. THE -- WHEN I WOULD TALK TO HER

ABOUT THE SIDES, LATER ON, LIKE LATE '08, '09, SHE HAD

DIFFICULTY WITH DIALECT. WE WERE WORKING ON DIALECT

BECAUSE SHE WAS TRYING TO GO FOR A PART WHERE SHE HAD TO

HAVE AN ACCENT, AND SHE COULDN'T -- SHE JUST COULDN'T GET

IT TO WORK FOR HER. SO I TOLD HER, "JUST DO IT IN YOUR

NATURAL VOICE, AND THE DIRECTOR OR WHOMEVER YOU'RE

INTERVIEWING WITH OR AUDITIONING FOR WILL WORK WITH YOU ON

IT. THEY HAVE COACHES, YOU KNOW, IF YOU GET THE PART."

TARA DIDN'T LIKE -- SHE WAS VERY -- VERY

DEJECTED WHEN SHE DIDN'T GET CAST, WHICH WAS 90 PERCENT OF

THE TIME.

BY MS. TAZZARA:

Q WHICH IS THE LIFE OF THE ACTOR.

SIR, YOU HAVE AN ACTING BACKGROUND YOURSELF.

HAVE YOU BEEN --

A WELL, I -- IN SCHOOL.

Q HAVE YOU BEEN ON THE STAGE?

A YES. IN SCHOOL I DID SEVERAL PLAYS,

MUSICALS, DRAMAS. I DID SOME WORK -- COMMUNITY THEATER

AFTER WORK AS AN AVOCATION. I TEACHED -- I TEACH LITTLE

CHILDREN RIGHT NOW WITH COMMUNITY THEATER, TRY TO TEACH

THEM SOME OF THE BASICS OF ACTING, AND WE'RE DOING A PLAY

ON -- IT'S CALLED -- IT'S PIPPIN. COMING UP SOON.

Q OKAY. SIR, LET ME DIRECT YOU A BIT HERE.

YOU WERE NOT -- IF I WERE TO ASK YOU, AND I

AM, WHO TARA'S DOCTORS WERE IN '07 AND '08 AND '09, OTHER

THAN DR. BOHN AND DR. LATIMER, DID YOU KNOW OTHER DOCTORS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 154: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

623

THAT TARA SAW?

A NO, I DID NOT, DID NOT KNOW ANY OTHER

DOCTORS EXCEPT DR. BOHN AND DR. LATIMER.

Q AND IN '07 AND '08, DID YOU KNOW AT THAT

TIME WHAT MEDICATIONS TARA WAS TAKING, WHETHER THEY BE

DRUGS FROM DR. BOHN OR FROM THE ANY OTHER DOCTORS?

A WELL, NOT PARTICULARLY, BUT I REMEMBER

DURING ONE OF THE HOLIDAY SEASONS, MUST HAVE BEEN '08 OR

'09, THAT SHE HAD -- I HAD TO PICK HER UP. SHE WAS COMING

TO MY HOME IN PREPARATION FOR THE HOLIDAY FOR A FEW DAYS,

AND SHE'D GO BACK AND FORTH TO HER MOM'S AND MY HOUSE.

AND I NOTICED -- I HAD TO STOP AT THE

DRUGSTORE BECAUSE SHE HAD A PRESCRIPTION THERE. AND WHEN

WE GOT THERE, SHE PULLED OUT A BAGGIE, PLASTIC BAG OF

ABOUT 15 DIFFERENT VIALS OF MEDICATIONS, AND I SAID,

"TARA," I SAID, "ARE YOU TAKING ALL THESE THINGS?"

SHE GOES, "AT TIMES." SHE SAID, "SOME OF

THEM ARE VITAMINS, DAD. SOME OF THEM ARE VITAMINS."

Q SO IN OTHER WORDS, IN THE CHRISTMASTIME OF

'08 WHEN YOU SAW THAT TARA HAD A BIG BAG OF BOTTLES AND

YOU -- IT'S FAIR TO SAY, YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE.

THEY COULD HAVE BEEN VITAMINS FOR ALL YOU KNEW?

A RIGHT. SHE SAID SOME OF THEM -- BUT I COULD

TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A VITAMIN BOTTLE AND A VIAL --

YOU KNOW, A PRESCRIPTION BOTTLE, AND SHE HAD SEVERAL

PRESCRIPTION BOTTLES.

Q OKAY. AGAIN, YOU WERE NOT PERSONALLY

INVOLVED IN WHO'S THE DOCTOR, WHAT'S THE DRUG, WHAT'S IT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 155: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

624

FOR, THAT TYPE OF THING?

A NOT PARTICULARLY. AGAIN, HER MOM WAS ON

THAT REGULARLY, AND IT WAS NEWS TO ME WHEN I FOUND OUT HOW

SICK SHE REALLY WAS, WHY IT WAS KEPT FROM ME.

I FELT KIND OF HURT THAT MY DAUGHTER DIDN'T

SHARE THAT, BUT I UNDERSTOOD WHY SHE DIDN'T. BECAUSE,

AGAIN, OUR BOND WAS DIFFERENT THAN HER AND HER MOM'S, YOU

KNOW.

Q FAIR ENOUGH. SIR, IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT IT

WAS NOT UNTIL THE TIME OF TARA'S DEATH, AFTER HER DEATH,

THAT YOU LEARNED THAT TARA HERSELF HAD USED CRYSTAL METH,

HAD USED METHAMPHETAMINES OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS ON MANY

OCCASIONS? YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT WHEN SHE WAS ALIVE; IS

THAT TRUE?

A NO, I DIDN'T KNOW MUCH OF TARA'S, YOU KNOW,

RECREATIONAL USE OF METH.

Q OKAY. IN THE SAME WAY, YOU DID NOT KNOW --

YOU CERTAINLY KNEW AND HAD CONVERSATIONS OVER THE YEARS

WITH DAVID MAC EACHERN OR MAC EACHERN, THE OLDER MAN WHO

LIVED WITH TARA? YOU KNEW HIM -- CORRECT? --

A YES, I DID.

Q -- FOR YEARS?

YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT HE WAS A USER OF

METHAMPHETAMINE, AS HE CALLED IT, OVER A MANY-YEAR PERIOD

WHILE HE WAS LIVING WITH YOUR DAUGHTER?

A YOU KNOW WHAT, I WOULDN'T SAY A MANY-YEAR

PERIOD BECAUSE I HAD BEEN OUT THERE SEVERAL TIMES FROM

'06, YOU KNOW, EARLY '05, '06. THEY NEVER USED METH WITH

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 156: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

625

ME WHEN I WAS THERE.

Q SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT

MR. MAC EACHERN WAS A METH USER TO YOUR OBSERVATION AND

YOUR KNOWLEDGE WHILE TARA WAS STILL ALIVE; IS THAT TRUE?

A NO, I DIDN'T.

Q AND THE SAME -- AND I THINK YOU'VE HEARD

TESTIMONY IN THIS COURTROOM ABOUT TARA HAVING USED, DURING

HER LIFETIME, COCAINE, ECSTASY, MUSHROOMS. YOU DIDN'T

KNOW ANY OF THAT DURING THE TIME THAT TARA WAS ALIVE?

THAT'S NOT SOMETHING SHE OR ANYONE ELSE SHARED WITH YOU

DURING HER LIFE; IS THAT TRUE?

A THAT IS TRUE. SHE NEVER SHARED THAT WITH

ME, BUT I COULDN'T SEE -- MY DAUGHTER WAS NOT AN ADDICT.

SHE WAS NOT AN ABUSER OF THOSE DRUGS. SHE MAY HAVE USED

IT -- I FIND OUT NOW THROUGH THE TESTIMONY AND THE

DOCUMENTS IN PREPARATION OF COMING HERE THAT SHE MAY HAVE

RECREATIONALLY USED IT, BUT SHE WAS NOT SEEKING IT AS IF

SHE WERE A DRUG ADDICT JUNKIE IN THE STREET, YOU KNOW,

DYING FOR IT.

MY DAUGHTER WAS SEEKING OPIATES, AS I CAN

UNDERSTAND IT, TO RELIEVE THE PAIN AND TORMENT THAT WAS

KILLING HER SLOWLY.

MS. TAZZARA: YOUR HONOR, I'M JUST GOING TO MOVE TO

STRIKE THE END OF THAT AS NONRESPONSIVE.

THE COURT: STRICKEN.

BY MS. TAZZARA:

Q WE WILL GET THERE, SIR, IF YOU CAN LISTEN TO

MY QUESTIONS.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 157: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

626

A I'M SORRY.

Q I DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT MORE. I JUST WANT

TO GET YOU THROUGH A FEW MORE QUESTIONS.

A I GET IT.

Q I APPRECIATE IT.

SIR, IS IT TRUE THAT IN -- WELL, FIRST OF

ALL, IN THE CHRISTMASTIME, I UNDERSTAND THAT IN '07 AND

'08 IT WAS TARA AND DAVID THAT VISITED EVERYBODY --

A YES.

Q -- BUT THEN '09, THE LAST CHRISTMAS WITH

YOU, DAVID WASN'T THERE; IT WAS JUST TARA; IS THAT TRUE?

A THAT IS TRUE.

Q OKAY. AND IF I AM RECALLING, DO YOU

REMEMBER WE HAD YOUR DEPOSITION IN JANUARY OF 2012?

I TOOK YOUR DEPOSITION. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A I DO RECALL.

Q AM I CORRECT THAT IN CHRISTMAS OF 2008 WAS

THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU LEARNED FROM TARA THAT SHE WAS --

THAT SHE TOLD YOU THAT SHE WAS HEARING VOICES? DO YOU

REMEMBER THAT?

A YEAH, I DO, BUT IT ACTUALLY WAS IN 2007. IN

'7 SHE TOLD ME SHE WAS GOING FOR HER WORKUP AND THAT SHE

HAD PAIN AND THERE WERE SOME VOICES.

AND AT THAT TIME SHE WAS SEEKING SPIRITUAL

TRUTH, AND SHE HAD GONE TO MACHU PICCHU, PERU. AND SHE

WOULD TELL ME THAT SHE WAS SEEKING SPIRITUAL TRUTH, AND

THAT SHE WOULD HEAR AN ANGEL SPEAK TO HER, AND SHE

COMMUNICATED WITH THIS ANGEL. AND THAT STARTED THE QUEST

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 158: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

627

WITH TARA ON TRUTH AND FAITH, WHICH BROUGHT HER BACK TO

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WHERE SHE, YOU KNOW, WAS FIGHTING FOR

HER LIFE, ASKING FOR A MIRACLE AND PRAYER, AND I WOULD

PRAY WITH HER ON THE PHONE ABOUT IT.

Q OKAY, SIR. AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

LET ME JUST FOCUS YOU ON CHRISTMAS 2008.

DO YOU REMEMBER TELLING TARA, "IF YOU'RE

HAVING THESE VOICES, WE'LL GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT, AND

I'M GOING TO GET OUT A TAPE RECORDER, AND MAYBE WE CAN

FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON"?

A YES. I TOLD HER -- I SAID, "YOU KNOW WHAT,

TARA? MAYBE IF YOU TRY TO RECORD THESE VOICES," BECAUSE I

DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO FOR HER OR HOW TO HELP HER AND HOW

A YOUNG WOMAN COULD BE EXPERIENCING -- BE EXPERIENCING

VOICES ALL DAY LONG AND STILL BE ABLE TO FUNCTION. SO I

SAID, "YOU KNOW WHAT? MAYBE -- HERE'S AN IDEA. LET'S GET

A RECORDER, AND EVERY TIME YOU HEAR SOMETHING YOU CAN

IDENTIFY IN A VOICE, SPEAK INTO THE RECORDER AND WRITE IT

DOWN." I SAID, "WHO KNOWS? MAYBE OUT OF IT, IF SOMETHING

MAKES SENSE, WE CAN PATCH IT TOGETHER, AND MAYBE WE CAN

MAKE A BOOK, YOU KNOW, CREATE A BOOK OR SOMETHING OF THAT

NATURE."

Q THAT WAS YOUR AND TARA'S RELATIONSHIP, AND

YOU WERE KIND OF THE PROBLEM-SOLVER, AND THAT WAS

COMFORTING TO TARA?

A IT WAS VERY COMFORTING. TARA WOULD SHARE

WITH ME ABOUT THINGS THAT -- YOU KNOW, THAT SHE WANTED TO

DO IN LIFE. SHE WANTED TO GET MARRIED. SHE WANTED TO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 159: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

628

HAVE A CHILD.

Q AGAIN, I'M GOING TO --

A I'M SORRY.

MS. TAZZARA: NO DISRESPECT. I'M GOING TO MOVE TO

STRIKE THAT BECAUSE THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION.

THE COURT: STRICKEN.

BY MS. TAZZARA:

Q FOCUS AGAIN. CHRISTMAS '08 WAS THE TIME

THAT SHE TOLD YOU ABOUT THESE VOICES AND YOU ALL TALKED

ABOUT THE TAPE RECORDER. DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT? THAT

SOUNDS LIKE THE RIGHT TIME FRAME, CORRECT?

A YES, YES.

Q AM I CORRECT, THEN, THAT THE FIRST TIME,

THOUGH, THAT TARA EVER SPOKE TO YOU ABOUT HAVING PAIN OR

BURNING PAIN IN HER BODY AND JOINTS WAS THE NEXT YEAR,

WHICH WAS CHRISTMAS OF '09, THAT CHRISTMAS WHEN SHE WAS

ALONE WITHOUT DAVID AND SHE WAS VISITING YOU?

DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

A IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, IT WAS LATE '08,

EARLY '09, AND THEN CONTINUING INTO THE HOLIDAY SEASON OF

'09, GOING INTO '10.

Q SIR, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO ASK YOU, DO YOU

REMEMBER IN YOUR DEPOSITION, AND THIS IS ON PAGE 58, LINE

21 TO 25, THE QUESTION REGARDING --

MR. NEWHOUSE: CAN I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR,

TO EXAMINE THAT?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. NEWHOUSE: 58, COUNSEL, FROM WHERE TO WHERE?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 160: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

629

MS. TAZZARA: FROM LINES 21 TO 25.

Q AND DO YOU REMEMBER THIS QUESTION:

"WHEN YOU BECOME AWARE" -- "WHEN YOU

BECAME AWARE OF THE BURNING...SYMPTOM, WHEN WAS

THAT"?

MR. NEWHOUSE: "BURNING PAIN SYMPTOM," COUNSEL.

BY MS. TAZZARA:

Q I'M SORRY. "BURNING PAIN SYMPTOM." THANK

YOU. "BURNING PAIN SYMPTOM, WHEN WAS THAT?"

THE ANSWER WAS, "THAT WAS IN '09, PRIOR TO

THIS -- THIS WAS DURING THE -- PRIOR TO THE HOSPITAL,

DURING THAT STAY."

DO YOU REMEMBER THAT TESTIMONY?

A YES, I DO.

Q AND THAT HOSPITAL STAY WAS IN DECEMBER '09,

CORRECT?

A YES.

Q NOW, DO YOU REMEMBER -- DURING THAT DECEMBER

'09 WHEN TARA WAS HAVING THE PAIN, TELLING YOU ABOUT THE

PAINS, AND I UNDERSTAND SHE ALSO HAD THE VOICES, DO YOU

REMEMBER TELLING HER SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT, "MAYBE

THERE'S SOMETHING MEDICALLY WRONG WITH YOU. YOU NEED TO

GO SEE SOME MEDICAL DOCTORS AND SEE IF THEY CAN WORK YOU

UP AND GET AN M.R.I. AND DO ALL KIND OF TESTS"?

DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

A SURE. YOU KNOW, I WAS KIND OF OUT OF

SUGGESTIONS BECAUSE IT SEEMED LIKE SHE HAD BEEN GOING TO

THE DOCTOR ON A REGULAR BASIS AND GETTING THESE WORKUPS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 161: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

630

AND GETTING FOLLOW-UPS AND GETTING ALL THE THINGS THAT

MOST DOCTORS PROVIDE FOR THEIR PATIENTS.

Q SO --

A SO I THOUGHT SHE WAS IN GOOD HANDS AND SHE

WAS BEING TAKEN CARE OF.

Q BUT MY QUESTION IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

I'M ASKING YOU IF YOU REMEMBER IN DECEMBER

'09 SAYING, "YOU NEED TO GO AND PURSUE MEDICALLY WITH

DOCTORS WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS PAIN IN YOUR BODY,

MEDICAL DOCTORS, AND GOING FOR AN M.R.I."?

DO YOU REMEMBER TELLING HER?

A WELL, NOT SPECIFICALLY AN M.R.I., BUT

CERTAINLY DOCTORS, MEDICAL DOCTORS. AND THAT WAS PRIOR

TO, YOU KNOW, HER BEING ADMITTED INTO THE PSYCHIATRIC

WARD, WHICH SHE SPENT A WEEK IN MOUNTAINSIDE HOSPITAL.

Q DID YOU BELIEVE THAT TARA WAS RECEPTIVE TO

YOUR RECOMMENDATION THAT -- I TAKE IT ONCE SHE GOT BACK TO

LOS ANGELES IN HER HOME, DID YOU THINK SHE WOULD INDEED

PURSUE MEDICAL DOCTORS AND WHATEVER KIND OF TESTING WOULD

BE NECESSARY TO --

A IT WAS MY HOPE --

MR. NEWHOUSE: HOLD ON. OBJECTION. CALLS FOR

SPECULATION. LACK OF FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

BY MS. TAZZARA:

Q DID TARA GIVE YOU ANY INDICATION WHEN YOU

WERE GIVING HER THIS RECOMMENDATION TO PURSUE MEDICAL

WORKUP AND ANY KIND OF TESTS DECEMBER '09 -- DID YOU HAVE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 162: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

631

AN IMPRESSION AS TO WHAT HER RESPONSE WAS, WHETHER SHE

WOULD DO IT?

A YEAH. I KNEW THAT SHE WAS SUFFERING AT THAT

TIME BECAUSE I HAD HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH HER MOM AND

HER ABOUT SEEING THE PSYCHIATRIST. NOW I KNEW IT WAS

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND I -- AND I MADE SURE WHEN I TOLD HER,

"YOU HAVE TO PURSUE THIS. YOU HAVE TO -- YOU HAVE TO BE

DILIGENT IN YOUR MEDICINE. YOU HAVE TO GO AND GET A

SECOND OPINION, AND, IN FACT, I SUGGEST THAT WE ADMIT YOU,

THAT WE GET YOU 30, 60 DAYS OF REHABILITATION, CLEAN

EVERYTHING OUT OF YOU AND START FRESH WITH COGNITIVE

THERAPY, WITH GROUP THERAPY," WHICH SHE NEVER HAD AND, I

DON'T BELIEVE, WAS EVER SUGGESTED TO HER.

Q SIR --

A THEN I REMEMBER -- IF I MAY.

MS. TAZZARA: I WOULD JUST MOVE TO STRIKE THIS

AS --

THE WITNESS: IF I COULD GET THIS OUT.

THE COURT: WAIT JUST ONE SECOND.

THE WITNESS: SORRY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I THINK YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTION.

NEXT QUESTION.

BY MS. TAZZARA:

Q THANK YOU, SIR. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU

ANOTHER QUESTION.

DID YOU KNOW -- I'M GOING TO TURN TO THE

TIME THAT TARA DID GO BACK TO LOS ANGELES IN JANUARY --

ACTUALLY IT WAS CHRISTMAS DAY OF 2009, CORRECT?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 163: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

632

A YES, IT WAS.

Q AND DID YOU KNOW -- WERE YOU AWARE AT THE

TIME THAT TARA WAS PURSUING MEDICAL DOCTORS, THAT SHE WAS

GOING TO A PAIN --

A WELL, I KNEW AT THAT TIME --

Q -- AN INTERNIST?

A YEAH.

Q GO AHEAD.

MR. NEWHOUSE: YOU NEED TO ALLOW HER TO FINISH HER

QUESTION. JUST RELAX.

THE WITNESS: I'M SORRY.

BY MS. TAZZARA:

Q DID YOU KNOW THAT TARA WAS FOLLOWING WHAT I

UNDERSTAND TO BE YOUR RECOMMENDATION THAT SHE PURSUE

MEDICAL DOCTORS TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT WAS GOING ON?

A WELL, I NEVER FOUND OUT WHETHER SHE SAW

MEDICAL DOCTORS AFTER THAT TRIP. I SIMPLY RECOMMENDED

THAT, AND SHE TOLD ME SHE WAS GOING TO GO BACK, SHE WAS

GOING TO GET OVER THIS, SHE WAS GOING TO OVERCOME IT, SHE

WAS GOING TO GO HOLISTIC, SHE WAS GOING TO GET DOCTORS,

OTHER OPINIONS. AND SHE EVEN CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY

OF -- OF GETTING INTO AN INSTITUTION TO CLEANSE HERSELF OF

ALL THE DRUGS, ALL OF THE MEDICATIONS AND THINGS THAT SHE

HAD BEEN GIVEN.

SHE WANTED TO HAVE A CHILD. SHE WANTED TO

GET MARRIED IN DECEMBER. SHE WAS MAKING HER CONFIRMATION

THE FOLLOWING COUPLE OF WEEKS DOWN THE ROAD. THIS WAS NOT

A GIRL THAT WASN'T FIGHTING FOR HER LIFE. THIS WAS A

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 164: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

633

WOMAN WHO WANTED TO LIVE. SHE WANTED TO LIVE, AND SHE WAS

TORMENTED COMPLETELY AND ENTIRELY.

Q AND YOU CERTAINLY FELT WHEN YOU LAST SAW HER

ON CHRISTMAS IN 2009 THAT TARA WANTED TO GET BETTER, SHE

WANTED TO PURSUE, SHE WANTED TO FIGHT, AND SHE WANTED TO

GO TO WHATEVER DOCTORS AND DO WHATEVER WAS NECESSARY TO

GET BETTER? YOU BELIEVED THAT --

A IT WAS MY STRONG PRAYER AND BELIEF THAT

THAT'S WHAT SHE WAS GOING TO PURSUE, THAT THAT WOULD BE

THE DIRECTION. THE NEXT STEP WAS GETTING TO DO SOMETHING

HARD AND FAST ABOUT THIS, GET HER INTO AN INSTITUTE, GET

HER TO CONVINCE HERSELF THAT SHE NEEDED THIS HELP, SHE

NEEDED THIS TYPE OF THERAPY, 60 DAYS -- 30, 60 DAYS

MINIMUM.

Q NOW, SIR, WERE YOU AWARE AT THE TIME THAT

TARA WAS ACTUALLY TAKING ACTING CLASSES AT STELLA ADLER

DURING --

A TARA WENT BACK --

MR. NEWHOUSE: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO TIME, YOUR

HONOR.

BY MS. TAZZARA:

Q I'M SORRY. DURING THOSE MONTHS -- I'LL

REPHRASE.

IN JANUARY, FEBRUARY, AND MARCH OF 2010, AT

THE TIME WERE YOU AWARE THAT TARA WAS TAKING CLASSES WITH

STELLA ADLER?

A YEAH. HER MOM HAD GOT HER A SEVERAL-WEEK

CLASS AT STELLA ADLER, AND SHE -- AND I REMEMBER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 165: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

634

SPECIFICALLY TALKING TO HER ABOUT THAT, GOING TO THE

CLASSES AND FEELING THAT SHE WAS THERE, BUT THAT SHE

COULDN'T REALLY COMPREHEND A LOT ABOUT THE SCENE. AND SHE

FELT VERY SELF- -- VERY SELF-CENTERED ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE

TO PORTRAY HERSELF IN THE CHARACTER AND THEN DROPPING HER

LINES. SO SHE WOULD KIND OF HOLD BACK AND SHE WASN'T

GETTING A LOT OUT OF IT, BUT SHE WAS CONTINUING TO GO.

AND THAT'S WHY I WOULD CALL HER, YOU KNOW,

WHEN SHE WOULD HAVE -- EVER HAVE TO STUDY FOR HER CLASS,

TO PREP HER, TO PREPARE HER ON HOW TO -- YOU KNOW, "LET'S

THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE. LET'S TAKE IT APART.

LET'S FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE DOING. WHAT DO YOU WANT?

WHAT ARE YOUR OBSTACLES? WHAT ARE YOUR ACTIONS? DO YOU

SUCCEED? DO YOU FAIL? KEEP THAT IN YOUR MIND."

Q SO, SIR, YOU AGREED -- DID YOU KNOW THAT

TARA KEPT GOING TO THOSE CLASSES, THAT SHE PERSISTED AND

KEPT FIGHTING THROUGH AND WENT TO ALL THE CLASSES?

A SHE WAS THE STRONGEST FIGHTING KID -- I

SWEAR, I MEAN, THIS GIRL FOUGHT.

THE COURT: SIR, CAN YOU JUST ANSWER "YES" OR "NO."

THE WITNESS: YES, SHE DID. SHE FOUGHT. SHE WAS A

FIGHTER.

SHE WANTED TO GO -- SHE WENT TO CHURCH EVERY

DAY TOO, BY THE WAY.

BY MS. TAZZARA:

Q YES. AND YOU WERE AWARE THAT SHE WAS GOING

TO CHURCH --

A YES.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 166: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

635

Q AND ALSO SHE WAS STUDYING AND TAKING CLASSES

FOR HER CONFIRMATION?

A SHE WAS TRYING TO DO HER BEST IN THIS STATE,

YES.

MS. TAZZARA: THANK YOU, SIR. I HAVE NO OTHER

QUESTIONS.

THE COURT: REDIRECT?

MR. NEWHOUSE: NO REDIRECT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I THANK VERY MUCH, SIR.

SHALL WE TAKE OUR AFTERNOON RECESS?

MR. NEWHOUSE: ACTUALLY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SEE COUNSEL AT THE SIDEBAR.

(AN UNREPORTED CONFERENCE WAS HELD

IN CHAMBERS.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE

ARE DONE FOR THE DAY. WE HAVE RUN OUT OF WITNESSES.

WE'RE GOING TO START TOMORROW MORNING AT NINE O'CLOCK WITH

OUR EXPERT WITNESSES.

HAVE A GOOD EVENING. PLEASE REMEMBER THE

ADMONITION OF THE COURT. DO NOT DISCUSS THE FACTS OF THIS

CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES OR WITH ANYBODY ELSE. DO NOT FORM

ANY OPINIONS OR CONCLUSIONS ON THIS MATTER UNTIL IT'S

FINALLY SUBMITTED TO YOU.

COURT'S IN RECESS UNTIL 9:00 A.M. HAVE A

GOOD EVENING.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 167: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND …taralynnderogatisfoundation.org/pages/Trial Transcripts... · 2014. 8. 5. · case name: de rogatis vs. shainsky pasadena, california

636

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD

IN OPEN COURT, OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE

OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: IF WE CAN JUST REMAIN ON THE RECORD --

YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT. IF THE LAWYERS COULD MEET AND

CONFER, THEN, IN THE NEXT HOUR, AND SUBMIT TO CINDY, THEN,

AN AGREED-UPON VERDICT FORM AND YOUR JURY INSTRUCTIONS,

AND LET ME REVIEW THOSE.

MR. NEWHOUSE: THEN WE CAN GO HOME, TOO?

THE COURT: THEN YOU CAN GO HOME, TOO. GET THAT

DONE, AND WE'RE ALL SET. ALL RIGHT.

(AT 2:39 P.M. THE PROCEEDINGS WERE

ADJOURNED UNTIL TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5,

2013, AT 9:00 A.M.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

©2014 The Tara Lynn De Rogatis Foundation. All Right Reserved.