JACKSON V AEG LIVE July 25

th

David J. Fournier, CRNA
The judge. If you have -- do you have anything to talk about? If not, we'll just bring the jurors
in.
Mr. Panish. No. I have something.
The judge. Okay. Thank you. What did you want to talk about?
Mr. Panish. Okay. The witness -- maybe you should have the witness go outside.
Ms. Cahan. He's not here.
Mr. Panish. Okay. Mr. David Fournier is a nurse anesthetist. He's being called at this time.
The judge. Okay.

Mr. Panish. First of all, number one is, I believe the defendants are going to try to get into
evidence conversations he may have had with other physicians. Now, as the court recalls, we
were prohibited from doing this with Dr. Finkelstein. We had briefings and arguments. The court
sustained the objection. The defendants tried to do it with Dr. Sasaki. You've reviewed the
transcripts, and you've sustained the objections. So I want to be consistent here and make sure
that they're not going to try to do this with this witness on the stand. Of course, I need to object.
That's the first issue.
The judge. Okay. So I guess there's various points in the testimony that's going to be discussing
conversations with other physicians?
Ms. Cahan. There's only one point that I think is likely to come up, your honor. And it was
during the procedure where he was providing anesthesia, and another doctor was performing a
procedure on Mr. Jackson. And in that case it goes to -- not being offered for hearsay purposes. It
goes to his understanding of Mr. Jackson's medical condition, and how he reacted in treating
him. Unlike the situation with -- when we discussed this with Dr. Finkelstein, the issue was,
these were not two doctors collaborating on Michael Jackson treating him at the same time and
coming together on a plan. That was the argument plaintiffs made, but there was not continuous
treatment of Michael Jackson by Dr. Finkelstein. It was an isolated instance before he met Dr.
Forecast. And then another isolated instance later on. So we actually agreed with the arguments
plaintiffs were making then. We think that this actually is a situation where there are two medical
professionals collaborating on the treatment of Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Panish. What I'd like to know --
The judge. Well, I asked for research on whether --
Mr. Panish. You did, and we lost.
The judge. Yeah. And I don't think there was any exception. I said, "is there an exception to the
hearsay statements?" and I asked for briefing on that, because I thought that conversations
between two physicians in connection with providing treatment --
Ms. Cahan. Right.

The judge. -- could be an exception, even if it was a catch-all. And you both did research on it,
and it turned out there was either no authority, or "there's no catch-all, judge, in the state system."
Ms. Cahan. Right. And there --
The judge. And I said, "okay. It doesn't come in."
Ms. Cahan. Right. And there, that was a situation that did not fall under 1250 in terms of a plan
and understanding. This does, because this is -- they are two -- a physician and a nurse
anesthetist working on a single procedure, something happens, Mr. Fournier is concerned,
doesn't know what's going on, and he gets an explanation about that from the physician who is
performing the procedure at the time.
The judge. Okay.
Ms. Cahan. So that's where it's a distinct situation.
The judge. Let me ask you this: during the procedure when there's a conversation between them,
it's Fournier asking, who, an assistant or --
Mr. Panish. No. Mr. Fournier is not a doctor.
Ms. Cahan. Mr. Fournier is providing anesthesia. A nurse anesthetist. Dr. Klein is performing a
procedure on Mr. Jackson.
The judge. Okay.
Ms. Cahan. Something -- there's an adverse situation. Mr. Fournier sort of freaks out,
understandably, and asks what -- you know, "I don't understand this. What is going on?" and Dr.
Klein says, "oh, he has a narcan implant in him," and then Mr. Fournier knows how to treat Mr.
Jackson accordingly in that situation. So it's possibly an excited utterance by Dr. Klein. I think
we need to explore that with Mr. Fournier, the circumstances of the conversation. But, certainly,
it goes to Mr. Fournier's understanding and subsequent action.

The judge. Is it being offered for the truth or being offered to show --
Mr. Panish. Being offered --
The judge. -- why he acted --
Ms. Cahan. Why he acted the way he did.
Mr. Panish. No. It's being offered for the truth because then they're going to say, "oh, Mr.
Jackson misrepresented to me," and all this other --
Ms. Cahan. Mr. Jackson admitted it, by the way, after he woke up.
The judge. I'm sorry?
Ms. Cahan. Mr. Jackson admitted it after he woke up from the anesthesia.
Mr. Panish. When we were trying to get it in, they wrote this long brief, and we had all these --
The judge. Yes.
Mr. Panish. We couldn't get it in. Then Sasaki, they were trying to get it in; the court didn't
allow it in. It's the same thing. It's a hearsay statement offered for the truth of the matter that
they're trying to get it in. There is no exception. But they want to now use it live and -- see, if I
didn't bring it up, they would just use it right in front of the jury without bringing it to the court's
attention, after the court has said, "there's certain issues we've already addressed that should be
brought to the court's attention." they were just going to ask the questions, and then we were
going to be in a sidebar and disrupt everything. That's why I'm bringing it up, because to be
consistent, it's inappropriate. Because then they're going to take say, "oh, Mr. Jackson
misrepresented," and all this, which is character evidence. Remember, this is in 2003, I believe,
that they're trying to get this in. So now they're going to try to say, six years later, 2009, at some
-- this character evidence of, "he didn't disclose" or "he did disclose" -- which is another issue --

somehow is relevant to what happened in 2009. It's character evidence. So number one, it's
hearsay, what he said. I mean, that's what you've been ruling all along, and now we're going to
change -- we're going to go back to Finkelstein and all -- it's the same argument that they were
making against us.
Ms. Cahan. And, your honor, it's not the same argument. We're actually saying it's the same
legal issue in a completely different situation. So with Dr. Finkelstein it was not two physicians
collaborating on treatment. That's the argument they tried --
The judge. I know. But that's what I asked you to brief on, is that if you have two physicians
collaborating on -- assuming even if that wasn't -- I asked for a briefing on that, whether the
statements they make to each other are hearsay or not, I thought they were not.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Your honor --
The judge. And I said I thought there was case law out there that said it wasn't, and I asked you
to brief that.
Ms. Cahan. Right.
The judge. And everybody came back and said, "there's no exception; there's no catch-all, there's
no such thing between physicians." and now -- like I said, the only thing that could possibly save
it is if, you know, he hears the statement, and, as a result, he relies on it and acts on it, and it's not
being offered for the truth. But it sounds to me like you're offering it for the truth that in fact he
did have an implant. And that's the problem.
Ms. Cahan. Your honor, the situation is, the reason you asked us to brief whether there was a
catch-all was because you agreed before it did not fit into 1250 because it was not about a one
point in time where there are two physicians, or more, medical providers collaborating on
treatment. That wasn't the situation we had. So you said, "okay. It's not 1250. Is there any other
way it's a hearsay exception?"
Mr. Panish. First of all, he's not a physician; number two, he's not allowed to provide treatment.

Ms. Cahan. He is allowed to provide treatment.

Mr. Panish. All he's allowed to do is provide anesthetic services.
The judge. Let's look at 1250.
Mr. Panish. We were denied on this same point.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Your honor, the reason I came up here is because Mr. Panish is talking about
some sort of -- you know, "we've always done it this way or that way." as you know, your honor,
there's been a number of hearsay issues on this case, and they've all been evaluated on a case-by-
case basis and whether they fit into one of the exceptions. In this case it's not offered for the
truth. It's explaining Mr. Fournier's subsequent conduct and how he continued to treat Mr.
Jackson. In other words, it's -- there's a medical emergency. It doesn't have to be a medical
emergency. It's just a situation where he doesn't know what to do. He asks the doctor what's
causing this, and as a result of what the doctor tells him, he changes his treatment.
The judge. So why don't you just say --
Ms. Stebbins Bina. It's to show his actions at the time.
The judge. Can't you just say, "I then turned to the doctor and asked him for assistance, and, yes,
he gave me some information, and as a result, I did something else," without getting into what
the doctor said?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. I don't know that it really matters, your honor, since immediately after the
procedure, Mr. Jackson acknowledges he had an implant, which is an admission by a
party/opponent.
The judge. True.
Mr. Panish. So --

Ms. Stebbins Bina. So in that I think it's clearer and makes more sense to the jury to allow the
statement at the time, because it's not offered for the truth at that point, it's just offered to explain
Mr. Fournier's conduct. And then afterwards, it comes in for the truth because it's a statement by
Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Panish. Okay. Well, first of all --
The judge. How does that fit into 1250?
Mr. Panish. It doesn't.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. 1250 --
Mr. Panish. First of all, your honor, what did he do as a result of this? What treatment? What
treatment did he provide as a result of this? None. There's no -- there's going to be nothing.
The judge. Fournier?
Mr. Panish. Remember, Fournier is a nurse anesthetist, so --
Ms. Stebbins Bina. He is treating.
Mr. Panish. -- what treatment did he give different when he learned this? It's irrelevant. It's
A. Collateral issue. What treatment did he give differently?
Ms. Cahan. He's administering anesthesia to Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson stops breathing on his
own for five minutes. He's having to breathe for him. He doesn't know why he is having this
reaction, is it an allergic reaction to something? Is there some underlying medical problem? So
then when he understands that there's a narcan implant, and that's what's causing the reaction, he
knows how to proceed with the rest of the case to make sure Mr. Jackson makes it through the
rest of the procedure without --

The judge. Okay. That's definitely being offered for the truth.
Mr. Panish. What does it have to do with this case?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. I think it's 1240.
The judge. Wait a minute. (several people were speaking at the same time.)
The court reporter: I'm sorry. Your honor, could you repeat what you just said?
The judge. I said, "please let me listen to the defense. I can't hear."
Ms. Stebbins Bina. It's evidence that: "purports to narrate, describe, or explain an act, condition,
or event perceived by the declarant" that was made "spontaneously while the declarant was under
the stress of excitement caused by such perception." I think in a situation where there's a medical
emergency, a patient has stopped breathing, and one doctor explains to the nurse anesthetist
what's going on, it's offered to explain the condition that's happening at the time.
The judge. It's not 1250.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Yes. 1240, your honor. I was off by a number.
Mr. Panish. But, your honor, what is the relevance to this case, whether he had a bad outcome or
not? What does that have to do with this case and these case issues? What they're trying to do is
continue to introduce character evidence that's not relevant for this case, and it's not admissible.
The judge. Well, the only difference is that in this case you've got an admission later.
Mr. Panish. What's it relevant for? What is the admission -- that he had the implant or not, what
is it relevant for in this case for something that happened six -- that's the point. What is it relevant
for?

Ms. Cahan. The relevance, your honor, is that Mr. Fournier will testify that every single time he
gave Mr. Jackson anesthesia, he told him that, "these are the risks. Are you taking any
medications? Has anything changed about your health status? It's very important for me to know
of any changes since the last time I took care of you. There's all these risks to your health, there
are risks attendant to anesthesia, including the possibility of death." and so Mr. Jackson knew he
had the narcan implant in him. That's clearly established by Dr. Farshchian's testimony we played
yesterday; chose not to tell Mr. Fournier about it, and as a result, he stopped breathing for five
minutes during the procedure, and something very bad could have happened had Mr. Fournier
not been able to care for him competently. It goes to life expectancy, it goes to addiction issues --
The judge. Okay.
Mr. Panish. Wait, wait.
The court reporter: I'm sorry. I didn't hear what she said.
The judge. "concealment of the drug use."
Mr. Panish. Well, your honor --
The judge. So it's relevant, but I do think that in order to be consistent, I don't think it should be
admitted during the testimony. If Jackson later admits it, then you're going to have the evidence,
anyway, in the record. But --
Mr. Panish. Your honor, can I say something?
The judge. -- I think it's being offered for the truth. You haven't provided any case law that I
asked you to provide earlier.
Mr. Panish. Your honor, could I say something on the relevance issue? Okay. First of all, no
witness they have will testify that has anything to do with life expectancy. They have no one to
say that. Number two, they say that it goes to the concealment of the drug use. This is a drug

antagonist, as you saw the testimony. This is to stop drug use. He's not concealing drug use. This
is something to stop it. So that -- if it's offered to show the concealment, that is character
evidence under 1101(a) and (b). So what they're going to say -- oh, so he concealed that he had
an implant to stop the drug, so therefore he concealed everything else six years ago? That's
character evidence. 1101(a) does not allow prior bad acts to prove conduct in conformity
therewith in this case.
The judge. I've overruled your objection. I think it's relevant, but I think it's a problem. I think
it's being offered for the truth. I asked for briefing on this issue. Nobody could find anything that
would allow its admission. I want to be consistent in my rulings.
Ms. Cahan. Okay.
The judge. It sounds like it's going to come in anyway because Mr. Jackson admitted that he had
the implant later and --
Ms. Cahan. And I will --
The judge. -- it's not --
Ms. Cahan. And, your honor, I'll go instruct him --
The judge. Talk to the witness.
Ms. Cahan. -- to not say -- I'll ask him, "did something happen? Did Dr. Klein say something to
you that explained to you what was going on just, 'yes' or 'no'? Did you subsequently discuss this
with Mr. Jackson?" I can do it that way.
Mr. Panish. Well, it gets in the statement of Klein, again, if they do that. If they're going to do it
with Mr. Jackson, that's one thing. But asking "did Dr. Klein say something to you" --
Ms. Cahan. Just "yes" or "no."

Mr. Panish. It's the same thing.

The judge. That's okay. "did an issue come up?" "yes." "did you discuss it with Dr. Klein?"
"yes." "as a result of speaking to him, did you then do something or take some action or speak to
Mr. Jackson or whatever?" "yes, I did." "so what did you do as a result of what Dr. Klein told
you?" "well, I started to do this." without getting into what Dr. Klein said.
Ms. Cahan. Okay.
The judge. Okay.
Ms. Cahan. Thank you, your honor. I'll go --
The judge. You'll get there, just not the way you'd like to. It's not the easy way.
Ms. Cahan. I'm glad to do it the hard way. May I step --
Mr. Panish. Wait a minute.
The judge. I still think there's some type of exception there.
Mr. Putnam. There has to be. Two doctors in an operating room.
Mr. Panish. According to Ms. Cahan, there isn't because she made that argument to the court.
Ms. Cahan. That's not the argument we made, your honor, and that was two doctors who were
not collaborating --
The judge. But I specifically asked for that briefing, if two doctors are collaborating --
Mr. Putnam. We'll get that.

The judge. -- there must be some exception for providing medical treatment.
Ms. Cahan. Yeah. And we'll --
The judge. And they discussed --
Mr. Panish. And she said there isn't.
Mr. Koskoff. There is in other jurisdictions.
The judge. There must be something in California.
Mr. Putnam. We did find it in federal.
Mr. Panish. Ms. Cahan argued to you that there is no exception, and now --
Ms. Cahan. I argued that there was no exception that applied in that instance. But it doesn't
matter, your honor, I'll go step out and explain to the witness --
Mr. Panish. I'll make sure he knows.
Mr. Koskoff. Usually it comes in as medical history, and that applies when there are two doctors
working together. The history exception. But in federal court, I know.
Mr. Putnam. I'm going to go talk to the witness for one second, if I may, your honor.
The judge. Yes. (brief pause in the proceedings.)
The judge. Okay. We're going to call our jurors.

(the jury entered the courtroom at 10:26 a.m.)

Ms. Cahan. Your honor, at this time we call David Fournier.
The judge. Okay. Thank you. David Fournier, called as a witness by the defendants, was sworn
and testified as follows:
The judge. Mr. Fournier, if you would stand there and raise your right hand. The clerk: please
raise your right hand to be sworn. Do you solemnly state that the testimony you're about to 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 take the stand, sir. Sir, would you please state and spell your
name for the record?
The witness. David Fournier. F-o-u-r-n-I-e-r. The clerk: thank you.
The judge. Thank you. You may begin.
Ms. Cahan. Thank you, your honor. Direct examination by
Ms. Cahan.
Q. Good morning, Mr. Fournier.
A. Good morning.
Q. Have you ever testified in court before?

A. Yes.
Q. How many times?
A. Once.
Q. Okay. Has it been a while?
A. 20 years.
Q. Are you nervous today?
A. I'm terrified.
Q. We should be fine. There shouldn't be any issues here, but if there's anything you get
concerned about or that we can do to help you be more comfortable, please let me know. What is
your profession, sir?
A. I am a certified registered nurse anesthetist.
A. C.R.N.A.
Q. A certified registered nurse anesthetist. Is that what you said?
A. Yes.
Q. And what does a certified registered nurse anesthetist do?

A. A CRNA. Is an advanced-practice nurse trained in the specialty of anesthesia. The nurse

anesthetist might provide about 35 million anesthetics a year in this country. It's usually a
master's degree in preparation, and you're trained to do all agents and techniques.
Q. You said -- do you hold a master's degree?
A. Correct.
Q. And do you have a bachelor's degree as well?
A. Yes.
Q. In what specialty?
A. Bachelor's degree in nursing, and a master's degree in anesthesia.
Q. Where did you do your training?
A. My nursing degree was in Boston, Massachusetts; and I did subsequent training, university of
Chicago, in preparation for graduate study. And then I went to anesthesia school at UCLA.
Q. And did you graduate from UCLA.?
A. Yes.
Q. And was there an additional certification that you needed to take to become a CRNA.?
A. There is a board exam that is required before you're allowed to practice.
Q. Did you take and pass that exam?

A. I did very well, yes.

Q. Okay. And have you maintained your certification since that time?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Are there any requirements to maintain that certification?
A. Yeah. There are a number of hours of continuing education. You have to be continually
practicing. You can't leave the field for any amount of time without retraining, which I haven't
done. And your continuing education is pretty important.
Q. The continuing education, does that keep you abreast of the latest developments in the
standard of care in anesthesia?
A. Depends on the meetings you go to, but I try to do well-rounded education courses and try to
touch as many bases as I can, especially pertaining to outpatient anesthesia, which is my
specialty.
Q. Are you aware of the standard of care anesthesia providers are expected to give their patients?
A. Yes.
Q. What's the difference between an anesthesiologist and a nurse anesthetist?
A. An anesthesiologist is someone who got a bachelor's degree in some field of study, usually
science, and then went on to medical school, completed a 3-year or more residency in
anesthesiologist training.
A. Nurse anesthetist has a bachelor's degree in nursing -- mine was a 5-year program -- and then
went on to similar anesthesiologist training, three years, in the same hospital-type setting.

Q. How long have you been practicing as a CRNA.?

A. I graduated in 1984. I finished my master's thesis in 1985. So I'd say 1984 would be --
Q. And you've been practicing continuously since that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you done any teaching?
A. When I graduated from UCLA., I was kept on as a clinical instructor, taught some classes. But
mostly worked with students in the operating room teaching them the basics.
Q. Did you do any research at UCLA.?
A. I did a master's thesis, yes.
Q. Are you a member of any professional organizations?
A. The national organization is the American association of nurse anesthetists, and I've been a
member since 1982. And there's a California association of nurse anesthetists, and I've been a
member since 1982.
Q. Where do you practice?
A. Mostly, west Los Angeles. My predominant surgicenter where I'm the director is in Beverly
Hills.
Q. Are you employed by the surgery center?

A. No, I'm not. Self-employed.

Q. So you have your own company that you have, but you work predominantly with a surgery
center in Beverly Hills?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. And that's an outpatient surgery center?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. For how long have you had your own practice?
A. I would say maybe 1986, '87.
Q. Okay. For what kinds of outpatient procedures do you provide anesthesia?
A. Well, a wide variety of things. Plastic, reconstructive, orthopedics. Little bit of outpatient gyn,
gynecological surgery. Mostly outpatient plastic and reconstructive surgery.
Q. For those of us who don't know, what differentiates outpatient surgical procedures from
something where a person would stay in the hospital for some time?
A. Well, many years ago when I started my training, just about everything was done in the
hospital. But as the drugs and the medicines and cost containment issues became more and more
of an issue, patients were done as an outpatient. Usually these are patients that are done that can
be considered that they're going to go home, and only a small percentage of them are admitted to
the hospital versus inpatient procedures where the patient has a procedure in the hospital and
stays.
Q. Have you ever provided medical treatment to Michael Jackson?

A. Yes, I have.
Q. How did you first meet Mr. Jackson?
A. I think in 1992 I got a call from a dermatologist office. They asked me to come by. They
didn't tell me who the client was, but they asked me to come by and standby, because they were
giving a group of people a large number of inoculations, and they didn't want anything to go
wrong: an anaphylactic or anaphylactoid reaction. I initially refused. I don't do that. It's not my --
but the doctor was very insistent. He offered me cash money upfront to come, and then he told
me, "it's really important that you're here because this is Michael Jackson."
Q. And then did you go?
A. I did. He didn't -- he was being very cautious, and he didn't want anything to go wrong. There
were a large number of inoculations being given for a large group of people before a tour started,
I believe, and he just didn't want anything bad to happen to anybody.
Q. I think that I heard you say one of the concerns was that there may be an anaphylactic
reaction to inoculations. What happens when someone has an anaphylactic reaction?
A. In an anaphylactic reaction, something is introduced to the body, or you come in contact with
it, and certain cells in the body reacts and release chemicals, which can cause shortness of breath,
swelling in the throat, inability to breathe, low blood pressure, reduced cardiac output. It's a bad
situation.
Q. And is there something about your training as a CRNA. That would allow you to assist if
something like that would happen?
A. Early on in the training in anesthesia, for any anesthesia provider, you have to learn to
recognize a reaction like that and treat it, and it's a standard treatment. But, yes, it's something
we're trained to do.
Q. Is someone's airway closing up something that typically happens with an anaphylactic
reaction?

A. It can if it's not caught soon enough.

Q. Is one of the primary skills of a CRNA. Maintaining an airway and making sure someone is
able to breathe through any medical procedures?
A. Correct. Airway management is one of our primary skills.
Q. So did you actually -- you actually met Mr. Jackson when you came to assist or be available
for these inoculations?
A. No. No, I did not.
Q. Okay. Did you end up needing to provide medical care to anyone at the time? And don't tell
me who or what if the answer is "yes."
A. No. I sat in the lobby and waited.
Q. When did you first actually meet Michael Jackson?
A. I think because I'd established with this doctor that I was, you know, willing and available to
help, three to six months later I was called to take care of Michael.
Q. So that would be -- are you able to estimate what year that was?
A. I think it was January of 1993.
Q. And did you provide medical treatment to Mr. Jackson for the first time in January of 1993?
A. Most of the records have been destroyed because of the legal time limit. But to the best of my
estimate, it was January of 1993.

Q. And when's the last time you treated Mr. Jackson?

A. Last time I treated Michael was about six years before he passed away in 2003.
Q. So for about a 10-year period --
A. Yes.
Q. -- you saw Michael Jackson from time to time and gave him medical care?
A. Correct.
Q. You just referenced some records of your care of Mr. Jackson that might no longer exist. At
the time that you were taking care of Mr. Jackson, did you routinely keep records of your care of
him?
A. You always keep, for every anesthetic, a detailed record of what medications you gave, what
happened, and the vital signs. Some of those records stayed with the doctors' charts.
Occasionally I kept a copy. But, yes, we do keep records.
Q. Keeping records of anesthesia is part of the standard of care for providing anesthesia?
A. It's not. The hospital or the institution where you work, they're responsible to keep the
records. But oftentimes just for billing issues, or for just, heaven forbid, a situation like this, I
keep my own records.
Q. And do you have today all the records for all the -- that you kept for all the instances where
you treated Mr. Jackson?
A. I do not have all the records.

Q. Do you have some records?

A. I have some.
Q. And did you produce those records of treatment in this case in response to a subpoena?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you sit for a deposition in this case?
A. Yes.
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as defense exhibit 9812. It's a stack of records.
Ms. Cahan. Jessica -- your honor, may I approach?
The judge. You may.
Ms. Cahan. I think your honor already has this.
The judge. That's okay.
Q. I know that's sort of a thick stack. I just wanted to ask you: there's a sticker on the front page
that says "exhibit 1," and it has your name on it. Do you recognize this as a set of documents that
you reviewed during your deposition in this case?
A. Yes.
Q. And are these the documents that you produced in response to the subpoena?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. Generally speaking, what kinds of documents are in this stack?
A. What I see are some anesthesia records; one handwritten note; some history and physical
forms. That's the history and physical that's performed before anesthetic. And some billing
records, and also looks like a couple computer printout records from, looks like, a file database.
Q. Okay. Primarily, these are your medical and billing records for Mr. Jackson to the extent that
you were able to keep copies of them?
A. Correct. I might add that I did try to provide more. I did try to go back and find more, but a lot
of these records were either unavailable, or they were destroyed.
Q. Is it your understanding that a lot of physicians typically destroy medical records after a
period of time?
A. I think the standard, it's seven years.
Q. But you've provided everything you were able to find?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you estimate how many times you treated Mr. Jackson over the about 10-year period
when he was your patient?
A. Well, it depends on what you mean by "treatment." some of the times I just did not give him
any medication, I just observed him to make the surgeons happy. But in terms of total time
interactions, probably 35. 30 or 35.

Q. Are you able to estimate, of that 30 or 35, how many times you actually provided anesthesia
to Mr. Jackson?
A. Perhaps 25.
Q. Do you generally take a patient's medical history prior to administering anesthesia?
A. Yes.
Q. Why?
A. Well, it's important to know what is going on with the patient in terms of allergies,
medications, medical conditions, prior history, weight, whether they've had anything to eat or
drink. And it's recommended that you take 10 or 20 minutes and sit down with the patient and
gather that information. Allows you to provide a safe anesthetic.
Q. And you do that? Take -- routinely take 10 or 20 minutes and talk through with someone all
those pieces of information you just mentioned?
A. Yes, yes. I think, though, with Michael, in later years, as we got to know each other better, it
cut down to maybe 10 minutes, 5 minutes.
Q. I'd like to show you a copy of defense exhibit 11,474, which I'll represent to you is a subset of
that larger packet of documents. That is medical records, your medical records, in a
chronological order. We sort of shuffled them around and marked them as an exhibit in your
deposition. Do you recall that?
A. I don't recall that.
Ms. Cahan. May I approach, your honor?
The judge. Yes.

The witness. (reviewing document.) You do know you have multiple copies of the same thing?
Q. I do.
A. Okay.
Q. That's what we used at your deposition.
A. Okay.
Q. Do you recognize this to be your medical history consent forms and anesthesia records for
treating Mr. Jackson that you produced in this case but in a new order?
A. Yeah. These are my records.
Q. Okay. And this is chronological order, more or less, excluding, possibly, some duplicates?
A. To the best I can tell, yes.
Ms. Cahan. Any objection to this coming into evidence?
Mr. Koskoff. No objection.
Ms. Cahan. Okay.
The judge. It's received.
Ms. Cahan. Thank you, your honor.

Ms. Cahan. Looks like there are a couple of different types of forms here, so I'd like to have
pam pull up the first page of exhibit 11,474 on the screen. And zoom in a little bit, pam, on the
text part.
Q. What is this form?
A. This is a form that I generate on my computer at home. That's tailored to my practice, and it's
an anesthesia history and physical form, followed by a consent form at the bottom of the page.
Ms. Cahan. Okay. Pam, can you just show the bottom quarter of the page so we can see the
consent form?
Q. So that bottom part where it says "anesthetic consent," that's the consent form?
A. Yes.
Q. Is this the form you use when you take a medical history --
A. Correct.
Q. -- of the patient prior to administering anesthesia?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you take any measurements, as part of the medical history, like height or weight or
temperature?
A. We always ask the patient how tall they are, and we ask them their weight. If it looks like
they're not being totally honest, I'll put them on the scale.
Ms. Cahan. And, pam, can you pull up the top third or so of this page? Okay.

Q. And here I see on the very top left, it looks like "Omar Arnold."
A. Correct.
Q. Who is Omar Arnold?
A. Michael had a number of aliases he and his physicians used, and "Omar Arnold" was one of
them.
Q. Were you asked to use the name Omar Arnold in connection with creating this record?
A. Yes.
Q. But this is a record for Michael Jackson?
A. It is.
Q. And over on the right-hand side, at about the same level, I see there's a box that says "wt"?
A. Correct. Weight.
Q. Weight. And is that "130"?
A. "130," yes.
Q. Okay. And what's the date of this form?

A. In the photocopying process, someone cut the bottom of the date off. But in looking at the
subsequent page, which seems to be related because it has the same age, it looks like January
19th, 2000.
Q. Okay. So -- and in fact it says the weight on this page as well is 130?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you remember whether you weighed Mr. Jackson in connection with this, or were you
able to accept his estimation of his weight?
A. I probably accepted his estimate at this point.
Q. Are you pretty good at estimating people's weights?
A. Not -- yes, I am pretty good.
Q. Okay. Does weight impact the amount of anesthesia you administer to a patient?
A. Weight is just one of the factors that you consider and take into consideration when you're
coming up with your anesthetic plan. But, yes, it is a factor.
Q. Why?
A. Well, depends on the target organ for the drugs, whether it's the brain or the muscles. You
have to have a starting point, and the weight gives you a rough, very rough, estimate of where to
begin to get your calculations.
Q. And is 130 pounds about what Mr. Jackson weighed over the 10 years when you took care of
him?

A. I think he weighed, during that 10 years, between 130 and 140 pounds.
Q. This was from about 1993 to about 2003?
A. Correct.
Q. In your experience, did Michael have much of an appetite?
A. Not really. I'd ask him, you know, "what did you have" -- you know, "when is the last time
you had anything to eat or drink?" and he would say, "lunch the prior day," which was not
unusual.
Q. Did you observe whether there were periods of time when Mr. Jackson would tend to lose
weight?
A. Well, we're talking plus or minus five pounds here, so, no, not a particular period.
Q. Is there anything that you attributed, any small fluctuation in his weight, to?
A. One time I asked him why he was down to, like, 130, and he said he'd been on tour and
dancing a lot, and that's why.
Q. Were you concerned about Mr. Jackson's weight when it was in the 130-pound range?
A. No. He's lean, muscular, in good shape. No.
Q. In addition to asking questions about a patient's medical history and taking certain
measurements, like height and weight, what else do you do prior to administering anesthesia? Do
you explain to a patient, for example, what's going to happen in the procedure?

A. That's kind of towards the end. What I do is, basically, "when's the last time you had anything
to eat or drink?" "how much alcohol do you drink?" "do you smoke?" "do you use recreational
drugs?" doesn't apply to Mr. Jackson, but "any chance you might be pregnant?" exercise
tolerance, allergies, medications. And then a review of systems, starting at the head: neurological
disease, seizures, epilepsy, fainting spells. Any heart disease, chest pain, palpitations, high blood
pressure. Any lung disease, asthma, bronchitis, a cold or flu in the last couple weeks? Go all the
way down: liver, kidney, stomach, anything else. And always wrap up with, "is there anything
else you've been treated by a physician for lately? Gone to the hospital for anything I need to
know about?" and then I do a physical exam.
Q. Is that because all that information is relevant to your ability to provide safe anesthesia to the
patient?
A. Yes.
Q. Are there different categories, anesthesia categories, that patients are fitted into?
A. Yes. We have a scale. We rate people 1 to 5 in terms of their medical ability to tolerate,
physical ability to tolerate anesthetic.
Q. 1, healthiest, and 5, needs help?
A. 1 is good. You don't want to be a 5.
Q. Okay. What category was Mr. Jackson?
A. Mr. Jackson was a 1 early on. I think later on I might have made him a 2 a couple times.
Q. When you have a patient that you see more than once, do you still take a medical history
every time you see that patient?
A. Pretty much. If it's somebody I know really well, it might be abbreviated, a couple minutes.
But I ask all the same questions.

Q. So you ask all the same questions, you just might not spend as much time on them because
you might know the answers already?
A. "has anything changed with your asthma?" instead of getting a detailed history, "anything
changed? Still using your inhaler? Been hospitalized, intubated?" and if they say "no," we move
on.
Q. Did you take Mr. Jackson's medical history every time you treated him?
A. Yes.
Q. In the instances where you provided anesthesia to Mr. Jackson, was there always a doctor,
physician, involved in the treatment?
A. Always.
Q. What types of procedures were these physicians performing on Mr. Jackson for which you
administered anesthesia?
A. One of the first ones was a scalp reduction for a burn he suffered on his head, and,
subsequently, a number of treatments for that. He had a couple times an abscessed tooth and root
canal and some dental procedures. He had extensive tattooing of his lips, his eyes, the burn area
on his head. And he had Botox and collagen and filler injections to some of the areas in his face
that he wasn't happy with.
Q. You mentioned "Botox" and "filler injections." what's the difference between Botox and a
filler injection?
A. Botox is a derivative of the botulinum toxin once used to paralyze small muscles to get rid of
wrinkles. Fillers, there's dozens of different ones and lasts varying periods of time and fill
various-sized defects, and they're used to fill out wrinkles and change a person's appearance.
Make them look younger.

Q. Do you frequently anesthetize patients who are receiving Botox injections?

A. No.
Q. Do you frequently anesthetize patients who are receiving filler injections?
A. No. But Michael -- may I elaborate?
Q. Please.
A. Michael was special, in that he -- instead of half a dozen little Botox injections, there would
often be a large array of syringes out, perhaps 50 to 100, and he would be getting hundreds of
injections around the eyes and various painful parts of the face, and it was more than the average
person would get, so, therefore, he often needed to be sedated, or he would move and wouldn't
tolerate it.
Q. Was he getting more of those Botox or filler treatments than other people, or just smaller
amounts of it spread out more over his face?
A. I don't do Botox; I don't do fillers.
Q. Okay.
A. I would say he got -- I would say he got more than the average person. a Lot more.
Q. Do you use propofol in your practice?
A. Yes.
Q. How long have you been using propofol in your practice?

A. Propofol, I think it was synthesized in 1986. I think it came into practice in '89. There might
have been some time when I was at UCLA., I did some -- participated in research cases where I
used it there. So I would say I've been using it since 1990.
Q. The research cases that you did at UCLA., was that while it was still in the sort of testing
phase before it was commonly used on the market?
A. You know, I think it was already approved, but we were trying it out for different types of
cases. Jules stein eye institute, we were doing difficult eye cases.
Q. Is it fair to say you're familiar with the standard of care for administering propofol?
A. Yes.
Q. I want to talk about that, briefly.
Ms. Cahan. And, pam, can you put up slide 1 for everyone?
Q. Does propofol need to be administered in an appropriate medical setting with certain
specialized equipment?
A. It can be administered in outlying areas in emergencies and situations like that. But mostly it's
in an operating room or a very controlled setting.
Ms. Cahan. And, pam, can you show just Mr. Fournier and counsel and the judge slide 2,
please?
Q. And that will be on the little screen in front of you, Mr. Fournier, in just a second. And I'll
represent to you that this is a slide of what I understand the requirements for the safe
administration of propofol to be, so I wanted you to take a look at this. Let me know if you agree
that this is what you would think is necessary for the safe administration of propofol.

A. Yes. But I'd like to add a couple things.

Q. Okay. Is it -- a --
Ms. Cahan. Any objection to this being shown to the jury?
Mr. Panish. No.
Ms. Cahan. Okay. You can show to it everyone. Thank you.
Q. And just -- I'm sorry. Before you add --
Ms. Cahan. Just for the record, we'll be giving this exhibit no. 13,472.
The judge. And are you -- is it slide 1 and 2 or just slide 2?
Ms. Cahan. Just slide 2. Slide 1 was the same thing without the text on it, so that doesn't need to
come into evidence.
The judge. Okay.
Ms. Cahan. Just a demonstrative. (defendants' exhibit no. 13,472, slide 2 of the exhibit, was
marked for identification.)
Q. Mr. Fournier, what would you add to this slide that's necessary but not listed?
A. Well, if it's in the operating room, an ambu bag and mask would be backup to an anesthesia
machine that's been checked out and ready to go. And prior to 19- -- or prior to 2005, a
capnograph actually was suggested but not required. It's been required since july 1, 2011. So now
that's -- during the care of Michael, it was not required. And this would be just to give a bolus of

propofol. I mean, to put someone to sleep. But if I was going to maintain them safely, I would
add to this a computerized infusion pump that's dedicated to delivering propofol.
Q. Other than the capnograph, which you said became a requirement in 2011, were all the other
things listed on this slide the standard -- part of the standard of care for safe administration of
propofol in 2009?
A. The package handout says you have to have a trained provider and facilities and equipment to
resuscitate and maintain the airway and maintain circulation. It doesn't go into the specifics. This
is my list.
Q. Okay. So what is an anesthesia machine?
A. It's a machine that's at the head of the table, usually, and it has -- holds the monitors and has
an anesthesia circuit so you can deliver anesthesia gases in it; a flow meter to control those
gases; it has vaporizers to deliver the anesthetic agents in the workplace, and we can kind of keep
things organized.
Q. How big is the anesthesia machine, if you can estimate?
A. The one I own is 6 1/2 feet tall with monitors and maybe 4 feet square.
Q. A big machine?
A. Big machine.
Q. And what is an infusion pump?
A. An infusion pump is a small, battery-powered device -- or you can plug it into the wall, also --
where you specialize for each drug. It can be specialized for each drug. And what it does is, by
dialing the weight and the dose and particular drug, you can control precisely, plus or minus 1 or
2 percent, the rate that drug is delivered.

Q. Is it a more precise method for administering anesthesia than just using a drip?
A. Much more precise.
Q. What's an ambu bag and mask?
A. Ambu bag is a handheld ventilation device, very portable. Paramedics use it. Every hospital
has it as a ackup in case the anesthesia machine fails.
Q. And are there a number of these items listed that you would use to help someone breathe
while they're receiving anesthesia if they stop breathing on their own?
A. The ambu bag and mask, other assorted airway, I might. But in an appropriate-sized airway, if
things got difficult, I would use a laryngoscope blade or laryngeal mask airway.
Q. What about the "viable source of oxygen"?
A. Anytime you are administering any anesthetic, supplemental oxygen is required.
Q. And EKG., what is that?
A. Electrocardiogram.
Q. What is that used for?
A. To monitor the rhythm and rate of the heartbeat.
Q. Is that to make sure the heart is beating appropriately during anesthesia?
A. Appropriate rhythm, appropriate rate, no arrhythmia, funny beats.

Q. What is a capnograph?
A. Capnograph is a device that came out after I entered practice that measures the exhaled
carbon dioxide, the waste product of metabolism. It gives you a quantitative amount and rate of
respiration.
Q. And next is ability to measure blood pressure. Is that one of those arm cuffs that we've all
used at the doctor's office?
A. Correct. Either a manual blood pressure cuff, although now 99 percent of the time we use a
machine that can be set to cycle at a certain number of rates per minute.
Q. Why do you need to monitor the blood pressure?
A. Well, most anesthetics are depressive to the circulation. They depress the force of the
heartbeat, they dilate blood vessels and lower blood pressure, so you have to monitor that.
Q. What is a pulse oximeter?
A. A pulse oximeter is a device that sends a beam of calibrated light into the finger or the earlobe
or part of the body that's transparent to the beam and allows for a measurement of content,
percentage-wise, of the oxygen in the blood.
Q. Iv access and iv fluids. That's an intravenous line?
A. Intravenous, yes.
Q. What are resuscitation drugs?
A. Resuscitation drugs are the medications that are kept close at hand during any anesthetic.

Q. Is that -- are they helpful for the effects of some anesthetic, or make someone conscious?
A. There is one or two that can reverse, but most of them are supportive for the circulation or
used to combat arrhythmias.
Q. Continuous monitoring. Last one listed there. What does that mean?
A. Well, that's using the pulse oximeter, the blood pressure, the EKG., capnograph and
monitoring them. And another thing I would add to this list -- I'm kind of a dinosaur in this
business. When we initially started -- when I started doing anesthesia, a lot of these monitors
didn't exist, and an important supplement was a precordial stethoscope. This is a monaural
stethoscope that's in my ear, it's molded specifically to me, and it's attached to a stethoscope that
rests over the patient's trachea or over their chest. And I use that to listen to heartbeat and
breathing. Not everybody uses that nowadays, but we dinosaurs do.
Q. So you're continuously monitoring someone's breathing, their heart rate, their blood pressure,
their oxygenated -- how oxygenated their blood is?
A. Correct.
Q. And then you also have equipment to actually provide the anesthesia in a controlled manner?
A. Correct.
Q. And equipment to help, if something adverse happens? For example, the person stops
breathing, or their blood pressure drops too low, something like that?
A. Correct.
Q. Is it common for someone to stop breathing when they're receiving anesthesia?

A. It depends on the dose, and what you're trying to do. For some minor procedures, it's just
intravenous sedation, and the patient breathes on their own. For general anesthesia or bigger
cases, we often give an induction dose of medication that stops them breathing, put in a breathing
tube to assist in ventilation or maintain them with a laryngeal mask.
Q. Is propofol used for sedation or general anesthesia or both?
A. Both.
Q. Is it the most commonly used anesthetic for both today?
A. Yes.
Q. And I think you said a minute ago, you referred to the package insert for propofol?
A. Yes.
Q. What's the package insert?
A. Every drug that is sold has a package, literature, that's provided by the manufacturer listing
how the drug is to be used, suggested doses, research that's been done on the drug, side effects,
complications. It's usually quite extensive.
Q. For propofol, is that -- are you familiar with the package insert?
A. Yes. It's 12 pages of 6-point type.
Q. And why is it important for you to be familiar with the package insert for a drug like
propofol? What information does it give you?

A. Well, it gives you doses, suggested starting ranges, situations where you can use it, situations
where it's not recommended, situations where it's contraindicated. Gives you research studies.
Gives you how the drug is suggested to be used for, say, in cardiac anesthesia versus
neurosurgeries versus pediatric anesthesia versus sedation. Gives you a lot of information.
Q. Is the package insert something people who provide these typically rely on as a source of
information about how to administer that particular anesthetic?
A. When you first are exposed to a new drug, that's where you start.
Ms. Cahan. Is there any objection to me showing the package insert?
Mr. Panish. No.
Ms. Cahan. Okay. Jessica, can I have exhibit 12,941, please? Your honor, may I approach?
The judge. Yes.
Q. Luckily we have the screen, and pam is pretty good at zooming in, so you won't have to look
at the 6-point font. Not going to spend a lot of time on this because, as you noted, it's quite a lot
of information. But I see at the top left here, it says "diprivan" and says "propofol" in
parentheses. What's diprivan?
A. Diprivan is the trade name; propofol is the generic name. And then there's a chemical name.
Q. Okay. When a hospital or a surgical center orders propofol, is the package insert in the
package that the propofol comes in?
A. It's in every box of drug.
Q. So if a doctor ordered propofol in 2009, would he or she have received a copy of the package
insert with the propofol?

A. Yes.
Ms. Cahan. Pam, can you turn to page 2 there? And there's a column, second column, there's
"warnings." okay.
Q. And you're probably going to be more comfortable looking at it on the screen, but you're
welcome to look at the hard copy. Do you see there where it says "warnings"?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I'm just going to draw your attention to the first part right under where it says
"warnings." and can you read for me the first --
A. "use of diprivan injectable emulsion has been associated with both fatal and life-threatening
anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions."
Q. Can you continue on to the next paragraph there?
A. "for general anesthesia or monitored anesthesia care sedation, diprivan injectable emulsion
should be administered only by persons trained in the administration of general anesthesia and
not involved in the conduct of the surgical/ diagnostic procedure."
Q. Keep going.
A. "sedated patients should be continuously monitored and facilities for maintenance of patent
airway, providing artificial ventilation, administering supplemental oxygen and instituting
cardiovascular resuscitation must be immediately available. Patient should be continuously
monitored for early signs of hypertension, apnea, airway obstruction and/or oxygen desaturation.
These cardiorespiratory effects are more likely to occur following rapid bolus administration,
especially in the elderly, debilitated, or american society of anesthesiologists status iii or iv
patients."

Q. And that iii or iv -- you said people are categories 1 through 5, and that's the reference there?
A. Correct.
Q. Let's break this down a little bit. It says: "propofol should be administered only by persons
trained in the administration of general anesthesia and not involved in the conduct of the
surgical/diagnostic procedure." what does that mean to you?
A. To me, that means that the only people that should be administering propofol are
anesthesiologists or nurse anesthetists.
Q. And those anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists shouldn't be doing a surgical procedure
while --
A. I don't think that would apply -- that's what this applies to here.
Q. Okay.
A. Some oral surgeons, gastroenterologist practitioners tend to provide their own sedation.
Q. Uh-huh.
A. And in the anesthesia business, it's not a good idea because your focus is divided between
doing a procedure and monitoring the patient. And we think monitoring the patient is a full-time
job.
Q. So it's fair to say you think the person administering the anesthesia not be involved in the
conduct of the surgical/diagnostic procedure?
A. Correct.

Q. It then says: "sedated patients should be continuously monitored." and that's what we were
just talking about; right? Keeping constant attention on breathing, blood pressure, heart rate,
things of that nature?
A. Correct.
Q. And the equipment that we talked about, the EKG the capnograph, those are some of the tools
that are typically used to continuously monitor the patient?
A. Correct.
Q. Altogether, how much -- from that previous slide, how much stuff is that? Is that stuff
something that's easily portable? A Lot of equipment?
A. It's a lot of equipment.
Q. And you said that you primarily practice in one location in Beverly Hills. Do you -- when you
practice other places, do you take the equipment with you from place to place?
A. There's one place I work -- well, actually, there's one place I work where I have all my own
equipment. I purchased it, and it's top-notch. There are other places I work where the equipment
is not quite up to my standards, so I bring a monitor, I think I paid $14,000 for it, that does many
of these things, and I bring that with me.
Q. Is all this equipment expensive all together?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Any sense of what it would cost to purchase all that equipment?
A. In my operating room, I probably have $70,000 invested.

Q. Going back to that "warnings" section --

Ms. Cahan. Sorry, pam.
Q. it refers to -- it says: "sedated patients should be continuously monitored and facilities for
maintenance of a patent's airway, providing artificial ventilation, administering supplemental
oxygen, and instituting cardiovascular resuscitation must be immediately available." do you see
that?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you explain to the jury what that means?
A. Well, anytime you give anesthetic, there's the potential for adverse reactions. Anesthesia is
very, very safe nowadays. The monitors are better; the drugs are better; the people giving it are
better. But we still have to watch very closely, because things can happen, and you have to have
proper equipment available to take care of things.
Q. What types of facilities typically have this equipment available?
A. Hospitals, of course; accredited outpatient surgery centers, and some small procedure rooms
in doctors' offices.
Q. Fair to say that you wouldn't expect to find this type of equipment in somebody's home?
A. I would not.
Q. Is propofol available in a pill form?
A. No.

Q. Do doctors ever give patients prescriptions for propofol?

A. No.
Q. Is propofol something that is available at drug stores or pharmacies for patients to take home
with them?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. It's an anesthetic. It's dangerous. It's -- actually, let me rephrase that. It's an anesthetic, and in
the wrong hands, without proper monitoring and without proper training, it's dangerous.
Q. Let's talk a little bit more about what happens when you administer propofol. Typically in the
kind of outpatient procedures you do in most of your practice, how long does it take for the
effects of propofol to wear off?
A. The distribution half-life of propofol, after an injection, a one arm-to-brain circulation time, is
two to eight minutes, depending on the dose.
Q. Fairly quickly?
A. Fairly quickly.
Q. Do patients generally experience side effects from propofol after a procedure is finished and
they're discharged from the surgery center, in your experience?
A. Well, one of the advantages of propofol over some of the other drugs we used to use -- they're
still in use, but to a much lesser extent -- is propofol has a nice wake-up profile, it's metabolized
relatively quickly, and patients usually wake up without side effects. Also has some anti-nausea
effects. So those are good.

Q. Shifting topics a little bit.

The judge. So it has no side effects at all?
The witness. every drug has side effects, can have side effects. I don't quite understand what you
mean.
The judge. Well, you said it has anti-nausea. It sounds like it's a positive.
The witness. it's a positive.
The judge. Wondering what the negative side effects are.
The witness. the drug burns when you give it in a small vein. It can cause low blood pressure,
hypertension, apnea. Yeah, it can cause problems.
Q. What about after effects after someone who has woken up from propofol? Does the anti-
nausea side effect continue on?
A. For a while, yes.
Q. And are there other effects of the drug that last after someone is sort of awake and
functioning?
A. Not really.
Q. So earlier we went over the medical history and anesthesia consent form you used, and we
looked at one example of that form. Is there another form you typically use when you're actually
administering the anesthesia?

A. Yes. It's an anesthesia record.

Q. Is this an example of the anesthesia record that you typically use?
A. Yes.
Q. I just want to walk through again how to read this form. So, again, this is a form where the
name is "Omar Arnold," and that's for Michael Jackson?
A. Yes.
Q. And, again, the weight is listed there. Here it says "132"?
A. Yes.
Q. And the date, is that April 11th, 2002?
A. Correct.
Q. Underneath the name, it says "operation." and underneath that, it says "surgeon." are you able
to read what the operation is there?
A. It's "multiple collagen injections."
Q. And who is the surgeon?
A. Dr. Lawrence Koplin.
Q. Underneath the date it says -- there's a couple of times. And what do those represent?

A. Anesthesia start time is when I begin to take care of the patient. Surgical start time is when the
surgeon begins his procedure. Surgical stop time is self-explanatory, and the empty box is the
anesthesia stop time, which I didn't put in. But looking at the time anesthesia record, it looks like
it was about 6:00 p.m., 1800 hours.
Q. So you were administering, taking care of Mr. Jackson from 5:10 p.m. To about 6:00 p.m.
Here?
A. Correct.
Q. And that was a pretty short procedure?
A. Correct.
Q. there's a time box that says "1800" there. Does that represent the stop time of 6:00 p.m.?
A. Correct.
Q. And on the left, there's a section that says "agents" with some information underneath it.
Q. What is that part of the form?
A. Those are the basic drugs up at the top, and then there's space down below for any additional
drugs that are given.
Q. And here I see "propofol" is listed there as one of the drugs.
A. Correct.
Q. And propofol was given here?

A. Yes.
Q. 140 milligrams?
A. Correct.
Q. So, again, you can take the time to do this if you want, but I'll represent to you that based on
the records in exhibit 11,474, which is that subset of the records that you produced, I counted 14
different occasions on which you administered propofol. Does that sound about right to you?
A. Yes.
Q. So you began treating Mr. Jackson in 1993. And I -- you have records available for 2000,
2002 and 2003?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And those are the dates on which you gave Mr. Jackson propofol in connection with
medical procedures in the years 2000, 2002 and 2003?
A. Correct.
Q. Were there other times that you --
Q. Were there any other times you administered propofol for Mr. Jackson that you don't have
records for?
A. There were some times before 2000 where propofol was administered.

Q. Do you know whether you treated him, gave him propofol or any other anesthesia care, in
2001?
A. I believe so, once or twice.
Q. Okay. And what about after 2003? Is it possible you saw him after 2003 and you just don't
have records for it?
A. I ran into him once afterward, but I did not provide any anesthetic after September.
Q. Okay. You sure about that?
A. Yes.
Q. So we talked about the times --
Q We talked about the times that you treated Michael Jackson that are not reflected in the records
that were not available. Were there also times when you were asked to administer anesthesia to
Mr. Jackson, but you couldn't because you weren't available to work that day?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether, when that happened, the doctors for Mr. Jackson would cancel the
procedure or find someone else to provide the anesthesia and go forward with it?
A. I don't know.
Q. Did you ever have any conversations with Mr. Jackson about propofol?

A. I would explain to him what we were doing for the day, but we didn't have conversations
about it.
Q. Did he have a name for propofol other than "propofol"?
A. The street name, and you'll find it even in wikipedia and everywhere else, is that propofol is
called "milk of amnesia." he referred to it as -- one time I remember he referred to it as "the
milk."
Q. Did you ever hear Mr. Jackson use an alternative name for any other drugs?
A. No.
Q. So your professional relationship with Mr. Jackson spanned about a decade. Did you also
have a personal relationship with him?
A. Well, after the first bunch of interactions with him, he was a very warm, likable guy, I'd
characterize him. We became friends.
Q. Did you socialize with him from time to time?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever visit Neverland?
A. I visited Neverland twice. He was there once; there was another time when he wasn't there. I
was just there with family, showing them around.
Q. In all the years that you knew Michael, both as someone who provided him anesthesia and as
a friend, did you ever know that he was using propofol to help him sleep?

A. No.
Q. Is that something he ever discussed with you?
A. No.
Q. Is that something you had any suspicion of?
A. No.
Q. So fair to say that that's something that you learned about after Mr. Jackson passed away?
Mr. Panish. Objection. Objection. Calls for hearsay.
The judge. Sustained.
Q. Have you ever used propofol to help a patient with insomnia?
A. No.
Q. Is propofol generally a drug used to treat insomnia?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever heard of anyone who used propofol to treat insomnia before Mr. Jackson
passed away?
A. No.
Mr. Panish. Objection.

The judge. Overruled. I'm sorry. Have you ever heard it?
The witness. no.
Mr. Panish. He answered.
Q. And just what's happening here, sometimes we'll make objections. And if you hear the
objection, you should stop answering and wait for the judge to sustain or overrule it. You're
doing fine so far. Hopefully you're a little less nervous at this point.
A. Yes.
Q. How is propofol administered?
A. Intravenously.
Q. That means you're putting it into somebody's veins?
A. Right.
Q. Through an iv?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever have trouble starting an iv on Mr. Jackson?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that something that happened more than once?

A. Yes.
Q. Did you sometimes have to try multiple times to place an iv for Mr. Jackson?
A. You're embarrassing me, but, yes.
Q. Is it embarrassing to you, as you're pretty good as placing ivs?
A. I'm pretty good.
Q. Something you do on a daily basis?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever have to start an iv for Mr. Jackson in an unusual or nontraditional place?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Did you ever place an iv in -- well, is it common to place an iv in someone's hands?
A. Yes.
Q. Where in the hand is it typically used?
A. The dorsum of the hand is the least painful area, and I always use local anesthesia for that
before I do that. But the top of the hand.
Q. Was there ever a time where you had to place an iv somewhere else in Michael Jackson's
hand?

A. Yes. Further up the arm or the crook of the elbow, the antecubital fascia.
Q. And you said there were some times it was hard for you to start an iv in Mr. Jackson. Did that
require multiple attempts?
A. Yes.
Q. Using locations other than what's typical?
A. It would be -- you would start low, and if you missed once -- I think the most I ever had to
stick him was three times, but usually once or twice.
Q. Is it -- do you typically try to start an iv in sort of a medium or large vein?
A. Propofol is irritating to the vein. It burns. So the larger the vein, the less pain and discomfort
the patient would have. So, yes, you usually try for a larger vein.
Q. Were there any times you had to place an iv for Mr. Jackson in a small vein?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember where?
A. Uhm, probably, maybe, the top of one finger or on the volar surface of the arm.
Q. Did you ever make a note in your records when you had a hard time starting the iv or took
more than the typical number of tries?
A. Yes, I did. It's part of the record.

Q. So what is it -- there's handwriting there. What does that say?

A. "difficult iv placement. Difficult monitored anesthesia care. High tolerance noted."
Q. And what does "difficult monitored anesthesia care" mean?
A. Well, I can only see part of the record there.
Q. Sorry. It's page 28 in your 11,474.
A. That's something different.
Q. It's the smaller exhibit. I'm sorry. Page 28 there.
A. "may 13, 2003"?
Q. I think so. Yep.
A. Yeah. I can't pinpoint exactly why it was a difficult case, although I did add a medicine I don't
usually use, and that was ketamine.
Q. Okay. And "high tolerance noted," do you know what that is a reference to?
A. Whenever you do anesthetic, you always have to think that you may see them again, or
someone else may see them again. You try to leave as much information for the next person,
yourself, or somebody else. And I made a note that he had a high tolerance to the medication that
day.
Q. Do you have an understanding as to why it was often hard to start an iv for Mr. Jackson?

A. I remember one time when I was told in 1993 or something, he was --

Q. Sorry. I'm not sure that you should tell us.
Ms. Cahan. Is there any objection to this, counsel?
Mr. Boyle. Hearsay.
The judge. Peanut gallery.
Q. Is this something that influenced the way you took care of Mr. Jackson's medical treatment?
The judge. So --
Ms. Cahan. Skipping the question. I'm trying to lay a foundation for why it would not be
hearsay.
The judge. Well, all right.
The witness. can you repeat the question?
Q. Were you told something in 1993 that influenced the way you provided anesthesia or ran ivs
for Mr. Jackson?
A. I was told he had been hospitalized.
Mr. Panish. That's hearsay.
Ms. Cahan. Okay.

The judge. It is.

Ms. Cahan. I'll move on from there.
The judge. The answer is stricken.
Q. In your experience, can receiving a lot of injections or anesthesia damage a patient's veins?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it also your understanding that some doctors had trouble drawing blood and doing labs for
Mr. Jackson?
Mr. Panish. That also calls for hearsay.
The judge. Sustained.
Ms. Cahan. I'll lay a foundation for it.
Q. Were you ever asked to draw blood from Mr. Jackson for another doctor during a procedure
where he was anesthetized?
A. Yes.
Mr. Panish. Also calls for hearsay.
Ms. Cahan. Something he did.
The judge. Overruled.

Q. So going back to the bottom of the first page of exhibit 11,474, that's the anesthesia consent
form we talked about a bit earlier.
Q. And there's a big signature there. Is that Mr. Jackson's signature?
A. Yes. Michael signed everything with a flourish.
Q. And did you have Michael Jackson sign this consent form every time you gave him anesthesia
or consent form that was effectively the same?
A. He signed this one. Some of the surgicenters had their own anesthesia consent forms, which I
wasn't allowed to copy or take with me, or there was a mention of anesthesia risks and
complications in every surgical consent.
Q. And among the -- I'll skip through some of this, but where it says, "I'm aware that anesthesia,
like any other medical procedure, has risks." and it says, "these include, but are not limited to" --
a number of things -- ending with "death." do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. In addition to having a patient like Mr. Jackson sign this form, do you also discuss the risks of
anesthesia with your patient before you administering anesthesia?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you discuss the risk of death, among others?
A. I have a little speech that I give, yes, and that's at the tail end.
Q. And do you go over these risks with your patients before every procedure?

A. Yes. However, some people, when you start the risks, they go, "I don't want to hear about it
anymore." and you'll see another box that says, "I don't want to hear the specifics."
Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever do that? Say, "stop, I don't want to hear it"?
A. He never said, "stop, I don't want to hear it." he just would say, "you've done enough. I've got
it." he heard it multiple times.
Q. So you did go through the full speech with him a number of times?
A. Many times. Sometimes we wouldn't see each other for six months or a year, so I'd go through
it with him.
Q. When you would go over the risks, would you ask Mr. -- with Mr. Jackson, would you ask
him if he had any questions?
A. At the end of my history and physical, I always ask if people have any questions about
anything.
Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever hesitate or resist signing this anesthetic consent or other ones used that
look like it?
A. No.
Q. Are you familiar with the class of drugs called benzodiazepines?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever use those in your treatment of Michael Jackson?

A. Yes.
Ms. Cahan. Exhibit dated November 14th, 2000? And we're going to zoom in on that "agents"
section again. And there's a line that says, "versed." so underneath -- it's the "versed" underneath
"lidocaine." two more down. I know these are hard to read.
Q. And what's versed? Type of drug?
A. Versed is a benzodiazepine similar to valium. An injectable medication.
Q. And it says there, "5 milligrams." is that the amount of administered?
A. Yes.
Q. At the bottom of the page, in the box where --
Q. What does it say there?
A. "alarms on perimeter set. Sedated. Very high tolerance noted. Vital signs stable."
Q. What does "very high tolerance" mean in this record?
A. In this record, that's a large amount of versed. Usually, it's 1 to 2 milligrams. Here it's 5. And I
also see I supplemented the analgesia with some ketamine a little bit. So it was taking a little bit
more than I would anticipate to keep him comfortable.
Q. What's a typical dose of versed?
A. For me? No.

Q. I'm sorry. There is no typical --

A. I'm sorry. I misunderstood you. There is no typical dose.
Q. Okay. What is your normal starting dose, if you have one?
A. 1 milligram.
Q. Okay. And why did you give Mr. Jackson 5 milligrams in this instance, if you recall?
A. Well, my clinical observation at that time was that in order to keep him comfortable during
this probably painful dental procedure, he required more sedation, more pain relief.
Q. Generally speaking, what can cause a patient to have a high tolerance to a drug like versed or
the midazolam, which is the generic name?
A. There can be genetic factors; people who use more alcohol or use recreational drugs have a
higher tolerance; people who have had multiple anesthetics have a higher tolerance.
Q. You spoke a bit earlier about every time you gave Mr. Jackson medical care there was a
physician present doing some kind of procedure on him.
A. Correct. I cannot give anesthetic without a physician's order.
Q. You said there were also times where you would go with Mr. Jackson to either make him, or
the person performing the procedure, feel comfortable, where you didn't actually administer
anesthesia?
A. Correct.

Q. Can you tell me the names of the doctors that you remember performing -- either performing
anesthesia with Mr. Jackson or being -- attending a procedure?
A. Well, initially it was Dr. Arnold Klein; then there was a dentist, I think -- I believe Dr. Baxley.
Some of the hair transplants and scalp-reduction work, the painful procedures were done by a Dr.
Bosley. There was also one who took care of him, a very well-known plastic surgeon, Dr. Gary
Tearston. And towards the end of our relationship, I worked with a Dr. Lawrence Koplin.
Q. Do you know whether the people listed on this slide all treated, gave medical care to Mr.
Jackson?
A. I believe they did.
Q. And do you know that either because you were present for procedures where they were taking
care of Mr. Jackson, or Mr. Jackson told you they were his physicians?
A. Correct. I was either present or Michael told me about it.
Ms. Cahan. Any objection?
Mr. Panish. Yeah. Take the top off.
Ms. Cahan. Sorry?
Mr. Panish. Take the word where it says, "worked with Fournier."
Ms. Cahan. Okay. Pam, can you just remove the heading on this?
Mr. Panish. It's just a picture of doctors he knew or he saw, but take that off.
Q. Okay. So what kind of doctor was Dr. Klein?

Mr. Koskoff. Object to the form. What does that mean, "what kind of doctor"?
Ms. Cahan. Does he have a specialty?
The judge. Okay.
Q. I'm sorry. Does he have a specialty?
A. Dr. Klein is a dermatologist and medical doctor and surgeon.
Q. Dr. Hoefflin?
A. Dr. Hoefflin is a board certified plastic and reconstructive surgeon.
Q. Dr. Metzger?
A. Dr. Metzger is an internal medicine physician.
Q. Dr. Koplin?
A. Dr. Koplin is board certified in general surgery and board certified in plastic and
reconstructive surgery.
Q. Dr. Baxley is a dentist?
A. I believe he's an oral surgeon.
Q. Okay. What about Dr. Levine?

A. Dr. Levine, unfortunately, passed away. He was a fine and wonderful dentist and oral surgeon.
Q. Dr. Bosley, you said, did some work on Mr. Jackson's scalp?
A. Dr. Bosley is famous -- his specialty is hair restoration. And in Michael's case, Michael
received a burn, I think, in 1984 during the filming of a commercial, was badly burned. And Dr.
Bosley helped to restore some of that area and cover that up.
Q. And is he the person you worked with on the initial -- during the surgeries you talked about
where you provided anesthesia in 1993 for a reduction of the scalp?
A. Yes. I believe it was Dr. Bosley.
Q. Okay. And you said Dr. Tearston, the plastic surgeon?
A. Dr. Tearston, I believe, is board certified in general surgery and a very well-known plastic and
reconstruction surgeon.
Mr. Panish. What's the exhibit number on this?
Ms. Cahan. 13,474.
Mr. Panish. Thank you.
Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever tell you that he had a primary care doctor?
A. Dr. Allan metzger, I believe, was his primary care doctor.
Ms. Cahan. Can you go back to the slide with the list of things for administering propofol
safely?

Mr. Panish. What number is that?

Ms. Cahan. 13,473 -- 2. I'm sorry. 13,472.
Mr. Panish. Thank you.
Q. And just before we go on, I just wanted to make clear, you said that you don't expect this kind
of equipment to be in somebody's home; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Is it ever appropriate to give someone -- to sedate someone or provide general anesthesia with
propofol in someone's home?
A. No.
Q. Is it ever appropriate for someone who doesn't have special training in anesthesiology to be
providing general anesthesia?
A. No.
Q. Is it ever appropriate to give propofol for sleep?
A. No. May I add one thing to that list?
Q. Uh-huh.
A. When you're working with a dermatologist who has been out of school for 30 years, I -- you
can't necessarily rely on them, should there be a problem. In those situations I insist on having a
registered nurse who's got A.C.L.A., a cardiac license, just in case I need a second set of hands.
That's another thing I would add to that list.

Q. And has a patient ever asked you to provide particular anesthetics to him or her or to provide
anesthesia in a particular way? Do they ever say, "doctor, I think I know" or "Mr. Fournier, I
think I know what kind of anesthesia I'd like, and I'd like you to give me x, y and z"?
A. Yes, people have sometimes. What people don't realize is the average anesthetic is 11, 12, 14
different drugs. So they may -- they'll say pentothal, but they can't do pentothal for a 4-hour case.
It's just the beginning drug. So I try to explain to them that based on their medical history and
their physical exam, I'll be picking things out.
Q. Do you let patients ever dictate what anesthesia you provide to them?
A. No.
Q. And would you ever do something just because a patient wanted you to, if you didn't think it
was the right -- appropriate thing to do medically?
A. Of course not.
Ms. Cahan. Okay. You can take that down, pam.
Q. In your experience, Mr. Fournier, was Mr. Jackson concerned about his privacy?
A. Very concerned.
Q. Why do you say that?
A. Because he was hounded continuously by the paparazzi. He could barely ever go shopping
without being in disguise. He had to have people to protect him, to keep people away from him. I
mean, he loved people, but people could be overbearing because he was so famous.

Q. Did he ever do anything to maintain his privacy when he would come for medical
appointments where you were accompanying him or taking care of him?
A. We would do things in the evening. We'd have to hire staff to come in the evening, because
during the day his comings and goings would be too obvious. He would come in the back way.
One of his bodyguards would put an umbrella in front of the video camera so he wouldn't be
photographed. We used aliases to protect him. And before we left, we all went outside and
checked to make sure there was no paparazzi or photographers there.
Q. And I think we talked earlier about other uses of names on the forms for, or at the request of
Mr. Jackson, or physicians he was working with?
A. Correct.
Q. Saw that Omar Arnold name. Were there other aliases that you used for Michael Jackson at
his request, or the request of the physicians you were working with?
A. Yes. I remember Michael James, Jack James. I'd have to look at the records, but those come to
mind.
Q. And that was, to your understanding, to preserve Mr. Jackson's privacy?
A. Yes. We were doing these procedures after hours to protect his privacy and protect for his
safety, too, just for the crowds. And there's a surgical log at every institution where we keep track
of every patient, and if the staff came by the next morning and saw the name "Michael Jackson,"
then it would be out that he had been there. So an alias was used.
Q. Were there any times that you thought Mr. Jackson was not being completely honest with
you?
A. Towards the end of our working relationship, yes.
Ms. Cahan. Let's take a look at exhibit 11,474 at page 29. And just zoom in on the top there

Q. This is a medical history and anesthesia consent form?

A. Correct.
Mr. Panish. Which page is that on?
Ms. Cahan. Page 29.
Q. And here it says "Michael Jackson" as the name?
A. Yes.
Q. In looking -- if you look down at the bottom, the very bottom of this, are you able to tell the
date this form was filled out?
A. June 2nd, 2003.
Q. Is that Michael Jackson's signature in the anesthetic consent box?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Just above, there's a box that says, "problems/impressions"?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you read what's in there?
A. "very pleasant male. No acute distress. Denies any medical or medication changes. Three days
ago slurred speech noted on phone."

Q. The "slurred speech noted on phone," what is that a reference to?

A. As I recall, three days before that was may 31st, which was my birthday, and Michael called
to say, "happy birthday." and I noticed on -- during the phone conversation that he didn't sound
himself, and his speech was slurred.
Q. And when you saw Mr. Jackson on june 2nd for this procedure, did you ask about that phone
conversation, and how his speech sounded to you?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did he say?
A. As I recall, he said he was either tired, or he might have taken something for sleep. But I think
he said he was just tired and had been on the road.
Q. Did it sound to you when you spoke with him that he was just tired?
A. He was more than tired. He was slurring his words.
Q. Did you ask him if he had taken any medication?
A. I can't remember if during that conversation I did, but I assumed something was going on.
Q. And just to draw your attention to that second line there, I think it says "denies any medical or
medication changes"?
A. Yes. Based on what had happened three days before, I quizzed him extensively. Asked him
about any recreational drugs, which he denied. And then I quizzed him again, and he denied any
medical or medication changes.

Q. So he denied any medical or medication changes, but he also denied using any recreational
drugs?
A. Yes.
Q. Turning to the next page, is this the -- this is page 30 of the exhibit (indicating). Is this the
anesthesia record for the June 2nd, 2003, visit?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And who was the doctor performing the procedure on Mr. Jackson on june 2nd, 2003?
A. Dr. Arnold Klein.
Q. What type of procedure was he performing?
A. Multiple derm procedures.
Q. Did anything neurological happen at this procedure?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened?
A. If you look --
Q. Go ahead.

A. I think there's some little marks there for blood pressure and pulse rate marks in the middle of
the page on that graph. But below that, there are some boxes. And to the left there's three letters:
s, a and c. That stands for ventilation. Spontaneous ventilation is s; assisted ventilation is a;
controlled ventilation is c. And you'll see the case starts out with spontaneously ventilating,
which is what we do for monitored anesthesia care. And then at some point Michael has what,
for me, was an unusual reaction in that he became apnea, not breathing enough, so I controlled
his ventilation for a period of a minute or a couple minutes. We continued the procedure. It
happened again. I lightened him up, and we continued with the procedure. And then there was a
third point where I assisted ventilation, just placing the oral airway, or lifting his chin, and we
continued the rest of the procedure spontaneously ventilated.
Q. Okay. I see three spots in here where there's sort of a line that's generally continuous, and it
sort of dips down. Are those the three times you're talking about where you had to assist his
breathing?
A. That's where -- what I'm referring to, yes.
Q. And this is just a "yes" or "no" question. Did Dr. Klein say something to you during the
procedure when Mr. Jackson stopped breathing about why Dr. Klein believed he might have
stopped breathing?
A. Yes.
Q. After Michael Jackson woke up from this procedure, did you speak to him about what had
happened during the procedure where he stopped breathing?
A. He was just waking up. There was no point in discussing it with him. He had 3 1/2 milligrams
of versed. He wouldn't remember anyway.
Q. At some point did you talk with him about the fact that he had stopped breathing on his own
during the procedure?
A. I didn't speak with him, but I spoke with Dr. Klein.

Q. Okay. At some point did you speak with Mr. Jackson about whether he had -- strike that. A
Minute ago you said he denied any recent medication or medical changes, and you showed us
where that was noted on the form.
A. Correct.
Q. Did you subsequently speak to Mr. Jackson about whether that was in fact true?
A. I don't recall a conversation. I think there probably was. There would be a note in the chart,
but I don't have that note.
Q. Okay. And I'll direct you to look at the text box there --
Q. See if that refreshes your recollection about what you learned from Mr. Jackson.
A. Yes. Would you like me to read that?
The judge. Read it to yourself.
Ms. Cahan. Not out loud.
The witness. yes. It does refresh.
Mr. Panish. Can you show me which part you're looking at, please?
Ms. Cahan. It might be on page 20 -- no, it's on page -- (counsel conferred sotto voce.)
Q. Does that refresh your recollection about whether Mr. Jackson told you something about a
recent change to his medical status?
A. He did not tell me about any recent changes.

Q. Okay. When -- and I don't want you to tell me what Dr. Klein said, but when Dr. Klein said
something during the procedure, was he upset?
Mr. Panish. Well, your honor, I'd object to all this questioning of counsel. Number one,
relevance; number two, the discussion we had with the court and representations made to the
court.
Ms. Cahan. I'm trying to determine whether this is an excited utterance, your honor.
The judge. Well, didn't we have a discussion about this prior?
Mr. Panish. Yes, we did. We sure did. And there was a representation made to the court.
The judge. Right.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Well, your honor, I think if you recall, it wasn't clear whether this particular
one would apply. There were others that were discussed that you thought did not apply, but I
don't know if there was ever any questioning on this particular exception.
Ms. Cahan. Can I attempt to lay a foundation, your honor?
The judge. Well, this should have been discussed with me at the time that we had the discussion.
Mr. Panish. And we had the discussion.
The judge. At least thoroughly. So I'm going to sustain the objection for now. He's going to be
on the stand after lunch?
Ms. Cahan. Yes.

The judge. We'll have a discussion about it later.

Q. Did you form an impression following this procedure whether Mr. Jackson had been honest
with you, completely honest with you, in denying any recent medical or medication changes
prior to this procedure?
Mr. Panish. I'm going to object. Number one, foundation; number two, potential discussion of
hearsay.
Ms. Cahan. I just want an answer "yes" or "no."
Mr. Panish. Well, but that's still based on hearsay, which would be -- again, it's that question,
"your understanding" based on inappropriate evidence.
The judge. No. Overruled. Just asking whether he, I guess, was under the impression that Mr.
Jackson hadn't been forthright. Okay. I'll overrule the "understanding."
Mr. Panish. But "your understanding," again, based on --
The judge. Yeah, but the statements -- overruled.
Mr. Putnam. Your honor, it's not just a statement, it's the entire medical condition. The person
went under three times, and his understanding as to what had occurred, and given --
Mr. Panish. First of all, that's not the entire medical condition. That's misrepresentation. Counsel
misrepresented to the court before, so I don't know why Mr. Putnam is making these statements.
The judge. Overruled. You may answer.
Q. You want me to reask the question?

A. Please.
Q. Just "yes" or "no." after the procedure was completed, did you have -- did you form an
understanding or belief as to whether Mr. Jackson had been truthful with you when he denied
any recent medication or health changes prior to the procedure?
A. My impression was that he had not been truthful.
Q. Was this the only instance where you came to believe that Mr. Jackson wasn't being
completely honest with you about his health status?
A. No.
Q. Tell me about the other instance or instances.
Mr. Panish. Object. Character evidence. 1101.
The judge. Overruled.
Q. You can answer.
A. The last time that I treated Michael professionally, which was a few months after this --
actually, I was about to treat him, but he became into the surgicenter, we had a team ready,
everything was all set up to go, but he was inappropriate. It's hard to characterize it. Maybe a
little goofy; a little slow to respond. I asked him if anything was going on, if anything had
changed in his medication, if he was on any medications, and he denied, and I didn't believe him,
and I canceled the case.
Q. So he came in and didn't seem totally with it?
A. I've known him for 10 years. I know how he reacts. I know his giggles; I know his
interactions. He was acting inappropriately.

Q. So you asked him, "have you taken some medication?" "are you on something?"
A. And he denied it.
Q. He said, "no"?
A. Yes.
The judge. What had he been in there for? What was the appointment for?
The witness. I believe it was Dr. Klein and one other doctor, and they were going to do, once
again, some facial stuff.
Q. By
Ms. Cahan. So you canceled the procedure?
A. Yes. I wasn't going into the operating room uncomfortable.
Q. So everybody is there ready to go, and you said "I'm not doing this"?
A. Yes. Every now and then, anesthesia providers have to be goalies and keep people out of the
operating room unless they're ready to have surgery. And so that's what I did.
Q. And this was sometime after the procedure we were just talking about where he stopped
breathing a few times?
A. I think three months later.

The judge. Was Dr. Klein there?

The witness. yes.
The judge. Dr. Klein didn't say, "stop the procedure"?
The witness. uhm, it didn't get -- Michael came in; I made the decision.
The judge. You made the decision?
The witness. yeah.
Q. And did you say this was the last time you ever treated Mr. Jackson or were about to treat Mr.
Jackson?
A. Correct.
Q. Why is that?
A. Well, despite 10 years of good quality care and taking good care of him for, you know, a long
period of time, they never called me again.
Q. Did you think Michael was used to being turned down or turned away?
Mr. Panish. Objection. No foundation.
The judge. Sustained.
Q. Do you think it's possible that there are other times when Mr. Jackson wasn't completely
honest with you about his health status?

Mr. Panish. Same objection. No foundation, speculation.

The judge. Overruled. You're talking about in his experience of his treatment?
Ms. Cahan. Yeah.
The judge. Overruled. You may answer.
The witness. I felt that this period here in June, he wasn't honest with me, and was not honest
with me in September.
Q. Were there any instances where Mr. Jackson didn't comply with instructions you gave him
about his medical care?
A. Yes.
Q. And what happened there?
A. Well, post-operatively, we always want -- I can think of two instances. Post-operatively, we
want patients to go home with an adult to keep an eye on them and stay with them for the first 24
hours. And after a procedure, I told him, "go home." he had a caregiver and a bodyguard and a
driver. And instead of going home, he went to rehearsal. And he sprained his ankle, and it was
the night before or the day before the Grammies. And instead of doing his routine on television,
he had to be carried on the stage in kind of a rickshaw deal.
Q. And what was the other instance where you're aware that Mr. Jackson didn't follow your
instructions?
A. After anesthesia, we usually like people to resume a normal diet slowly. So I told him to "go
home. Have some crackers, piece of toast, some soup." he left with his caregivers, and I cleaned
up the operating room. And then on my way home, I happened to drive by Kentucky Fried
Chicken, and there was Michael's limo. So I tapped on the glass, the window came down, and he

was having -- he and his bodyguard and driver were sharing a bucket of chicken and some
biscuits. He was embarrassed; the window rolled up.
Ms. Cahan. Your honor, this is probably a good point to stop.
The judge. Okay. 1:30.
(the jury exited the courtroom at 12:00 p.m.)
The judge. Okay. See you at 1:30. You may step down. Would you mind stepping out? I want to
talk to the lawyers for a little bit. Thank you.
(the witness exited the courtroom.)
The judge. Ms. Cahan, my only concern was that we hadn't discussed that particular exception.
We kind of touched on it a little bit.
Ms. Cahan. Right. And, your honor --
The judge. Normally we go through that. For example, when we had the discussion, plaintiffs'
counsel, they gave me a proffer, told me what it was the witness was going to say that would
support such a hearsay exception. I mean --
Ms. Cahan. Yeah. And your honor --
The judge. And instead, what happened -- and I don't know if it's because maybe you were going
to start, so we didn't get an opportunity to flesh it out, but I didn't get the proffer as to what was

going to happen. I think Ms. Bina kind of raised it towards the end, but I really didn't get the
evidence that would support it.
Ms. Cahan. Right, your honor. What happened there when I went out and spoke to the witness
in the hall, he said he had spoken to Mr. Jackson about the narcan implant afterwards, so I was
surprised when he didn't remember it on the stand. He did testify at his deposition that, you
know, he was sweating and sort of panicking. He didn't want Mr. Jackson to die on the table.
Klein was stressed as well. I think we could probably establish the basis for it being an excited
utterance. I don't know if --
Mr. Putnam. We'll ask him.
Ms. Cahan. -- Mr. Panish has any objection to that.
Mr. Panish. Yes, I would. And, also, she put up the record that has the hearsay statement in it
that had already been excluded, and then she asked the witness to review the hearsay statement,
knowing that there was no statement from Mr. Jackson in that record, and that was not
appropriate. And the record was up there for all to see with Dr. Klein's hearsay statement
contained -- that's why I asked, "where is Mr. Jackson's statement on here?" and she said, "it's on
the next page," and it wasn't on either page.
Ms. Cahan. Well, and that's why, your honor -- we can use anything to refresh. And I was
pointing him to the portion where it discusses the narcan implant, hoping it would trigger his
memory.
Mr. Panish. That's not what she asked.
Ms. Cahan. I very carefully asked Ms. Radford not to show that page to the jury.
The judge. Was it up?
Mr. Panish. Yes. The whole exhibit. The whole exhibit was up.

Mr. Putnam. Your honor --

Mr. Panish. It was absolutely -- (counsel are speaking over each other.)
The court reporter: I'm sorry.
Mr. Panish. I will just say -- and then he can say whatever he wants -- and whole record was up,
your honor.
The judge. You're saying it was up. Mr. Putnam?
Mr. Putnam. Your honor, she said three times to pam, "don't show that portion."
The judge. My question is: was it shown?
Mr. Putnam. He saw it, but they did not see it, your honor.
Mr. Panish. No. The whole record was up, and we can call anybody from the audience to show
that the whole record -- and that was exhibit number -- she put the whole exhibit up in front of
the jury, your honor. And that is -- and, actually, it's exhibit -- page 29, page --
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Your honor, I can't remember --
Mr. Panish. Page 30 -- she put up this whole exhibit, 11,474, page 30. And she had this whole
page up in front of the jury, which has the Dr. Klein statement that the court had said was not
admissible. That was put up in front of the jury, despite what Mr. Putnam wants to say. And
every one of these -- it was up, this whole page. Then she went through different portions, but the
whole page was up in front of the jury. Then she asked the witness to review Mr. Jackson's
statement --
The judge. Which I thought --

Mr. Panish. Which was not there. There is no statement of Mr. Jackson, and the question was,
"could you read Mr. Jackson" --
Ms. Cahan. No.
Mr. Panish. It wasn't -- yes, it was, and we'll get the transcript. You heard it.
The judge. All right. We'll get the transcript.
Ms. Cahan. I was asking him --
The judge. I was surprised he didn't respond positively.
Ms. Cahan. I was surprised, too, your honor. But what I asked him was to review his notes of
the procedure and asked him if that refreshed his recollection on whether Mr. Jackson had
spoken to him, "yes" or "no." we were very careful, your honor. The reference to the narcan
implant, which is effectively illegible, is the very bottom line of this box. We showed this portion
of the record, and we were very careful not to show or call out for the jury the other portion.
Mr. Panish. Do we have a tape of that? Is there a tape -- is that being recorded, what was on the
tv?
Ms. Cahan. No.
Mr. Putnam. So that would not show -- we asked -- we'll look at that portion of the transcript
over the lunchtime. She was directing pam more than one time not to show that portion for the
precise reason we're talking about here, is actually what occurred.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. In any event --
Ms. Cahan. There was no objection at the time.

Mr. Panish. Yes, there was.

Ms. Cahan. And I don't believe we showed that line of the page.
Mr. Panish. I said -- I called her over. I looked at the court to jump in.
The judge. I didn't know that she was showing that.
Mr. Putnam. She wasn't.
The judge. Since it was excluded.
Mr. Panish. Right.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. I don't believe she did, your honor. The only page I remember being on the
screen is this wavy lines --
Mr. Panish. No.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. The whole page was up kind of from a distance where no one could read it. I
don't believe --
The judge. It shouldn't be up at all.
Mr. Panish. Mr. Putnam says it wasn't up, now she says it was up.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Your honor, when we put a page up, she then zooms in. It was up for a
second. She zoomed in first at the top and then scrolled down to just the part with the wavy lines.
I don't think anyone showed anything else. If it was, it certainly wasn't intentional. I don't believe
it could have been read, given the tiny font. But I don't know if we can prove what was shown or
not. We remember it one way; Mr. Panish remembers it another.

Mr. Panish. You remember it exactly as I do. It was put up. Mr. Putnam said it wasn't. It was put
up. And that's why I called her over, and that's because I thought what she was saying is, "read
this from Mr. Jackson discussing it with you."
The judge. Right.
Mr. Panish. That was the question. There's nothing from Mr. Jackson in there.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. The question, your honor, was "read your notes from the procedure and see
if it refreshes your recollection." that, I remember clearly.
Mr. Panish. No. "Mr. Jackson."
Ms. Stebbins Bina. We can check the transcript on that.
The judge. I mean, I'm surprised if that's what happened, because we just had a discussion about
that.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Your honor, it did not go up to the screen, to my recollection, other than
when they first put the page up to zoom in on it. It was up maybe for half a second.
Mr. Panish. Now it's half a second.
Ms. Cahan. No one could --
Ms. Stebbins Bina. No one could read the notes on --
The judge. What you're arguing is there's no prejudice. You're saying that it was shown but there
was no prejudice.

Ms. Stebbins Bina. It wasn't --

The judge. The point is, it was shown. And I just talked to you about that. So I just --
Mr. Panish. It's the fourth time. You know, I've been chastised. One time in the Seawright, there
was an instruction, you were all upset with me and said I should have brought it to the court's
attention. And three times since then I said, "your honor, they should have brought that to the
court's attention ahead of time." and you've said that, your honor, and it just keeps going on. I
mean, come on. And I'm going to be forced to keep objecting in front of the jury? They know
better than that. She knows what's in the record. They shouldn't have done that. And Mr. Putnam,
we already know he made a false statement. "we never put the record up." we all know they put
it up.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Your honor --
Mr. Panish. He just represented it was never put up. Now Ms. Stebbins a second, half second, it
was much longer than that. And his statement that it was never put up is false.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Your honor, to the extent it was put up, it was put up in tiny font. No one
could read it as Ms. Radford was zooming in.
The judge. So it was put up.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. I don't believe --
The judge. It was put up.
Mr. Panish. But you're trying to say it wasn't.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. -- it was legible.
The judge. You put it up.

Ms. Stebbins Bina. It wasn't --

The judge. Ms. Bina, listen to me. Do I have to monitor every single thing?
Mr. Putnam. No, your honor.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. No, your honor.
The judge. Before you show the jury now, I have to look at it; counsel has to look at it? Maybe
that's what we have to do. We just talked about it five minutes before the testimony. If I can't
trust that, then it looks like every exhibit is going to have to be put on my screen, put on
counsel's screen, not shown to the jury, and you're going to have to get permission to put it up.
And if that's the way we're going to go, let's do that.
Mr. Panish. Mr. Putnam said it wasn't put up, and that's a false representation.
The judge. Okay.
Mr. Putnam. Well, your honor, what I actually said, your honor, to be clear --
Mr. Panish. Here we go.
Mr. Putnam. You know what? Would you stop it?
Mr. Panish. No. Would you stop misrepresenting --
Mr. Putnam. Would you act professional for a minute?
The judge. Mr. Panish?

Mr. Panish. I want him to stop misrepresenting --

The judge. I want to hear what he has to say. I've listened to you for 10 minutes.
Mr. Putnam. What happened is, they popped the entire thing up, and then they moved to the top;
okay? And then she moved her way down the screen, and she kept saying, I think it was three
times -- and I'll check the transcript -- "do not show the notes." she said it three times, "do not
show the notes." but it was --
The judge. Maybe she did. It was shown.
Mr. Putnam. No.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Only when it was first put --
Mr. Putnam. Moved on the top.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. -- it was moved to the top. There was every effort to make sure these were
not shown.
Mr. Putnam. They were not shown.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. And I don't believe they were shown in a legible fashion.
Ms. Cahan. And to be clear, your honor, this was admitted into evidence without objection
before. It was my intention not to show that. I thought he was going to tell me what he was told
by Mr. Jackson because that's what he said to me in the hall before we called the jury in after he
dealt with this issue.
The judge. Even if he had done that, it sounds like what's in the notes is Dr. Klein's statement.

Mr. Panish. It is.

The judge. That whole thing has been excluded. So even if he were to look at it and talk about
Michael Jackson's statement, Kleins statement is excluded, so you can't be showing that.
Mr. Putnam. Yes, your honor.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Not to the jury.
Ms. Cahan. What it says, your honor, is --
Mr. Panish. I'll read it.
Ms. Cahan. I can't even read this.
The judge. Well, this is what we're going to do.
Mr. Putnam. We'll go through it at lunch.
The judge. From now on, we're going to do it the other way.
Mr. Panish. That's fine.
The judge. Which is before you show anything to the jury, you're going to show to it me. You
can show it to the witness, show it to opposing counsel, and then, you know, if everything is
okay and the question's appropriate, then you can put it up.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Thank you.
The judge. But we had just had a discussion about it.

Ms. Cahan. Thank you, your honor. I was trying to avoid that being seen. I would suspect that
none of the jurors saw that in the two seconds it was up on the screen.
Mr. Panish. Well, now it's two seconds. It went from half -- one, it was never shown; then it's a
half second; now it's a second; now two seconds.
Ms. Cahan. Your honor, will you allow us to try to lay a foundation for an excited utterance?
Mr. Putnam. Ask him if it's even possible. If it's not even possible, we won't try to lay it.
The judge. Okay.
Lunch break
(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jurors):
(Discussion held off the record)
Mr. Panish: Mr. Putnam was there. And he said he was coming up the escalator, he had his phone out,
and he says he was trying to put some code in, and there was -- I guess like a picture of a post and part of
a juror, I think is what I saw. He showed us the picture. And I saw him today, and he says that Judge
Buckley has told him that he has to go to the overflow room.
Judge: Okay. All right. I mean, I don't know. I don't know what happened.
Mr. Panish: That's what he told me. I asked him what happened, he said he went to Judge Buckley, made
his case. Initially he was banned from the trial; and then Judge Buckley relented and said, "You can go to
the overflow room subject to your behavior."
Judge: All right.
Mr. Panish: If he gets any more, then I guess he could go.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors):
Judge: Jackson versus AEG Live. Good afternoon. I don't know why we're getting all this feedback from
the equipment, but hopefully it will calm down. You may continue.

Continued direct examination by Kathryn Cahan:
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Fournier.
A. Hello.
Q. You said you began seeing Michael Jackson as a patient in early 1993?
A. 1992, 1993, yes.
Q. Okay. And is there a time that you became aware of Mr. Jackson making a public announcement about
seeking some help for a dependency issue?
A. I think it was 1993 he went on public television and, quite heroically, I thought, made an
announcement that he was dependent on medications and was seeking therapy.
Q. Did you see or hear that announcement around the time that it was made?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. Did you continue treating Mr. Jackson after he made; that announcement?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you talk to him about his issues with narcotic painkillers after the announcement?
A. Every time we met, yes.
Q. And what would you ask him?
A. Always what's -- "Anything new medicationwise? Any new treatments? Are you on any medication?
Are you taking anything that I need to know about?"
Q. And that was before every procedure?

A. Before every procedure.

Q. Was there ever any time that Mr. Jackson told you that he was taking opioid painkillers?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever administer an opioid painkiller to Mr. Jackson in connection with a procedure?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember -- would it help if I drew your attention to the page of the records that references --
the page of the records --
A. I can tell you right now.
Q. Please do.
A. Fentanyl, a short-acting narcotic; Remifentanil, a short-acting narcotic. I think there was Demerol,
small doses on a couple of occasions. There was Dilaudid, I believe, on one occasion.
Q. And when you gave him those painkillers, that was always what you felt was medically appropriate in
your judgment?
A. Yes.
Q. And so is it fair to say it can be appropriate to give someone who's had narcotic dependency issues in
the past those drugs under certain circumstances?
A. Controlled circumstances to relieve pain if they've not -- don't chronically have a problem, yes, it's
appropriate.
Q. Did there ever come a time when Mr. Jackson asked you not to use a certain opioid painkiller with
him?
A. Towards the end of our working relationship, there was one point where I asked about any new
allergies or anything like that, and he said no Demerol.
Q. He said no --
A. -- Demerol.
Q. Okay. Did he tell you he was allergic to Demerol?

A. No; he just said no Demerol.

Q. Did you ask him why no Demerol?
A. He said he didn't like it.
Q. He said he didn't like it?
A. Did not like it.
Q. Did he tell you that he had had a problem with Demerol?
A. No.
Q. When you had that conversation, did you recall the announcement he had made in 1993?
A. I don't know.
Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever tell you that he had sought any help or received any medical treatment to assist
him in not using Demerol?
A. No.
Q. He just told you at some point in -- toward the end of your relationship that he didn't want to use
Demerol?
A. Didn't like it, didn't want it.
Q. Did you ever have a conversation with Mr. Jackson where he told you that he had had a procedure to
block the effects of opioids?
A. No.
Q. Did he ever tell you that he had sought the help of another physician to stop using Demerol?
A. No. I -- my understanding is that his last time he had a problem was in 1993 when he came on
national television and told everybody.
Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever discuss with you -- do you know what an opioid antagonist is?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what naltrexone is?

A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever discuss naltrexone with you?
A. No.
Q. Do you know what a Narcan implant is?
A. I do now. At that time, I don't believe it was FDA approved. I believe one exists now, or can be
manufactured.
Q. How did you come --
Mr. Panish: Your honor, I'm going to move to strike his testimony as to FDA approval and his
knowledge, not being a physician or familiar with a Narcan implant.
Judge: Well, the FDA approval is stricken.
Mr. Panish: He doesn't know that.
Ms. Cahan: How did you come to --
Mr. Panish: Well, did you rule on that?
Judge: Which?
Mr. Panish: My motion to strike. I didn't hear you.
Judge: I ruled that the question about FDA approval is stricken.
Mr. Panish: Thank you.
Q. How did you first come to learn about Narcan implants?
A. The first time that I was ever aware that one existed --
Q. And I'm not -- I'm not asking you specifically what anybody said, I'm just -- did you learn about it
from a book or from a publication or did someone say something to you?
A. Someone said something to me.
Q. Was it Mr. Jackson?
A. No.

Q. Did you ever have a conversation with Mr. Jackson about Narcan implants?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Tell me about that conversation.
A. During a procedure with Mr. Jackson, his doctor mentioned a --
Ms. Cahan: Don't tell me what his doctor said.
The witness: Okay. Subsequent to a procedure -- how do you word this?
Ms. Cahan: I would just like to know what Mr. Jackson said to you with respect to Narcan implants.
The witness: He said he had had one, but it was out, and that he was clean and he didn't need it anymore.
Q. Do you remember approximately when you had this conversation with Mr. Jackson?
A. Late August or September of 2003.
Q. So that was after the June 2nd procedure that we've discussed where he had that adverse effect --
A. Correct.
Q. -- and stopped breathing? And that's before, though, the last time you saw him and you cancelled --
the last time you saw him professionally where you cancelled the procedure because he seemed not okay?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. In what context did you have that conversation? Were you performing -- was it in connection
with another procedure?
A. It was probably the preoperative call the night before after discussion with his doctors, and/or
discussion with him face to face the day of the procedure.
Q. And what did you say in response to -- well, how did the subject of the Narcan implant come up?
Did you ask Mr. Jackson, you know, "Has anything changed in your medical situation since we last --"
was it part of that typical questioning?
A. I had become aware that a Narcan implant had been used in his care subsequently.

Q. And so you asked him about that?

A. I asked him about that, what was going on.
Q. And is that because it was relevant to how you would provide anesthesia to him and the procedure that
you were planning for the next day?
A. Yes.
Q. And so he said to you he had had one but it had been taken out and he was clean and fine?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you go forward with the procedure the following day?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he do okay?
A. Great.
Q. And was this in the -- was this in the same time period where Mr. Jackson told you he didn't want
Demerol?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. Okay. Do you remember if for the June 2nd, 2003 procedure, the one where he stopped -- where he
became apneic -- did he tell you in connection with that procedure, also, that he didn't want Demerol?
A. I don't recall. I'd have to look at the record and --
Ms. Cahan: I think it's page 29 or 30 of your records. And there's no need to pull anything up on that.
You can just see if that refreshes your recollection.
Mr. Panish: Which page?
Ms. Cahan: It's 29 or 30. Those are the two for that procedure.
Mr. Panish: I think it's on page 29.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, can I help him find the page?
Judge: Yes.

Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to whether Mr. Jackson told you in connection with the June
2nd, 2003 procedure that he didn't want Demerol?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you know when the first time is that Mr. Jackson told you he didn't want Demerol? Was it in that
same time frame?
A. It was probably this time right here.
Q. Okay.
A. I'm not sure, but I'd have to go back through all the records.
Q. Did -- were you paid for the anesthesia care you provided to Mr. Jackson?
A. Sometimes.
Q. Sometimes yes, sometimes no?
A. Sometimes no.
Q. Did you always send a bill?
A. Yes.
Q. Did it sometimes take longer than normal to get paid for your care of Mr. Jackson?
A. Yes, sometimes. Four or five bills went up to a year or more.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, excuse me. The relevance of this in 2002?
Judge: Sustained.
Q. When was the last time -- I think you said earlier you saw Mr. Jackson -- you ran into him once after
the last time that you had -- that time in 2003 where you cancelled
a case.
A. Yes, I did run into him one time.
Q. Tell me about that.
A. I was going into a dentist or oral surgeon's office. I can't
Remember if it was for a procedure or dropping off a bill or a patient refund or a resume, whatever. But I

came and ran into Michael and his entourage leaving through the waiting room.
Q. Do you remember approximately what year that was?
A. 2005, perhaps, 2006.
Q. But after that procedure in 2003 that you cancelled, Mr. Jackson, after ten years of working together,
never called you and asked you to give him anesthesia again?
A. No.
Ms. Cahan: Nothing further at this time, your honor.
Judge: Thank you. Cross-examination?
Cross examination by Michael koskoff:
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Fournier.
A. Good afternoon, sir.
Q. I can see you're a little bit more relaxed already that Mr. Panish didn't stand up.
A. He's waiting.
Mr. Panish: I don't get to go if he goes.
Mr. Koskoff: He can't do it. I have to do the whole exam. I want to go back to one of the things you
talked about, and that is the thing that really got you angry at Michael Jackson -- because I could tell from
your testimony that you did feel like you were angry at him.
The witness: I don't --
Q. Is that correct, yes or no?
A. I wasn't angry.
Q. Okay. But the event that happened was this, as I remember it. He called you to wish you a happy
birthday in May of 2003, right?
A. Correct.
Q. You weren't angry at him for that?

A. No.
Q. Okay. And to you, he sounded a little bit groggy or out of it, a little different than he'd sounded?
A. Correct.
Q. And you thought maybe he was taking some sleeping medication or something that made him a little
groggy?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; misstates the witness's testimony.
Q. Well, did you feel that?
A. I knew something wasn't right. I -- it was over the phone. I can't put my finger on it.
Q. You knew he had a problem with sleeping, didn't you?
A. I knew -- yes.
Q. Okay. And so it could have been he was taking sleeping medication or something like that -- right?
A. Correct.
Q. -- when he called? And as a -- as a conscientious nurse anesthetist, what you did after that was when
he came into the office for -- when he went to the office for the next procedure, you said to him,
"Michael, has there been any change in your medication from the last time I saw you?" Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And he said, "No, there has been no change in medication from the last time you saw me,"
right?
A. Correct.
Q. And then during the course of that procedure, things didn't go well, you had those -- that -- there was
these instances of what you call apnea, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And something happened at that point to make you believe that Michael had misrepresented to you
when he had said to you there had been no change in his medication from the last procedure, correct?
A. Correct. I believe he denied all medication.

Q. He denied -- okay. But you asked -- specifically on direct you said there had been no change in
medication from the last procedure, correct?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; misstates the testimony.
Q. Or no change in any medications from the last time you saw him?
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: Or that he was taking any medication at all.
Mr. Koskoff: Okay.
Q. But, in fact, you believed from something else that he had been taking Narcan , right? That he had
been on a Narcan -- that he had -- question withdrawn. Let's go to the date previous, the time before
June 3rd, 2003. Was it June 3rd or June 2nd? June 2nd.
A. June 2nd.
Q. Okay. What was the time before that that you saw him?
A. These aren't in order. You could probably tell me better than I can tell you.
Mr. Koskoff: All right. Well, why don't we put up -- can we put up that --
Ms. Cahan: I'd rather you have her not put up the medical records.
Mr. Koskoff: I'm not asking for the medical records, I'm asking for the chronology that you offered me,
to allow me to use.
Ms. Cahan: Sure. No objection.
The witness: Are you referring to May 13?
Mr. Koskoff: May 13th, 2003.
Q. How -- how did Michael do at that visit?
A. Other than the difficult I.V. Placement, and the high tolerance to medication noted, he did fine.
Q. Okay. So he did fine. And the high tolerance to medication, does it say which medication? Was it
midazolam?

A. It could have been any one of the medications.

Q. But you don't know because you didn't make a record of it?
A. They're all being given at the same time; so when I say medication, it's inclusive.
Q. Yeah, but I don't understand. If you say there was a high tolerance to medication, you don't know
whether it was the midazolam that he had a high tolerance to, or the Propofol that he had a high tolerance
to, or any of the other ones, you just know that it was a high tolerance? Is that what you're saying?
A. Correct.
Q. And how did the procedure go? Did it go very smoothly?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. Any cause for concern?
A. No.
Q. Okay. And the procedure before that was may 13th, 2003?
A. That's the one we were just discussing.
Q. I'm sorry. The one before that was April 24th, 2003. How did that procedure go?
A. No problems.
Q. No problem. And the one before that, April 11th -- I'm sorry. The one before that was --
A. You're right.
Q. That was 2002, April 11, right? That was the year before. So there were two in 2003, there was may
13th, 2003, and April 24th, 2003, that -- that he was -- that you saw him, and both of those procedures
went well?
A. Correct.
Q. And you had assumed that when you asked Michael when he sat down with you and you asked him
about whether or not he'd had any change in medication -- afterwards, you thought that he had
misrepresented to you at that time because there had been a change in medication; isn't that right? Did
you -- yes or no?
A. Do you want to re- -- what date are you referring to?

Q. We're talking about June 2nd, 2003.

A. Could I have the question again, please?
Q. Yes. And when you sat down and you said to him -- this is what you said on direct -- "has there been
any change in your medication since the previous visit?" --
A. Yes.
Q. And he said, "No, there hasn't"?
A. Correct.
Q. And you believed that that was a lie -- well, let me ask you this. Did you believe he was lying to you
on answering that question?
A. The problem happened after that discussion.
Q. That's not -- yes, the problem that occurred happened after that discussion; but that was the discussion
in which you were very upset about him -- you told counsel, didn't you, that that was something you felt
was not true?
A. You're mixing up the timeline.
Q. That's what you testified to, sir. We're talking about June 2nd, 2003. That's the date when Michael had
the apnea episode, correct?
A. And you're asking me if I was upset with him before that?
Q. If you were upset with him when the episode occurred because you then learned that -- some
information that made you feel there had been a change in his condition.
A. Yes, I was upset after it happened.
Q. Okay. And it was because you felt when Michael said to you there had been no change in his
medications, he had misrepresented to you; is that correct, yes or no?
A. Yes.
Q. In fact, sir, do you have any evidence at all that there had been a change in his medication from the
previous visit? Do you have any evidence, one shred of evidence, that there was a change in medication?
A. The patient denied it; and I spoke with his doctors, and they said there was no change.

Q. So you have no evidence that there was a change in his medication?

A. No.
Q. So wherefore do you call her son a liar?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; misstates the testimony.
Mr. Koskoff: I'll withdraw that question.
Q. You said you felt that the reason -- that -- that there was a misrepresentation when he said there had
been no change in his medication from the previous visit, isn't that correct? Is that correct, sir?
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, calls for hearsay. If they want to open this door, we have no objection.
Mr. Koskoff: It doesn't call for any hearsay.
Ms. Cahan: It goes to his understanding. They're asking if he has any evidence that he wasn't told the
truth, and he does, and it's been excluded on hearsay grounds. Maybe we need to take this to sidebar.
Mr. Koskoff: He has no evidence. No evidence. Zero. Even with hearsay, he has no evidence. And you
know it, because -- I'll -- I'll do it another way. I will do this another way.
Judge: Don't argue with her.
Mr. Koskoff: I will go back another way.
Q. Doctor, I want you to assume --
Judge: I'm going to overrule it for now, but we may go to sidebar on redirect. I don't know, maybe it
does open the door. I don't know.
Q. Mr. Fournier, I want you to assume that yesterday, Dr. Farshchian, who is a doctor, a medical doctor,
testified that Michael Jackson had an implant put in on April 3rd, 2003. April 3rd, 2003. Do you get it?
A. Yes.
Q. Now let me ask you again, if you assume that that is true, do you have any evidence at all of any kind
that Michael had any change in his medications from the previous visit before June 2nd, 2003? Do you
have any evidence, sir?
A. To be honest with you, I don't understand that question.

Q. Okay. Dr. Farshchian said he put an implant in --

A. I never met Dr. Farshchian. I've heard of him.
Q. No. You didn't know this before. You knew none of this, sir.
A. Correct.
Q. You just made an assumption based on what someone said that Michael had lied to you, and -- isn't
that right? You made an assumption?
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, maybe this is the time we need to go to sidebar.
He has a basis for this.
Judge: Let's go to sidebar.
(Sidebar):
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Panish: We're not seeking to introduce hearsay. First of all, when Michael Jackson, the two visits
before, met with the doctor, he informed the doctor that he had
An allergy for Demerol. Okay? It wasn't until his discussion with Dr. Klein where he mentioned this
Narcan implant was on June 2nd. We're asking him before June 2nd. We're not asking him for what
happened on June 2nd. So for her to inject -- he's saying before that date. We're not getting into the
hearsay. I don't know what the problem is.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, so there's two things that he testified to. He said he would ask Mr. Jackson
before every procedure, "has there been any change in your medication or health status, and are you
taking any medications?" they're trying to create this idea that because there may not have been a change
in the Narcan implant from April to June, that Mr. Jackson was being forthcoming and telling Mr.
Fournier everything he needed to know. The fact is he denied taking any medication whatsoever during
those visits and, your honor, it's -- they keep repeatedly asking him and challenging him, "you don't have
any evidence, you don't have any evidence for believing that Mr. Jackson wasn't being honest with you
about his medication in June of 2003," and he does. He has a good-faith basis from Mr. Jackson's treating
physician, who had observed the Narcan implant, treated Mr. Jackson in connection with the Narcan
implant, that he had an implant in and had had it removed, and that is -- it's completely unfair to the
witness to be pretending that the evidence doesn't exist; and, you know, they're using the hearsay as a
shield and a sword here, and it's misleading and it's inappropriate and I think the door has been opened.
Mr. Koskoff: One of the points you make is you already have a point on it. But what he said under first

direct examination and then cross is that the thing that made him believe that Michael was really a liar
was that the previous three days earlier he had called and he sounded groggy; and when he came in, he
said to him, "Michael, have you had any change in your medication since the last visit?" because he was
fine on the last visit. And Michael said no. From that time on, this witness has believed that Michael was
lying to him on that date, and he wasn't. He was telling the truth. He had not had any -- and they -- and
they knew that that was the case, and they deliberately opened -- made it sound like he was lying in
response to that. So counsel does have a point that he -- he also said that he should have disclosed the
medication, and they can make whatever they want on that; but on this point, he -- he should be cross-
examined and -- and that point should be made.
Ms. Cahan: This is -- they're drawing a false distinction between -- he said the two questions he asked in
conjunction every time, "any changes and are you taking any medication?" this is a -- a surgical implant
that Mr. Jackson had implanted into his body that's continuously releasing medication to block opiates. He
knows what it is. Dr. Farshchian's testimony that we heard yesterday is he sent him pamphlets on it, he
talked to him about it, he did the surgery five times, Michael was happy with the results. There's no
question Michael Jackson knew he had something inserted in his body that was giving him medications to
keep him from feeling the effects of opiates. So this idea that he didn't lie to Mr. Fournier because he
didn't say, well, there hasn't been a change -- now, this is, again, setting aside the fact that the first time he
saw him in 2003, there had been a change and he didn't disclose the Narcan implant, either.
Mr. Panish: He did disclose it in April.
Ms. Cahan: They're badgering the witness.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, this is why -- see, now we're on this, what I brought up before, 1101(a). Now
we're on collateral character evidence, and now we're into this whole thing. This is why I objected to it. I
know you overruled me. I just want to be clear for the record, we are now into character evidence from
seven -- we're now dealing with an issue of six and seven years before where they have been allowed to
inject into this case some character evidence to say that Mr. Jackson misrepresented to a doctor, therefore,
it somehow proves something in this case. I know you've -- you've overruled my objection, but now we're
here in sidebar on it. I just want to again renew and tell you that now we're in a collateral issue, and I
don't think that we've opened the door to anything.
Judge: Okay. I'm overruling the objection. So tell me why it's a misrepresentation because at some point
-- when did he have the Narcan --
Ms. Cahan: He got -- per Dr. Farshchian's testimony, he had Narcan implants repeatedly from
november 2002 through July of 2003. So he saw him in April of 2002, he sees him again the next time in
April of 2003, there's no disclosure of the Narcan implants at that time, the next visit, or the visit after.
All he testifies to is when he saw him after this June 2nd visit, he said, "Oh, yeah, I had one of those, but
we took it out." And so there is a misrepresentation about changes; but then, also, every single time in
2003, those three visits starting in April and ending in June, Mr. Jackson is not telling the truth when he's
asked, "Are you on any medications at all?"

Judge: Okay. So if -- what is the evidence that you --

Mr. Panish: Can I say one thing?
Judge: No. Let her finish because I want her to answer my question.
Ms. Cahan: The problem, your honor, I think what they're doing is saying there's no evidence
whatsoever that Mr. Jackson, you know, was not telling you the truth on that day when he said there
hadn't been a change in his medication; and when he learned it for the first time in June or April, the fact
is at some point, there was a change in his medication because he had surgically implanted these Narcan
--
Judge: That's true --
Ms. Cahan: He learned it from the doctor.
Mr. Putnam: They said, "You have no evidence," and he said, "Yeah, I did. The doctor just told me," and
we were told we can't ask that.
Mr. Panish: He already learned that three times.
Mr. Putnam: That very day, but we were precluded from asking it.
Mr. Panish: If you were precluded, then why did you ask the witness and he blurted out the answer after
you told him not to?
Ms. Cahan: He didn't, your honor.
Judge: He started --
Mr. Panish: They haven't answered your question yet.
Judge: The question was what is the evidence that you want to elicit.
Ms. Cahan: I want him to be able to say that during the surgical procedure when Michael stopped
breathing three times, he said to -- he's freaking out and he's saying to Dr. Klein, "I don't know what's
going on." And Dr. Klein says, "Oh, he has a Narcan implant." That's the first time he ever heard about
it.
Mr. Panish: But he will say that no one knows what caused the adverse reaction. See? So, once again,
nobody knows; and Dr. Klein doesn't know; and this witness is not qualified --
Judge: But the issue is whether it was misrepresented.

Mr. Panish: But they're trying to say that the condition was related to this, and it's not, and there's no
causative relationship, and no one --
Judge: Are you --
Ms. Cahan: No, I'm not. He's saying --
Mr. Panish: No. That's the inference. That's why they're putting it out there.
Mr. Boyle: They didn't give any opiates, so how would there be a reaction? They're trying to make it
sound like Michael put his life in his own hands by not disclosing this Narcan implant and it almost
killed him, and that's not supported by --
Mr. Panish: And he didn't have a Narcan implant to begin with. It isn't even a Narcan implant that
they're getting into.
Mr. Koskoff: And counsel knew that, too.
Judge: It's not a Narcan implant?
Mr. Panish: No.
Ms. Cahan: I have no idea what they're talking about.
Mr. Putnam: I have no idea what they're saying.
Mr. Panish: It's not a Narcan implant.
Mr. Koskoff: The Narcan implant was never put in. There are different types of implants. Narcan --
Mr. Putnam: They're the same --
Mr. Panish: No, they're not the same as the one that he had. This witness keeps saying Narcan , counsel
keeps saying Narcan . He never had a Narcan implant. He had a different implant that has different
adverse effects than a Narcan , and he didn't even know that.
Mr. Koskoff: Dr. Farshchian didn't know the difference. Farshchian said, on two occasions, "I put in a
naloxone implant"; and then he said, "well, is that known by any --" and he said, "I think that's Narcan ."
it's not Narcan . They're two different entire drugs, and I want to go into this because one of the reasons
why he was so upset is this: He had never heard of Narcan when this happened. He went back, he
looked up Narcan , and he saw that it has all of these terrible side effects. And he said, "wow --" this is
all in the depositions, that he went back and looked it up. And it has -- it does have bad side effects; and
he said, "they were really putting me at risk." in fact, the only side effect that the P.D.R. Has for naloxone
is opiate use, so you shouldn't -- and he was apparently told not to take any opiates, so he said, "I'm

allergic to Demerol." and once you're allergic to that, he knew that there would be, across --
Judge: Another false statement.
Mr. Panish: No. He was allergic to Demerol.
Mr. Koskoff: It's a false statement; but if he says, "I'm on detox," then the whole world is going to know.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, you just said --
Judge: I'm going to overrule the defense objection. I'm going to allow the defendants
to get into it. I think the door has been opened. Let's have at it. Everything is going to come in.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors):
Judge: Okay. So I'm just going to tell the witness, all the information that you have in connection with --
with
The answer to this question, okay? -- you can give all the information you have in connection with the
answer to this question.
Mr. Koskoff: So let me ask you the question again so that you can tell us what happened at the time that
Michael had that apnea on June 2nd, 2003.
Q. What happened?
A. In the progress of the anesthetic, the three changes in respiration were noted. His vital signs remained
stable other than the airway -- the breathing issue. And in my note --
Mr. Panish: I think it's page 20.
The witness: I could read it for you.
Mr. Panish: What page are you looking at?
The witness: Page 20.
Ms. Cahan: For the record, it's exhibit number 11474.30.
The witness: In the narrative, "oxygen, suction machine, check. Patient I.D.'d, check. Chart review,
check. History and physical done, check. Consents obtained, check. Operating room monitors applied,
check." I have "placed and checked." "pre-oxygenated two minutes, check. Alarms on and parameters set.
Very difficult I.V. Placement. 22 gauge placed right volar arm. Sedated. Procedure began. A few minutes
later, somewhat bizarre reaction to meds. Apnea times five minutes. Treated with ambu bag and good

saturations. "patient has not reacted like this before. Klein made aware, and he told me for the first time of
a Narcan implant. Procedure completed, vital signs stable with good airway."
Q. And you had felt, in fact, up until today, that the Narcan implant was something that had changed
from the previous time that you had seen him, correct? That's what you said earlier, that you felt that
Michael had misrepresented to you that there had been no change from the previous visit; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And, in fact, now I want you to assume that instead, that the implant that was given was actually given
last -- the previous April, early in April, by Dr. Farshchian.
Ms. Cahan: Objection; misstates the evidence.
Judge: Overruled.
Mr. Koskoff: April 3rd, 2003.
Ms. Cahan: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about the previous April, 2002. Objection
withdrawn.
Mr. Koskoff: April -- April 3rd, 2003, the implant had been put in.
Q. And, sir, isn't it true that you actually had seen Michael twice -- you saw him on April 24th, 2003; and
you saw him on may 13th, 2003, and he did perfectly well; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. So that as far, at least, as the Narcan is concerned, there had been no change in his medications from
the previous visit; is that correct?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; calls for speculation.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: Correct; but I didn't know -- I did not know a Narcan implanted existed.
Mr. Koskoff: You didn't know that. I know that.
Q. And as far as you know, there was no other medication that was -- that was added between the
previous visit and the visit in June, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So if Michael was asked in may -- question withdrawn. If Michael was asked at the beginning of the

procedure in June, "Have you had any changes in your medication from the last visit?" and he said no, he
was telling the truth; isn't that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And if you had said earlier that you felt he was lying to you at that time, now knowing all of the facts,
would you be willing to apologize to Mrs. Jackson for having said that --
Ms. Cahan: Objection.
Q. -- about that particular instance?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; argumentative.
Judge: Sustained. Irrelevant. Sustained.
Q. And then you -- by the way, you have no knowledge as to whether the Narcan implant, if there ever
was a Narcan implant -- whether the Narcan implant had anything to do with the reaction in June, do
you?
A. No.
Q. Now let's --
A. May I add something?
Mr. Koskoff: No.
Mr. Panish: Not yet.
Mr. Koskoff: Sorry. When the other side asks -- they have a full opportunity to -- to come back and ask
further questions.
Q. The -- now, do you -- were you ever -- at the time that this happened -- first of all, you now know
what Narcan is; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. And Narcan is a -- is a drug that is used to combat the effects of opioids, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. When there's an opium overdose, doctors and -- perhaps you have, in your arsenal, Narcan .

A. Correct.
Q. Right? And this is a drug that you can administer to someone who is O.D.'ing in order to get them
back to health?
A. Correct.
Q. And it's a fairly potent drug, isn't it?
A. Very.
Q. Very potent drug. But at the time in 2003, you had never heard of Narcan ?
A. I used Narcan for years before that. I never heard of an implant.
Q. Okay. You never heard of an implant. Right. By the way, still today, is there any such thing as a
Narcan implant, as far as you know?
A. I've never seen it.
Q. And as far as you know, and you've been around anesthesia and this for a while -- as far as you know,
there is no such thing as a Narcan implant, right?
A. I was told by two of his physicians there was one.
Q. Yeah. Well, you were told by Dr. Klein, correct?
A. And Dr. Metzger.
Q. And Dr. Metzger. Because they were told by the gentleman who testified, Dr. Farshchian?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; calls for speculation.
Q. He's the origin of it, isn't he?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Okay. So you have no idea. That's why I guess we have rules against hearsay. But it's okay. So
somehow they got the idea in their heads, maybe from a bolt of lightning, that he had a Narcan implant,
right? And I want you to assume that actually Dr. Farshchian said he thought the implant that he put in
was called a Narcan implant. So -- if you assume that -- but --
Judge: I'm not following you.

Mr. Koskoff: Nobody is, because I'm rambling.

Judge: Maybe we should strike that question and re-ask it.
Mr. Koskoff: Yes. I'll start again.
Q. Have you ever heard of a drug called naloxone?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Naloxone is a different drug than Narcan , correct?
A. Naltrexone?
Q. No. I'm actually -- naloxone is the drug.
A. Naloxone is Narcan , naltrexone is a different drug.
Q. What is naltrexone?
A. It's also a narcotic antagonist.
Q. Have you heard of naltrexone implants?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Well, if Dr. Farshchian said what he put in was a naltrexone implant, and that he thought it was
the same as Narcan , that would be a mistake, wouldn't it?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; calls for speculation. He's not a physician.
Mr. Koskoff: He said he's familiar with these medications.
Judge: He's not a doctor. I don't know if he has the specialty.
Mr. Panish: They had him give all kind of opinions on drugs. They asked him all kinds of questions
about drugs. I think he's familiar. If you ask him, he can tell you he has to administer these kind of
medications, he knows --
Judge: Maybe he's familiar, I don't know. But he hasn't presented a sufficient foundation as an expert
with this --
Mr. Koskoff: No.

Q. All I'm asking, are these two different drugs?

A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So if someone said they were the same drug, they'd be mistaken?
A. Correct.
Q. And do you know -- did you -- have you ever looked at the P.D.R. On -- question withdrawn. When
you -- when Dr. Klein said to you that he thought that Michael had had a Narcan implant in him, you
had never heard of such a thing, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you went home, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you went and looked up -- you looked it up?
A. I tried to.
Q. And you couldn't find it?
A. Couldn't find it.
Q. But did you go to the P.D.R. At all to find out what the side effects of -- of Narcan can be?
A. I know what the side effects of Narcan --
Q. Well, they can be -- do you agree with me that the side effects from Narcan , when -- when they are --
question withdrawn -- that they -- that they can cause cardiac arrest from Narcan . Tachycardia,
fibrillation, all of these things can occur from Narcan , correct?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; vague as to -- Narcan comes in various forms, and I think this witness doesn't
have foundation about what happens with a Narcan implant.
Judge: Sustained.
Q. So you don't know what the difference is between a Narcan implant and a naloxone --
A. No.
Q. Right? And so you don't know -- do you -- and you don't know what the side effects are from

naloxone or naltrexone, right?

A. The drug that I use is naloxone.
Q. Is naloxone. That's Narcan ?
A. Correct.
Q. As far as naltrexone is concerned, you don't know?
A. It's the same family of drugs, but I have not used it.
Q. But you have no idea whether it's a potent drug or not a potent drug, do you?
A. No.
Q. But if it's in the same family of drugs, one thing you would know is that it's an opioid antagonist,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And with an opioid antagonist, it really means that a person -- that it combats the effects of opioids,
just makes them ineffective?
A. Correct.
Q. Which, as far as Michael was concerned, the only possible bearing it would have would be is if you
gave him an opioid drug, it would -- if it was naltrexone if you happened to give him an opioid drug, it
wouldn't be effective if he had these drugs in his system; is that right?
Ms. Cahan: Objection. The witness says he knows nothing about naltrexone. There's no foundation.
Judge: I'm getting confused between naltrexone --
Mr. Panish: Naloxone is Narcan .
Ms. Cahan: That's the one he says he has familiarity with.
Mr. Koskoff: He says he doesn't know much about naltrexone. I did ask him as far as he knows, does he
no whether that would have any effect on anesthesia at all --
Ms. Cahan: Same objection.
Mr. Koskoff: -- other than combating the effect of -- of opioids.

Ms. Cahan: Same objection; lacks foundation, outside this witness's knowledge.
Judge: His specialty is anesthesia, right?
Ms. Cahan: He's testified he knows nothing about
Naltrexone.
Mr. Koskoff: All he has to say is, "I don't know."
Judge: Overruled. You can answer.
Q. You don't know what the effect of naltrexone would be on anesthesia, if any?
A. If it's the same class of drugs as Narcan , it would have antagonistic effects, and it's very dose-
dependent.
Q. It's very dose-dependent. And the one who would know the dose, about that, is the doctor who put it
in, not you, if it was a naltrexone implant, right?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Well, you don't know what the dose was?
A. No.
Q. And one thing you would know is that he probably shouldn't have Demerol because it wouldn't do
any good?
A. Dose-dependent.
Q. Dose-dependent, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you never gave him Demerol after -- when he said, "I have an allergy to Demerol --" well, let's
talk about that allergy to Demerol. Did you -- you had been treating Michael for how many years?
A. Approximately ten.
Q. For ten -- approximately ten years. And he never reports to you an allergy to Demerol, right?
A. The last year, I think he did.

Q. The last year, he did. That's after he started with the implant, right?
A. I didn't --
Ms. Cahan: Objection; calls for speculation.
Judge: Overruled.
Mr. Koskoff: After he started -- assume the implant was in April, that one of the implants was in April of
2003.
Q. And after that, he starts telling you that he's allergic to Demerol?
A. He never told me he was allergic to it. He told me he didn't like it and didn't want it.
Q. He said, "I don't like it," but you wrote it in the form --
A. Didn't want it.
Q. -- where the official record says -- what you wrote in the official record, it says "allergies," and you
wrote "Demerol"?
A. That's my clue to avoid those, to avoid those drugs.
Q. And as far as -- to avoid those drugs. And you would avoid drugs which have similar characteristics;
is that right? Other opiates?
A. If the patient doesn't like Demerol, you can use another drug.
Q. Yes. But -- and you didn't use an opiate with him, did you?
A. Which date are we talking about.
Q. You didn't use any op- -- did you use any opiates on June 2nd?
A. Yes; remifentanil.
Q. And that's after he told you he was allergic to Demerol, you went ahead and gave him another opiate?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; misstates the testimony.
The witness: He told me he didn't like Demerol.

Judge: Sir, if there's an objection, you need to let me rule on it.

The witness: Sorry.
Judge: I think it was compound. Why don't you re-ask --
Mr. Koskoff: I'll start over again.
Q. Didn't you write in the section of the form that says "allergies," "Demerol"?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you give him an opiate on the visit in May of 2003?
A. Remifentanil.
Q. And he had no reaction, no negative reaction, that time, did he?
A. Correct, except a high tolerance was noted.
Q. High tolerance. He could take a lot of it. And that's because -- and if a person had had a drug
dependency in the past, they develop a tolerance for these drugs; isn't that right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you knew that Michael had had -- come out publicly, you said, and stated that he had a drug
dependency problem in the past?
A. Correct.
Q. And so you weren't surprised that there was a tolerance for these drugs, were you?
A. I noticed it and made a note of it.
Mr. Koskoff: So let's -- let's put up on the screen -- let me get you the right date. It is --
Ms. Cahan: It's 11474.
Mr. Koskoff: Yes. It's 11474, page 28.
The witness: Mine goes from 24 to 32.
Mr. Koskoff: I'm sorry, sir. What was --

Mr. Panish: He's missing some pages.

Mr. Koskoff: Well, we'll put it on the screen. You'll have it on --
Ms. Cahan: He's looking at the bates, not the exhibit.
Mr. Koskoff: You can see it on the screen. This is 5/1/03. Counsel did tell you a little bit -- can you just
focus in where it talks about the agents that are used? Good.
Q. And these are the -- these are the anesthetic agents used; is that right, sir?
A. Correct.
Q. And there's oxygen, nitrous, and it tells you those were off, and then you put in -- you put in what
after that?
A. Propofol, Remifentanil.
Q. And how many Propofol did you use, by the way?
A. 240 milligrams.
Q. And that's over the course of the anesthesia, correct?
A. About an hour.
Q. About an hour. Is that an appropriate amount?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that -- is that any -- was there any excessive amount of Propofol given on that date?
A. No.
Q. And was there any evidence of any dependency or -- tolerance, rather, of Propofol on that?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Now, the other drugs coming down are what, sir?
A. Remifentanil.
Q. And that's a -- that's an opioid?

A. Very potent opioid.

Q. Okay. And he had no reaction, had no problem with it?
A. That's a high tolerance. That's a lot.
Q. Okay. So that's a lot, so he had a high tolerance, but we know he had a tolerance because of his
previous drug problem, right? You knew before that he had a high tolerance; is that right?
A. In prior anesthetics, I did not mark that all the time.
Q. Okay. And he had an implant in him at that time, right? Now, you know he had an implant in him at
that time, right. If I -- if I ask you to assume that an implant had been put in the previous April, and that it
was supposed to last for like 60 days, 60 to 90 days, then it was in at this time; is that right?
A. That would be true.
Q. Okay. And that would account for a high tolerance, wouldn't it?
A. It could.
Q. But he didn't have any adverse reaction, did he?
A. No. He was breathing just fine.
Q. He was breathing just fine. Now let's go down to the bottom part of the -- just pull out, and then we're
going to go down to the bottom part of the -- of the record. You see where -- let's put it in where the grid
is. Not the very bottom, but the center. Let's look at the grid; because the jury is going to have that with
them, and I don't think they've seen it before, or may not have understood it. That grid with all the dots
and the arrows, that's how you monitor a patient under anesthesia, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And so when you put a patient under anesthesia, the way a fit and competent anesthesiologist does it,
such as yourself, is that you start a chart on the patient, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And a fit and competent anesthesiologist monitors the blood pressure, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And these little -- the check up there, that's the -- the systolic blood pressure?

A. Correct.
Q. And that shows you where that is; so if that line says 100, 110, 120, that's about -- where that arrow is,
that's at 120. That's the systolic, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And then the bottom part, where it's just over 50, that's the diastolic?
A. Correct.
Q. Correct? And in between, that's his pulse rate?
A. Correct.
Q. Right? So that you're monitoring this all during the surgery to make sure that he maintains his blood
pressure and that he has a reasonable pulse, his pulse never went up above 100, came up -- the highest it
went is to about 90, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And -- and when you start to see something like this go bad, then you can intervene and -- and render
appropriate care?
A. Correct.
Q. That's what a fit and competent doctor does when they give anesthesia?
A. Nurse anesthetist.
Q. As well a competent nurse anesthetist?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And down below, these are the respirations?
A. Correct.
Q. So 16, what's that? 16 breaths an hour?
A. A minute.
Q. A minute, rather? Sorry. Yes. Let's hope it's not 16 an hour. Anyway, it's 16 a minute. And then we go
all the way through that, and you want to make sure that he's breathing well. And then down below, the 02

sats, that's the oxygen saturation which I believe you talked to counsel about, and they're really -- they're
really up there, he's almost 100 percent saturated, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Which is good. And that shows you had a lot of good oxygen; but then this etco2 down below. That's
the end tidal c02, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And what that is is to show that he's actually breathing. He has to take in oxygen, breathe out co2,
right?
A. Correct.
Q. And this monitors the co2, and the device that they use for that is a -- is capnography?
A. Correct.
Q. And I think you said in 2009 it wasn't absolutely required to have capnography, but it was desired,
wasn't it?
A. It was -- became desired in 2005. This is 2003.
Q. Okay. So a fit and competent doctor who is hired to treat a person -- and if that doctor is fit and
competent, and they're going to be administering Propofol anesthesia, you would expect them to keep
some kind after chart like this, right?
A. Correct.
Q. By the way, is this every -- what are these -- these -- every five minutes?
A. I have the monitor set for every two and a half, but I record for every five.
Q. It's recorded every five?
A. It could be every 30 seconds.
Q. And, by the way, the monitor you have has bells and whistles, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And that's really important to have in a monitor, isn't it?

A. Correct.
Q. Because that's what alerts you to the fact that something is going wrong sometimes if you're not -- if
you don't see it right away, the
monitor will help you spring into action?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And then -- so that's -- that's the kind of monitoring that you would expect that if a doctor was
going to be administering anesthesia, or a nurse anesthetist is going to be administering Propofol
anesthesia, that a patient would get?
A. Correct.
Q. Now let's go down to the bottom of the page. And right in there. And that says -- would you read that
for us?
A. The narrative?
Q. Yes, please.
A. "Difficult I.V. placement. Difficult monitoring anesthesia care, high tolerance noted."
Q. When you said the difficult placement, do you agree with me in your deposition that one of the
reasons it could have been difficult is he's had so many anesthetic procedures?
A. Correct.
Q. And that when a person has had a lot of anesthetic procedures, it sometimes becomes difficult to find
-- to find the right port of entry for the anesthesia?
A. Correct.
Q. And you know that Michael had had a lot of anesthesia; that he had had -- he had that terrible burn
that caused ongoing problems; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. He had had -- he needed a lot of surgery to repair the burn, the scars from the burn and --
A. Correct.
Q. Is that right? And did you know that he'd had tissue expanders placed in his skull, which were these --
this sort of balloon device that expands and is extremely painful?

A. Correct.
Q. And so you were not, again, surprised that it was difficult finding vascular access?
A. No.
Mr. Koskoff: And then on the part where it says allergies -- can we find that section?
Mr. Panish: It's the next page.
Mr. Koskoff: Next page.
The witness: You're jumping ahead a month?
Mr. Koskoff: No, no. I meant on this same chart. It's actually the first page, I think. Okay. Now let's go
to the top of the page first.
Q. By the way, you said that he sometimes used -- he sometimes used aliases or assumed names, nom de
plumes?
A. Correct.
Q. But this time, he didn't, right? This time somebody put "Michael Jackson" on here?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you know why that is?
A. No one asked me to do an alias that day.
Q. So -- but
-- and were you -- did it have to do, perhaps, with the fact that you were now at the west side anesthesia
center, where they have better security than some of the doctors' office?
A. No.
Q. So sometimes at west side you also used another name?
A. West side is me, my company. Wherever I go, it's west side anesthesia.
Q. I see. So right now, we are with west side anesthesia?
A. You are. The whole company.

Q. And the -- and down here, it says his age, 42; his weight, 140 at that time; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. His height, 72 inches. And what's that? Is that 72 inches? Was he 72 inches tall?
A. That's what he told me. I didn't measure him. He was taller than I am.
Q. I am also 72 inches tall. Would you believe that?
A. No.
Q. No.
A. But Michael was taller than you.
Q. He was taller than me? That's 6 --
A. 6 feet.
Q. Yeah. Anyway, and then it says "allergies" -- what's that?
A. "Demerol."
Q. So that's where you put the Demerol. And what does the medication thing say?
A. "Denies."
Q. "Denies." Okay. That's where he said he denied other medications at that time?
A. Correct.
Q. And as far as you know now, that's is what the Narcan -- the naltrexone implant was actually in him?
A. If what you said is correct, yes.
Q. Okay.
A. That's in.
Q. And what about prior anesthetic problems? What does that say?

A. "Multiple general anesthetics and monitored anesthesia care without problems, patient well known to
me."
Q. So he -- he had really, before June, never had a problem, as far as you can remember, as far as
anesthesia was concerned?
A. As far as I can remember.
Q. And as far as you could remember, and as far as you know, you really don't know what the cause of
the June problem was -- correct? -- except that he had a bad reaction that day for whatever reason and
suffered from apnea?
A. I have a suspicion of what caused it.
Q. But you don't know?
A. No; but I have a very strong suspicion.
Q. Well, we're not allowed speculation. The court doesn't allow speculations or suspicions, so I'm just not
going to ask you that question because you're not allowed to give speculation because we don't want
jurors to base their decisions on speculation. And you are not a -- a physician?
A. Correct.
Q. And you're not an anesthesiologist?
A. Correct.
Q. Right? And you don't know to a reasonable -- so since you're not a doctor, you can't say to a
reasonable degree of medical certainty what your answer is, because you're not an M.D., correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, I want to go into some other areas. First of all, you are licensed to practice in the state of
California --
A. Yes.
Q. -- correct? And you are not permitted, by law, to actually order medications in California; is that
correct? Or am I wrong about that?
A. Correct, I have no prescriptive authority in California.
Q. Okay. So if you want to get medications, how -- how do you get medications to use in the course of

your work?
A. The surgery centers provide the medications.
Q. And you saw Michael -- I think you said about 30 to 35 times over the course of your career, right?
A. Correct.
Q. I think in the deposition you said 30; here, you said, I think, 35; but it's somewhere in that range?
A. Correct.
Q. And it was a long time ago, so it's hard to be specific about things like that?
A. Correct. And some of those times, no medicines were provided.
Q. Yeah. I think that's what you said there, too, was that approximately -- you said maybe like 25 times,
you actually gave him some medication; and the rest 10 times were not for medication; is that right?
A. That's an approximation, a guess, yes.
Q. And I think -- I think what you may have said is that part of that was just to basically hold his hand. I
don't know if you meant that literally or figuratively, which --
A. It's literal, and it's not the only hand I was holding. The doctors appreciated having someone monitor
Michael. He was a very important person. He was at the peak of his career. If anything had happened to
him -- and there are deaths in dental chairs and outpatient surgeon surgery centers. It's very rare. But if
something had ever happened to Michael, it would have been the end of their career, so they were very
happy to have me there. Especially since they didn't have to pay me, Michael paid me, they were very
happy to have me there to keep him safe.
Q. And so a lot of the times when you were there, you were there just to make sure everything went okay
from an anesthesia point of view?
A. Correct.
Q. And you also said that you literally held his hand sometimes?
A. Correct.
Q. By that, do you mean you literally held his hand?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And what kinds of circumstances was that?

A. Painful injections, "squeeze my hand if you're feeling any pain or discomfort." just sometimes --
especially with patients under light sedation, just holding a hand, having a contact, is a good thing.
Q. It is -- and it -- and that was important to Michael, too, wasn't it?
A. Very.
Q. Having that reassurance that somebody was there who he could trust?
A. Correct.
Q. And you felt, by the way, that he did trust you?
A. Yes.
Q. And the times -- those times that you saw him, you didn't give him any medication and he didn't ask
for any, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And he just wanted the reassurance that a qualified person was there?
A. Correct, should something go wrong, like a dental epinephrine injection, or something like that.
Q. And while you treated him, it was you who always chose the drugs that were given, administered, for
anesthesia, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Michael never chose them, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Michael never asked for them, correct?
A. Correct, correct.
Q. Michael never asked for more, did he?
A. Correct.
Q. Michael never asked for -- he never complained that he was in such pain, "you have to give me more,

you have to give me more," correct?

A. Correct.
Q. You gave him Propofol. Michael never asked you for Propofol, did he?
A. Correct.
Q. You felt that Propofol was the right drug to give, to administer, for these procedures?
A. Correct.
Q. And every single procedure that you did in those 25 procedures, in each and every one of them, you
called the shots as far as the medication that was being administered --
A. Correct.
Q. -- isn't that correct. And Michael never quarreled with you about it, did he?
A. Never.
Q. So if anyone was going to say that Michael had drug-seeking behavior, you didn't see it?
A. Correct.
Q. And you would be a person who would be close to him while drugs were being administered?
A. Correct.
Q. Some of those drugs were opiate drugs; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. And narcotic drugs; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Mr. Koskoff: And these procedures that you saw that were being administered, was there any procedure
-- can we have that picture of all of the doctors up on the screen?
Mr. Panish: Do you know what number that is?
Mr. Koskoff: I don't remember the -- I think josh has it, right?

Mr. Panish: 47?

Mr. Koskoff: Let's go through these people one at a time.
Q. These were not bottom-of-the-barrel doctors, were they?
A. They were well-known physicians.
Q. They were well-known physicians. They were very prominent Los Angeles -- mostly Los Angeles,
but very prominent California physicians, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And let's talk about Dr. Arnold Klein, who we've heard something about. Now, Dr. Klein, in his -- at
one time was an
innovator in the field of medicine, wasn't he, as far as you know?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Did you know that he discovered the link between Karposi Sarcoma and aids?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; lacks foundation, calls for speculation.
Judge: Sustained.
Q. Did you know what his roles were in the development of Botox as a treatment?
Ms. Cahan: Same objections.
Q. Did you know?
Judge: Overruled. He was involved in some of his Botox -- okay. Overruled on the Botox.
The witness: Yes.
Q. And what was his role in the development of Botox as a treatment?
A. He -- he was quick to tell me that he was a pioneer and no one could do it better than he could.
Q. He was proud of what he did?
A. Very.
Q. And he had a lot of very prominent patients, didn't he?

A. Correct.
Q. And then let's talk about Dr. Hoefflin. Did you know him at all?
A. I think I met him once in a meeting, but I do not --
Q. Okay. Let's not talk about him. Metzger. Did you know Dr. Metzger?
A. I met him once or twice, I spoke to him many times on the phone about Michael.
Q. And he was an internist and specialist in the field of rheumatology, correct?
A. I believe so.
Q. And then you have Dr. Lawrence Koplin. Who was Dr. Koplin?
A. Koplin.
Q. Koplin? Sorry.
A. Larry Koplin is a board certified general surgeon and very prominent and good plastic surgeon,
reconstructive surgeon.
Q. And Dr. Edward Baxley, he was the dentist?
A. Correct.
Q. And what -- did you know Dr. Baxley before Michael?
A. No, no. I only met him through Michael.
Q. Okay. And Dr. Levine, who you said passed away --
A. Leslie Levine, yes.
Q. And he was a prominent person in the field of -- what was his real specialty?
A. Multiple dental procedures.
Q. He was a real specialist, wasn't he?
A. He treated a number of patients in his area. He did a lot of different things like gum and teeth work.

Q. And how about Dr. Bosley?

A. Dr. Bosley's specialty is hair restoration.
Q. And Dr. Tearston?
A. Dr. Tearston is a very well-known senior member of the plastic surgery community, good surgeon.
Q. And each and every time you were present when one of these doctors was administering surgery --
administering a procedure on Michael, did you ever, in -- did you ever, in observing it, feel that the doctor
was not paying attention to the procedure that he was doing?
A. No.
Q. And did you ever once, when they were ordering anesthesia for him, feel that it was inappropriate for
him to get anesthesia?
A. No.
Q. And you've mentioned one of the times that you thought was a very -- I think counsel asked you about
Botox -- Botox, why do you need it for that. And you started to talk about the use of the needle during
these Botox injections. Were there hundreds and hundreds, sometimes, of needle sticks that would occur
during these?
A. Correct.
Q. During one session?
A. Correct.
Q. And some of these were right next to the eye; isn't that right?
A. Correct, quarter of an inch.
Q. And just the slightest motion of Michael could have caused him to lose an eye; is that right?
A. It could have caused damage to the eye, yes.
Q. And so he had to be anesthetized for those, didn't he?
A. That is why I was requested to be there, yes, keep him still.
Q. And some of these procedures were right next to the nose, which is a very nerve-centered area; is that
correct?

A. Correct.
Q. And he needed anesthesia for those procedures?
A. Correct.
Q. So that -- so that you were not -- so that as far as the doctors that you saw here, did you -- would you
have thought that any of these doctors would be like doctor shopping, that he was going to different types
of the same people?
A. No.
Q. Was he a good patient in terms of --
Ms. Cahan: Objection; vague.
Judge: Sustained on vague.
Q. Question -- well, did he ever request to remain under anesthesia longer than you thought was
necessary?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; asked and answered.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: No.
Q. Now, sir, part of the -- part of your -- your -- as part of what you do when you see the patient and talk
about the histories you take -- you take a history from the patient?
A. Correct.
Q. And the history can be -- when you see a patient for the first time, you sit down and go through a very,
very detailed history; and you want to know everything about their -- their health; is that right?
A. I want to gather as much information as I can.
Q. Yes. And -- and then as -- as you get to know the patient, you are able to get -- to know what areas are
of importance to you, correct?
A. Still review everything, but you don't have to go into as much detail because you have a good history.
Q. Yes. And so -- and that's part of -- part of what your -- your -- what you do, and I just want to ask you
this one question going back to the time when Michael reported that he didn't do well with Demerol. And

after all the years you treated him -- you treated him for ten years, about -- he'd never reported that
before?
A. No.
Q. Well, when he said it, did you -- did you sit down with him and say, "tell me more about it. What kind
of reaction do you have from Demerol?"
A. He told me he didn't like it, so --
Q. Yeah. Did you explore that any further as to why he didn't like it? Did he get nauseous? Did he get --
A. I don't recall. I don't recall.
Q. And there's no record of -- of that complete discussion?
A. No.
Q. And before that, he had never before that -- I think it was April, was it, or maybe it was -- it was the
may visit. You had never heard of Michael having a problem with Demerol before?
A. No.
Ms. Cahan: Objection.
The witness: Oops.
Ms. Cahan: I was just going to object that it misstates the evidence. He testified about 1993.
Mr. Koskoff: During the time --
Judge: Wait a minute. This witness testified there was a problem in 1993?
Ms. Cahan: He testified of his awareness of Michael's announcement of his painkiller addiction.
Mr. Panish: He said he didn't know what the addiction was. He said he heard he had an addiction.
Judge: You asked him specifically about Demerol, right?
Mr. Panish: Yes.
Judge: Overruled. I'm behind a little bit. I'm trying to catch up. So the answer was?
The witness: The question was?

Judge: Oh, you need the question again? (the question was read)
The witness: Correct.
Q. And I know when counsel asked you, you -- you said that his weight during the time that you --
question withdrawn. You had already physically looked at him to see how he looked --
A. Correct.
Q. -- correct? And physically, during the time that you were treating him, did he look well to you?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said that Michael's weight went from between 1- -- I think here you said 130 and 140,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And did you see pictures of him after he -- you no longer were treating him from around the time he
died?
A. I did.
Q. Tell me what visually you observed about him.
A. He was very thin and frail.
Q. Was he at all like the person you had seen in 2003?
A. He was thinner.
Mr. Koskoff: I'm just about to go into a new area.
Judge: Keep going. I think we started at 1:40, right?
Mr. Panish: I think about 20 until, I think we started.
Judge: Let's keep going until 3:15.
Mr. Koskoff: Doctor, I'd like to look at exhibit --
The witness: "Mr. Fournier."

Mr. Koskoff: I'm very sorry. I apologize, Mr. Fournier. -- exhibit from the deposition Fournier 53. Never
mind. Never mind. Don't bring it up. I'll have to come back to that because -- I want to ask you about --
it's -- it's exhibit 52.
Mr. Panish: Do you have a copy?
Ms. Cahan: No.
Mr. Panish: I was talking to him.
Mr. Koskoff: It's Fournier 000052. It's part of his record at the deposition.
Mr. Panish: What's the date?
Mr. Koskoff: This is -- that's not the right one. Actually, I'll withdraw that for now. I want to ask you a
question.
Q. You mentioned the -- some of the things that you would -- you mentioned the consent form that you
used for a patient, and -- for
A. Patient who was going under anesthesia, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And aside from the consent form, you would tell a patient certain information, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you would say, "I'm going to be administering certain drugs to you"; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. "I'm going to put you to sleep," correct?
A. Correct.
Q. "But I'm going to be with you monitoring you," correct?
A. Correct.
Q. "And there is always a risk that something bad can happen, but I am going to be monitoring you very
carefully so I feel comfortable about -- about doing this, if you do feel comfortable," right?
A. Something like that, correct, yes.

Q. And the big thing that you reassure the person on is that if they are carefully monitored, that the
procedure is something that makes sense for them, if it does?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; vague.
Judge: Sustained, vague. If the procedure makes sense to the patient?
Mr. Koskoff: I'll rephrase the question.
Q. You tell them that -- the first thing you tell them is about the drugs you're going to use, right?
A. I don't necessarily discuss the agents. Most people wouldn't understand.
Q. Okay. But you tell them that -- you do tell them that you're going to put them to sleep?
A. Correct.
Q. And after they're -- you put them to sleep, you tell them that you're going to give them -- that you're
going to be there and you're going to carefully monitor them?
A. I tell them I'm going to listen to every beat of their heart and every breath they take, and I mean it.
Q. And you mean it. And that -- and when you -- you've done these procedures hundreds and hundreds
and hundreds and hundreds of times; is that right? Thousands, maybe?
A. Correct.
Q. And of the thousands of times you've done it, each time, you give people that information unless
they're repeats and they say, "Oh, Mr. Fournier, I've heard it before," right?
A. Correct.
Q. But you give it to them. And how many people, after you give them that -- your discussion, and after
you tell them what you're going to do, and that there are risks -- how many people say, "okay. I'm not
going to have the procedure"?
A. About once every five years.
Q. About once every five years. So that it's -- the fact that even though you say to someone, you know,
this is -- you know, you can die from this, as -- as counsel showed you the -- the consent form, most
people, if they trust the person who's treating them, are going to -- are going to do the procedure?
A. Correct.

Q. And what -- and in a five-year period, about how many people do you see?
A. 1250.
Q. About how much?
A. 1250.
Q. Is that per year?
A. In five years.
Q. In five years. Okay. And you get one out of 1250 that say, "I never realized that, I'm not going to do
it"?
A. Sometimes they say they're not going to do it, they speak to their surgeon and go ahead. But I think in
the 30 years of doing, this I've had two or three people actually quit.
Q. And back at this time, some were done in doctor's offices; is that right?
A. I rarely worked in doctor's offices.
Q. But then -- and then, in fact, ultimately, most of these procedures went into what they call these
surgery centers?
A. Correct.
Q. But you did work, on occasion, in Dr. Klein's office when he was doing this -- this surgery on --
A. Correct.
Q. And on some of those other -- how about the other doctors, Dr. Koplin, or --
A. Those are surgery centers.
Q. Now, the -- now, you also talked about, with counsel, the fact that -- that there was -- about all of the
things that should be done to -- if Propofol is going to be administered?
A. Correct.
Q. Correct? And do you agree, sir, that a fit and competent doctor would not give Propofol in a person's
home?

A. Correct.
Q. Unless they had, perhaps, just got the whole thing designed as a hospital room with all of the -- right?
-- equipment; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And they would also need an assistant if they -- even if they did that, you would expect them to
have an assistant or somebody else there in case of an emergency?
A. Correct.
Q. Correct. So that you'd want to have the equipment and the assistant, and then you'd also want to have
someone who was qualified to give the Propofol, to give the anesthesia?
A. Correct.
Ms. Cahan: Objection; asked and answered.
Judge: These have been asked and answered. You don't need to go over it again. Let's fast forward a little
bit.
Mr. Koskoff: Okay.
Q. So that if all of these other things would be required -- and I won't go through them all, in the interest
of everyone's having heard them a million times. But all of the things counsel asked you about as to what
was required were required for a fit and competent doctor to do -- is that right? -- when it comes to
administering Propofol? That is, have the proper equipment, have the anesthesia, have the -- have the
assistant and all of the rest?
A. Correct.
Ms. Cahan: Objection; asked and answered.
Judge: Overruled. It's a summary. It's going to move on, right?
Mr. Koskoff: Yes.
Judge: Okay.
Q. Now, one of the times that you gave -- I noticed in the record on one occasion you said that you gave
Michael Demerol as one of the agents.
Ms. Cahan: Objection.

Judge: What was your objection?

Ms. Cahan: Objection; misstates the testimony. There's more than one instance.
Mr. Koskoff: I didn't say there wasn't more than one; I just said one of the times, you did.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: Correct.
Mr. Koskoff: Okay.
Q. And did you do it more than once?
A. I don't have every record, but two or three times.
Q. Okay. Two or three times. And he never asked you for Demerol, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. But you gave Demerol because you felt it was the appropriate amount to give?
A. Correct.
Q. The appropriate drug to give?
A. Correct.
Q. And do you use Demerol in the course of your practice?
A. On a limited basis, yes.
Q. Do you still use it or not?
A. Yes, on a limited basis.
Q. On a limited basis. It was a more popular drug some time ago; is that correct?
A. In the '70's, it was a very popular drug.
Q. And then as time went on, because of the -- it -- there were other drugs that came along that --
A. Are better.

Q. -- that are better? Okay. And it was a drug that was used for pain, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. It's what they call an analgesic?
A. Correct.
Q. And it's an opioid?
A. Correct.
Q. And when you gave it, you gave it intramuscularly or intravenously?
A. Probably both.
Q. And when you say that the dose you gave was -- I think you said at least on one occasion it was a
small dose, a very small dose. You said it was like 25 milligrams.
A. 12 and a half milligrams.
Q. 12 and a half milligrams. Okay. And, in fact, do you recall what the P.D.R. Says is the usual dose for
Demerol for pain?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; vague.
Judge: P.D.R.? What's a P.D.R.?
Q. Do you know what the usual does is for pain?
Mr. Panish: Stop. She asked what's the P.D.R.
Judge: I'm asking you to ask him -- I'll ask him. What's a P.D.R.?
The witness: Physician's Desk Reference. It's an encyclopedia of drugs.
Mr. Koskoff: Let me go back and ask you this question.
Q. What is the P.D.R.?
A. Physician's Desk Reference.
Q. And is this a reliable resource that -- that people use for getting the proper dosage for drugs?

A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Now, do you know what the usual dosage of Demerol is for pain?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; vague as to "usual."
Judge: The starting dose, the usual starting dose?
Mr. Koskoff: Usual -- I want to ask -- it says "usual dose," so --
Judge: All right.
The witness: Intramuscular --
Ms. Cahan: Adult usual dose?
The witness: Intramuscular or intravenous?
Q. Intramuscular, do you know what the usual dose is? Do you remember?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it?
A. 1 to 2 milligrams --
Q. Which is --
A. -- per kilo.
Q. Well, let me show you this and ask you if this refreshes your recollection. This is the P.D.R.
Mr. Panish: I've got copies here. Hold on. I've got a copy for you here.
Mr. Koskoff: We'll give you a copy.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, this looks like a printout from a website with no --
Mr. Koskoff: It's pdr.net.
Judge: I think we're refreshing recollection, so --
Q. You can get the P.D.R. On the internet, right? pdr.net?

A. Yes.
Q. Same P.D.R., right?
A. I don't know.
Judge: This is the kind of thing you need to read to yourself.
Q. And does it refresh your recollection as to how they phrase what the usual dose for Demerol is for
pain?
A. Correct.
Q. Does that refresh your --
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Thank you. And would you tell the jury what the usual dose for Demerol is for pain?
A. 25 for small patients. 50 to 100 milligrams is what I give, I.M.
Q. Three four hours P.R.N. pain.
Q. You give, if I remember, 50 to 100 milligrams; but you understand that some give 150 milligrams?
A. That's a big dose.
Q. But 100 milligrams is what -- you give 50 to 100; and 1 three hours, did you say, or four hours?
A. Three to four hours.
Q. What does that mean?
A. Every three to four hours.
Q. Okay. So if you give 100 milligrams -- 50 or 100 milligrams?
A. 25 to 100. Sometimes as little as 25.
Q. Sometimes as little as 25. But if you give anywhere -- at least as far as your use is concerned, 50 to
100 is not unusual, and you recall that as far as the P.D.R. Is concerned, up to 150 is a usual dose, correct?

A. Yes.
Q. And you don't give it just once a day. If the person is in pain, you can give it every four hours?
A. Correct. In the operating room, I don't give these drugs intramuscularly.
Q. But we're talking -- the dosages that I am talking about are intramuscular. Okay? So if you gave it
intramuscularly, it would be 50 or 100 milligrams, what you would do. And would that also be able to be
given every four hours?
A. Correct.
Q. Because it's a drug that dissipates quickly from the system, correct?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; calls for speculation.
Judge: Overruled. In your experience.
The witness: Yes.
Mr. Koskoff: At least the painkilling properties of it --
A. Correct.
Q. -- don't last longer than a short period of time?
A. Correct.
Q. And with Michael, you actually gave what I think you described as a very small dose, 12 and a half
milligrams?
A. 12 and a half milligrams is the dose given intravenously for shivering.
Q. For what?
A. For shivering. It's usually not for pain. So it's a totally different ball game.
Q. It's a different use of the drug?
A. Correct.
Q. And it's 12 and a half milligrams?
A. To 25.

Mr. Koskoff: To 25. I have one more area. Is this a good time?
Judge: Yes. If you're going into a new area, let's take a break now. 15 minutes.
(break)
Judge: Katherine Jackson versus AEG Live. You may continue. You were on cross, right?
Mr. Panish: Yes.
Mr. Koskoff: Yes.
Q. Mr. Fournier, I think that when you -- when we broke, you had just gotten through one section of this
examination; and I just want to go back just to see if I have this correctly, that you treated Mr. Jackson
over a period of more than ten years. Right?
A.
Correct.
Q. And you had, for the most part, a very, very good relationship with him?
A. Correct.
Q. And he was a very good patient, for the most part?
A. Correct.
Q. Correct? And you had, over the course of ten years -- I may have -- I'm not sure I got them all down,
but you had certain problems with Michael. One was, shall we call, the chicken caper, where he ate
chicken?
A. He didn't follow postoperative instructions.
Q. He didn't follow -- did that ever happen to you before with a patient?
A. Yes. Not that particular --
Q. Okay.
A. This is why we send people home with a responsible adult.
Q. Okay. You have -- you were disappointed with him because he'd had some anesthesia one day and he
wanted to practice for the Grammies and he didn't stay home. Instead he went to practice for the

Grammies and he hurt his ankle as a result, I think?

A. Correct.
Q. Possibly as a result, it may have had nothing to do with it?
A. Maybe.
Q. You don't even know if it had anything to do with it. And then that one time you got -- the time
when he was -- the last time I think you saw him, you said you -- you got to give the anesthesia, and when
he got there, did he have slurred speech on that occasion? Did he seem like he'd gotten some medications
of some sort?
Ms. Cahan: Objection.
The witness: There was no anesthesia given that day.
Q. You didn't give anesthesia, but you were going to and decided not to because he had slurred speech?
A. He was inappropriate.
Q. And he was in a doctor's office, right?
A. He came in from the back into the surgery center.
Q. But he was -- and he'd been with a doctor?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; calls for speculation.
Judge: Overruled. If he knows.
The witness: He came in from his limo off the street.
Mr. Koskoff: So you don't know. Okay.
Q. And then the other time was the naltrexone incident, which is also known as the Narcan affair, right?
You don't know if it was Narcan or naltrexone?
A. I don't.
Q. Or what it was?
A. Correct.

Q. And what happened in that case is that you were concerned because Michael didn't tell you about it,
right?
A. Correct.
Q. But you were more concerned because Dr. Klein didn't tell you; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And, in fact, it was clear that Michael had confided -- had told that to Dr. Klein, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And so he wasn't keeping it a secret from his primary treating physician, correct?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; assumes facts not in evidence as to who his primary treating physician was.
There's testimony it was Dr. Metzger.
Judge: Overruled. I think there's been testimony that that's who was his primary.
Ms. Cahan: Right. And he was just asked about Klein being his primary treating physician.
Judge: Oh, I thought he said Metzger. Sustained.
Q. Well, Dr. Klein was the surgeon in this case; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. He was the captain of the ship, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And Michael had told the captain of the ship that he had had this drug and the captain of the ship
didn't tell you --
A. Correct.
Q. -- until midway through the procedure, or until the procedure was almost over?
A. Correct.
Q. And that was very upsetting to you; is that right?
A. Yes.

Q. Part of the reason it was upsetting to you is that you felt your whole career was on the line there?
A. Yeah. Anesthesia is, you know, an interesting business, and you expect your clients and their doctors
to be honest with you, and I felt ambushed, and I was upset.
Q. And you felt that your career was on the line. That's the reason you felt upset, is your career was on
the line?
A. I could handle the situation.
Q. Well, didn't you say in your deposition -- this is the -- the Lloyd's deposition, page 73 --
Judge: Hold on.
Mr. Koskoff: -- line --
Judge: Wait a minute. Stop. Stop.
Ms. Cahan: I don't know if you heard me. I objected that you need to refresh first before you can read
his --
Mr. Koskoff: I'm not impeaching.
Judge: If he says he didn't remember, give him an opportunity to refresh.
Mr. Koskoff: I don't think he said he didn't remember. He gave a contrary answer.
Mr. Panish: Just rephrase the question. Sorry, your honor.
Q. Didn't you say, under oath, "Michael Jackson was at the peak of his career, he was getting
Grammy awards by the armload, he was probably the most recognizable person on the planet, and I'm
anesthetizing him. My whole career is on the line"?
A. Correct.
Q. And that's -- and that's -- and that was in response to the question about what Dr. Klein told you. You
were angry at Dr. Klein for that, weren't you?
A. I was angry at Dr. Klein, I was angry at Michael, and I was angry at anybody that was involved that
didn't tell me what was going on.
Q. And you're still mad?

A. No. Got over it.

Q. When? Well, let me ask you this. You know -- you talked about Michael's desire for privacy, and I
think everybody -- you've testified that sometimes he used these names for privacy; that he had the
paparazzi following him and all of the -- these people following him for -- for information about him. And
it's true that during your years of treating Michael Jackson, you heard discussion from other
anesthesiologists that they had been treating him, didn't you?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; calls for hearsay.
Mr. Koskoff: That's not for the truth --
Judge: Offered for his reaction, emotion, whatever, his anger. Overruled. You may respond.
The witness: Yes, it's a small community, and people did mention that they had taken care of him before.
Q. In fact, it's a small community and you talk amongst yourselves about who you're treating; is that
right? And who you're giving anesthesia to, you talk amongst yourselves, don't you?
A. Very rarely.
Q. That's not what you said at your deposition, is it? Didn't you say under oath -- "have you ever heard in
the course of your four years of treating Mr. Jackson that he was receiving anesthesia from anyone other
than yourself?" and you said, "a number of people in the community -- it's a small community, we talk
amongst ourselves -- told me over the years, yes, that they had anesthetized Michael Jackson."
A. Correct.
Q. And that's true, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you also said --
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, this is inappropriate use of the deposition.
Judge: It is. Sustained. Ask him the question first.
Mr. Putnam: Thank you.
Judge: But not, "Is this what you said in your deposition?" That's impeachment.
Mr. Koskoff: Well, I won't go -- his previous answer was rarely, they talked; and this was reading to

impeach his testimony on "rarely."

Ms. Cahan: Your honor, his testimony wasn't inconsistent.
Q. Well, did you know if Dr. Klein would call somebody else --
Ms. Cahan: Objection; calls for hearsay.
Q. -- to get somebody else other than yourself?
Judge: Sustained.
The witness: I don't know.
Judge: You need to listen, sir.
The witness: I'm sorry.
Q. Didn't you say at your deposition -- well, question, "Do you know of any other people he called?"
Ms. Cahan: Objection. Your honor, he's trying to get --
Mr. Koskoff: I'm asking this question.
Q. Do you know of any other people he called?
Judge: Who called?
Mr. Koskoff: Dr. Klein.
Ms. Cahan: Objection; calls for hearsay.
Judge: Well, it lacks foundation.
Mr. Koskoff: Your honor, I'm trying to -- it may not be clear, but I'm trying to bring out the fact -- this is
all impeachment on his prior testimony that they rarely talk amongst themselves, and I'm -- and what --
Judge: I thought you already got into that. Didn't you already --
Mr. Koskoff: I asked the one question, and now I want to go it further.
Judge: Sustained.
Q. But you do agree, sir, that when you're treating someone like Michael, there is chatter in the

community?
A. I would not characterize it as chatter. It's personal, it's private.
Mr. Koskoff: Let me show you --
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, he answered the last question. I don't think there's a need to refresh anything at
the moment. There's no question pending.
Judge: If he answered, and it's inconsistent, then it's impeachment now; so it's either refreshing or -- why
don't you show the other side what it is you're going to show the witness.
Mr. Koskoff: Then I will -- I don't have to show it to him to refresh his recollection, I can read --
Judge: If he doesn't remember, it's refreshing. If it's contrary, it's impeachment.
Mr. Koskoff: I understand that, your honor; and it's contrary.
Judge: They may disagree with you whether it's contrary, so you need to show them what it is that you're
trying to impeach him with.
Mr. Koskoff: Page 33, line 21, through page 34, line 2.
Mr. Panish: Don't do anything yet.
Judge: Hold on. Let them look at it.
Ms. Cahan: That's fine.
Judge: Okay. You may read it.
Mr. Koskoff: (reading):
Q. Do you know of any other people he called?
A. I think I know of two for sure, but it's my impression that a lot of people in town have anesthetized
Michael over the years.
Q. What gave you that impression. Your answer, "Chatter in the community."
The witness: Okay.
Mr. Koskoff: The community of anesthesiologists does chatter, don't they?

A. Sometimes when it involves patient care, we talk to each other.

Q. And when it involves patient care, you talk to each other. And if Michael Jackson was concerned that
a nurse anesthetist would violate his confidentiality and would say to one other nurse anesthetist relating
to his care of Michael Jackson is now receiving Narcan implants for drug addiction, he would have
some grounds for that concern, wouldn't he?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; vague.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: I don't think I ever told any other nurse anesthetist or anesthesiologist about that.
Q. No; but other people did talk, didn't they, about treating Michael?
A. After he passed away, yes.
Q. Before that, you knew from chatter in the community that other people -- that other people had treated
him, didn't you?
A. I knew Dr. Borenstein had taken care of him. I knew Gary Vanay had covered for me on vacation,
I knew Dr. Rothman took care of him, yes.
Q. And all those people you knew had treated him, and there are 2 to 300 people in this small community
of nurse anesthetists, aren't there?
A. And anesthesiologists.
Q. Many of them have spouses, right?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; relevance.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Koskoff: Yes, I understand.
Q. If someone wanted to maintain his confidentiality, he would -- he would have a hard time, wouldn't
he, Michael Jackson?
A. If you're taking care of somebody and someone else asks you did you have any problems, that's taking
care of the patient. That's not blabbing about patient confidentiality.
Mr. Koskoff: I have no further questions. Thank you.

Judge: Thank you. Redirect?

Ms. Cahan: Thank you, your honor.
Redirect examination by Kathryn Cahan:
Q. Mr. Fournier, you were just asked some questions about taking -- speaking with other C.R.P.A.'s and
other people in the anesthesia care community about patient care at times?
A. Correct.
Q. Are there times when -- strike that. You leave your anesthesia records with the records at the facility
with the surgeon who has conducted the procedure?
A. Correct. There's a copy at the surgery center and the surgeon has a copy.
Q. And that becomes part of the patient's chart?
A. Correct.
Q. If you are treating a patient for the first time, will you look at their chart to see if there's a record of
anesthesia in that chart?
A. Yes.
Q. And even if you weren't the -- well, you wouldn't have been the anesthetist if it's the first time you're
treating that patient, right?
A. Correct.
Q. So you'll see from those records, if there are any in there, who previously anesthetized the patient?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Is that a yes, just for the record?
A. Yes.
Q. Whether there were any problems with the anesthesia given?
A. Yes.

Q. And, in fact, that's why, at times, you would note anything unusual that occurred during a procedure?
A. Correct.
Mr. Panish: Objection; leading and suggestive of the answer.
Judge: Overruled.
Q. Is it your practice to note unusual events during the procedure in part so that if someone else came
along down the road and provided anesthesia, they'd have the benefit of your experience?
A. Correct.
Q. And that's for patient safety?
A. Correct.
Q. And have you ever been aware of whether someone has provided anesthesia to a patient -- somebody
other than you has provided anesthesia to a patient by reviewing their chart?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there anything inappropriate about that?
A. No.
Q. Are you able to estimate, based on your decades of experience, for a typical healthy patient, about
how frequently a person would receive anesthesia?
A. Some people, three, four times in their entire life.
Q. Is that something you ask about when you're taking the history, the first time that people can
remember, other times they've had anesthesia, and whether they had any problems with it?
A. Yes.
Q. So a typical healthy person, somebody in their 30's or 40's, you would say on average a few times,
they've had anesthesia?
A. Correct.
Q. Fair to say that Mr. Jackson had anesthesia a lot more than was typical?
A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Koskoff was asking you some questions about your administration of Demerol to Mr. Jackson.
Do you remember those?
A. Yes.
Q. So I want you to assume that we've seen some records in this case indicating that Mr. Jackson
received up to 300 milligrams of Demerol in a single intramuscular injection.
A. I was not aware of that.
Q. I'm just saying assume for the purposes of the question that that is true. Okay?
A. Okay.
Q. With me so far?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that a lot?
A. That's a tremendous amount.
Q. Have you ever given that much Demerol to a patient?
A. Never.
Q. Have you ever seen a physician give that much Demerol to a patient?
A. Never.
Q. If you gave -- do you have an understanding of what might happen to a person who is not opiate-
dependent if you gave them a 300-milligram dose of Demerol?
A. If you gave it to me, I'd probably stop breathing.
Mr. Panish: I'm going to object; speculation, no foundation for his opinions as to the causative
relationship medically.
Ms. Cahan: He was asked on cross about the dosages, what's a starting dose, an appropriate dose, a large
dose for intramuscular Demerol.
Mr. Panish: But that's different from giving an opinion as to what's the physiological effects of Demerol
and such that he's not trained in.

Judge: I'm going to overrule it. He said that he gave at least one -- three injections to Michael Jackson.
Mr. Panish: He gave no injections, I don't think.
Judge: He said up to three; one that was recorded, possibly three. So overruled. You may answer.
Ms. Cahan: You said --
Judge: Did he answer?
Ms. Cahan: He did. He said it would cause him to stop breathing.
Q. You said that you expect patients to be honest with you?
A. Correct.
Q. Why?
A. It's in their best interest. You know, hiding information from a person who is going to be taking care of
you can lead to untoward events; and it's just not in their best interest to not be honest.
Q. It increases the risk of something bad happening?
A. Correct.
Q. Pam, could you pull up exhibit -- it was one of the demonstratives we had this morning that had the
multiple -- that one, yes. 13473. Mr. Koskoff asked you a series of questions asking you to assume that
Mr. Jackson had a naltrexone implant in -- or a series of naltrexone implants from early 2003 through
June 2nd, 2003.
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. Okay. So I'm going to ask you to make that same assumption. I'll ask you to assume that we've heard
some testimony from a Dr. Farshchian saying that beginning in November 2002 he placed a series of five
naltrexone implants in Mr. Jackson's abdomen surgically; and so from the period of November -- assume
from the period of November 2002 through July 2003, Mr. Jackson had naltrexone implants in his body.
Okay?
A. Okay.
Q. Do you remember Mr. Koskoff asked you a series of questions about whether Mr. Jackson reported
any changes in medication?

A. Yes.
Q. Is one of the questions you also ask on your form whether -- every time you do a procedure whether
someone is taking any medications at all, not just whether there's been a change?
A. Yes, "Are you on any medications?"
Q. And a naltrexone implant would be being on a medication, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you asked that question before the April 24th, 2003 procedure?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ask that question before the May 13th, 2003 procedure?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you ask that question before the June 2nd, 2003 procedure?
A. Yes.
Q. And any of those three times, did Mr. Jackson ever say he was on any medications whatsoever?
A. I'm going to check the records to be absolutely sure.
Q. Please.
A. All of those times, Michael denied taking -- or being on any medications.
Q. In fact, the first time you ever discussed naltrexone implant with Mr. Jackson was after the June 2nd,
2003 procedure, right?
A. Correct.
Q. So three times in 2003, he did not disclose to you that he had a naltrexone implant in his body?
A. Correct.
Q. So was he telling you the truth when you asked him whether he was taking any medications on -- for
the may -- sorry -- April 24th, 2003 procedure, the may 13th, 2003 procedure, or the June 2nd, 2003
procedure?

A. He was not telling me the truth.

Q. You mentioned that you heard about this implant -- you eventually discussed it with Mr. Jackson, but
you also heard about it from Dr. Klein and Dr. Metzger. How did you end up discussing it with Dr.
Metzger?
A. I heard about it I think through Dr. Klein. Dr. Klein -- I think at that time Dr. Metzger was
quarterbacking Michael's care, and I heard about the implant through Dr. Klein and maybe a discussion
with Dr. Metzger. I don't recall.
Q. So you may have talked to Dr. Metzger directly about this implant?
A. I don't know.
Mr. Panish: No foundation, speculation.
Ms. Cahan: I'm asking so that we can establish --
Mr. Panish: He already answered he doesn't know.
Judge: I can't hear. I'm sorry.
Ms. Cahan: I'm trying to find out if he remembers specifically discussing that with Dr. Metzger or not.
Judge: You may answer.
The witness: I do not recall specifically discussing that with Dr. Metzger.
Q. You said earlier -- Mr. Koskoff was asking you about west side anesthesia. That's your company?
A. Correct.
Q. You're the sole employee of that company?
A. Correct.
Q. So when you work with physicians to provide anesthesia, what is that working relationship? Are you
employed by the physicians?
A. No. I'm an independent contractor.
Q. Are the physicians responsible for supervising your administration of anesthesia?
Mr. Panish: Your honor, I'm going to object. That calls for the standard for a physician. He's not a

physician.
Judge: Overruled.
Ms. Cahan: He said he doesn't have prescribing ability and he always works with physicians.
Judge: Well, the question -- I understood your question to mean is he being supervised by the physician
during the procedures.
Ms. Cahan: Yes.
Judge: And he would know that. So overruled. You may respond.
The witness: No, I'm not being supervised. The nurse practice acts in the state of California allow me
to practice and provide anesthesia services for surgeries.
Q. Do you understand yourself to be an employee of any of those physicians?
Mr. Panish: Objection; legal conclusion, "employee."
Judge: Why is it relevant?
Mr. Panish: It's also beyond the scope, relevance.
Judge: Sustained.
Ms. Cahan: Okay.
Judge: So you can do this procedure with no physician present at all, you can just -- you and an assistant
and a patient and no -- no physicians?
The witness: No. There has to be a surgeon. It has to be a surgical procedure. There has to be a doctor
there.
Judge: But they're not supervising you in any way?
The witness: They're not directly supervising. They don't usually know anything about anesthesia.
Judge: All right.
Ms. Cahan: So just fast forwarding to the end of your relationship with Mr. Jackson, when -- the
instance where you ended up canceling the procedure because he didn't seem to be acting appropriately to
you --

A. Yes?
Q. -- you never -- he never called you again to provide anesthesia?
A. Correct.
Q. He never called and asked you to hold his hand during someone else's procedure?
A.
Correct.
Q. Did he ever call you on your birthday again?
A. No.
Q. Did he ever invite you to Neverland again?
A. No.
Q. So the only time you saw him after that was the one time you bumped into him at somebody else's
office?
A. Correct.
Ms. Cahan: Nothing further at this time, your honor.
Judge: Anything further? Recross?
Mr. Koskoff: Yes, recross, very brief.
Recross examination by Michael Koskoff:
Q. Mr. Fournier, you never saw the records of anyone else who gave Michael Jackson anesthesia; is that
right?
A. I believe I saw one of the records from Gary Vanay, yes.
Q. Just one other person?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. And all the rest was from chatter in the community?

Ms. Cahan: Objection; misstates the testimony.

Q. Your other knowledge about who treated him was chatter, right?
A. There was one surgical technician who had worked for Dr. Hoffman who said he'd seen Michael
Jackson have surgery at a surgery center.
Q. And you don't know whether, when Dr. Farshchian put that Narcan implant in -- you don't know
what Dr. Farshchian told Michael about what the implant was, do you?
A. No.
Q. You don't know whether he told him that there was medication in it, do you?
A. No.
Q. So if Michael didn't say he was on any new medications, he might not -- you have no way of knowing
whether he knew it at that point?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; vague.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: I would assume if he's having something implanted in his body in a surgical procedure, he
knows it's there for a reason.
Q. You made an assumption, but you don't know what Dr. Farshchian told him? You don't know whether
he told him that this implant is something that would prevent opiates from working, do you?
A. I don't know what they talked about.
Q. In fact, you don't even know what the implant is yourself even today, do you?
A. Correct.
Q. The doctor would be in a better position than Michael to know what's important to tell you, isn't he?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; vague as to "the doctor."
Mr. Koskoff: The doctor doing the procedure.
Judge: You mean the implant?
Mr. Koskoff: No. I'm sorry.

Judge: Rephrase it.

Mr. Koskoff: I do have to rephrase it.
Q. The doctor who is doing the procedure, first of all, is the person who -- and who knows about the
implant would be in the best position to know whether it's important to tell you or not?
A. Correct.
Q. Because he is a physician and he will know whether this implant even contains medication?
A. Correct.
Q. And you -- in fact, Dr. Klein apologized to you afterwards for not having told you?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. He accepted responsibility, didn't he?
A. He and Michael both accepted responsibility.
Q. But Dr. Klein said to you that -- he told you afterwards, didn't he, that "I apologize"? That's what he
said?
A. Yes.
Q. "I'm sorry," didn't he?
A. Yes.
Q. You talked to Dr. Klein about it at that point, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn't recall ever talking to Michael about that at that time in your deposition, did you?
A. That day, we did not talk about it.
Q. Okay. So it was later on that you had some conversation?
A. Yes.
Q. And by then, he knew -- he was there when Dr. Klein said, "oh, we should have told you," and he

knew at that point?

A. I don't know what he talked about with Dr. Klein.
Q. By the way, you were asked -- you were asked on this -- by counsel about a normal number of
incidences of having received anesthesia, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. There's no normal, is there?
A. I guess I'm saying an average.
Q. Yeah. Some people never get anesthesia their whole lives? Other -- right?
A. And some burn patients get hundreds.
Q. And some burn patients get hundreds. And Michael was a burn patient, wasn't he?
A. Correct.
Q. And Michael needed -- you don't quarrel with any of the anesthesia Michael ever got in his life. You
said that earlier; isn't that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. It was all necessary because he had severe burns and he wasn't a normal patient for that, was he? So
he wasn't normal in the sense of the average patient, an average number of --
A. Correct.
Judge: Do you have an objection?
Ms. Cahan: No. I -- I just -- I'm sure counsel is trying to speak quietly, but I can hear everything over
here, so I'm concerned the jury can --
Judge: All right. Maybe you should whisper.
Mr. Panish: It's hard. I apologize. Can I just ask the question?
Judge: It's not your turn. Not your turn.
Q. The burns are very painful, aren't they, that Michael had?

A. I don't know.
Q. You know that he was in the hospital and he required anesthesia on a number of occasions?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; calls for hearsay.
Q. Did you know that, by the way?
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: I knew he was in the hospital after the burn in 1984, yes.
Q. And you knew that he had numerous procedures related to the burns after 1994 with hair transplants,
tissue expanders and other procedures?
A. Correct.
Q. And that's what you attributed the -- the lack of access to -- the fact that he had had numerous
anesthetic procedures?
A. Correct.
Mr. Panish: I'm not talking, I'm writing.
Q. And these are burn injuries that we're talking about that he had suffered from?
Ms. Cahan: Objection; vague.
Q. And those are painful, correct?
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: Correct.
Mr. Koskoff: No further questions.
Ms. Cahan: Nothing further, your honor.
Judge: Thank you. You may step down. Do we have anything else to do today?
Mr. Panish: I would suggest that we let the jury go home.
Judge: It's the defense's case, so --

Mr. Putnam: Thank you, your honor.

Mr. Panish: We actually just both discussed it, and I think we're in agreement.
Ms. Cahan: My understanding is that your honor is available until 4:15 today. There's some
administrative argument issues that we have, if the court can --
Judge: Okay. Then I will dismiss -- okay. 9:30 tomorrow. Thank you. Goodnight. It's a half a day. You're
right. Half a day.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jurors):
Judge: Okay. What are we doing? What issues?
Mr. Panish: I think there was Dr. Sasaki.
Judge: Are you ready to address those?
Mr. Panish: Ms. Cahan wanted to discuss those. Mr. Boyle, are you ready?
Mr. Boyle: I can jump into action.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, could I be dismissed? My daughter is going back to college tomorrow. It's my
last time to see her, so is it okay if I went home?
Judge: That's fine. I think Mr. Boyle has been handling these.
Mr. Koskoff: I will stay with him and we can give away the ranch.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, they're accusing me of losing them, but -- I don't have them. These are only
calendars. They're accusing me of losing the Sasaki pink sheet. I thought I gave it to you
Ms. Cahan: Mine are all flagged up.
Mr. Boyle: There they are.
Mr. Panish: Falsely accused. I was exonerated.
Mr. Boyle: Cesar is implicated.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, as you may remember, the primary issue there is hearsay; and there are a few

that we wanted to talk about specifically. The first is at page 42, line 15 to 24.
Judge: I read through, I realized that issue was kind of repeating itself and in some circumstances, I --
well, there's different rulings for different reasons. But, anyway, what page?
Ms. Cahan: The first is 42, lines 15 to 24. And there, I don't think that there's really any hearsay issue
involved. I think your honor --
Judge: 42, line --
Ms. Cahan: (reading):
Q. Did you ever have any communications with Michael Jackson outside of your treatment with him?
A. Yes.
Q. How so?
A. I have to look at my chart on this. And then he refreshed himself. "He was kind enough to invite
myself and family to Never NeverLand." "Is that it, Neverland?" And he confirms he went to
Neverland. I don't think there's a hearsay objections there.
Mr. Boyle: If they want -- that kind of dovetails -- I guess the other issues are going to be the doctor
hearsay rule. That's, obviously, not a doctor hearsay rule issue. I assume the court kept that out, what Ms.
Cahan just read, out of relevance because he went to never Neverland; because then on all of our
counters about what happened at Never NeverLand, they were all kept out. So my view is if they're
opening the door to him going to Never NeverLand, I think we should be able to say what happened
at Never NeverLand because then it just seems weird hanging out there.
Judge: I don't think it really advances the ball.
Ms. Cahan: What is goes to, your honor, is that our addiction experts are going to talk about the
unusually close relationships Michael cultivated with physicians as consistent with addiction and keeping
supply lines to drugs open; and so it's necessary for us to address the testimony, and we've designated just
relevant portions so the concept is there because it's foundation.
Judge: But then you want to keep out the fact that when he was at Neverland there were observations
about what a good dad he was, and --
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, and we discussed when we were talking about this with Dr. Farshchian, in every
single one of these medical depositions there's a portion at the end where plaintiffs' counsel asks about,
"Did you observe Michael with his children? What kind of a dad was he?" And it's really outside the
scope. And as we discussed with Dr. Farshchian and your honor ruled, that's something plaintiffs could
have designated in their case. Maybe there will be a reason to address it on rebuttal, although they've

certainly presented plenty of testimony to that effect in their case in chief. They chose not to designate it,
and it's really outside the scope, and it's going to make all these depositions run long.
Judge: If you want to designate this, then I guess now it is, though. I don't know how it would be outside
the scope if we're talking about communications and "He invited me to Neverland," so what went on at
Neverland would now become relevant.
Mr. Boyle: If I may, I completely agree --
Judge: But if it's just you never talk about that, it never comes up, and they wanted to designate all this
stuff about what a great dad Mr. Jackson was, maybe you're right. But if you're designating something
about Neverland and he was invited to Neverland, what happens there seems to me to be relevant.
Ms. Cahan: If everything everybody has testified to about what happened at Neverland is going to come
in, that's fine with us because there's a lot of stuff I think plaintiffs want out about medical care that was
provided at Neverland, things Mr. Jackson had and said and did. And I would suspect plaintiffs don't want
a blanket everything that happened at Neverland is fair game.
Mr. Boyle: Can I be heard on this? Your honor, so she's made clear they want to now put on this thing
that Michael gets close to doctors. Okay? So that's part of their case, apparently. So I think it's totally fair
that we show what that relationship was with the doctors. It's not like Michael was taking them out
drinking, buddying up to them so he could get more drugs on the side. I mean, he's inviting them to
Neverland; sometimes Michael is there, sometimes he's not.
Judge: Right. Sasaki I think said he wasn't even there at the time.
Mr. Boyle: Exactly. And then also what I would like to add.
Judge: It's still an invitation to the ranch.
Mr. Boyle: Fine.
Ms. Cahan: The fact that he's socializing with his doctors is relevant to our experts in assessing whether
he had addiction issues. We think it's something the jury should be able to consider.
Judge: Although it's something interesting that he never asked for -- at least according to this person, he
never asked for drugs from this particular person.
Ms. Cahan: And you'll hear inconsistent things from other people.
Mr. Boyle: Nor did he ask for any from Dr. Sasaki, who is a highly respected plastic surgeon, one of the
best in country. So that's fine if they want to try to make that inference, but we should be allowed to say,
"okay. What happened at never Neverland?" so it's not just hanging out there for the jury in some
ominous -- he was invited to Neverland and he went. So he went there, he saw Michael's kids, he ate a
salad for lunch, Michael talked to him about the bible. Here's why that's relevant; because you've heard

from Dr. Farshchian now that they played that Michael was going through a 12-step program. God is
always involved in those things. The fact that he was talking to Dr. Sasaki about the bible is relevant to
the fact that Michael was trying to get off these drugs. And so they're trying to keep out all that stuff and
put in this implication that Dr. Sasaki gets invited to Neverland like that's somehow a bad thing. If we're
going to Neverland, let's go to Neverland.
Ms. Cahan: Dr. Sasaki went to Neverland in 1993. That's when he was treating Mr. Jackson. Dr.
Farshchian was talking about 2002/2003, in that time period. There's no testimony that there is a 12-step
program that Mr. Jackson is working in 1993, nor, based on my understanding of 12-step programs, is
reading the bible necessarily a part of that. I don't think that that's a fair inference.
Mr. Boyle: You're right about that.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, we don't have a problem with, "you were invited to Neverland ranch, I went to
Neverland ranch, here's what you did there." but then when it gets into, you know, "and did you observe
Michael with his children? And was Michael a good and loving father, from what you saw?" that's all --
that's the same issue that we addressed with Dr. Farshchian that's really outside the scope of the
designation. Just because that observation happened at Neverland doesn't make it within the scope.
Judge: Maybe I should have excluded it altogether for everyone, because now it just -- it's expanding
this thing.
Mr. Boyle: I mean, I'm -- I just don't want to -- a strange inference about an invitation to Neverland and
then no followup. Our designation is probably about 25 seconds on their -- on their --
Ms. Cahan: What is it specifically that you want in that was excluded? Your honor, while he's looking,
the testimony that follows that was allowed in says, "We went up there, he wasn't there, he wasn't
supposed to be there. Staff served us lunch and showed us around." "You went with your family to
Neverland Ranch?" "Yes." That gives the context of why he went to Neverland Ranch. I think the very
fact that Michael's cultivating these close relationships with his doctors is something that other addiction
experts have told us is quite relevant to the diagnosis that they're going to be rendering.
Mr. Boyle: Okay. So, again, your honor, they're clearly putting Mr. Jackson's character in issue here.
They're talking about -- they're basically saying that he is creating false relationships in an effort to get
drugs.
Ms. Cahan: Not false.
Mr. Boyle: Drug-seeking behavior, getting close to these doctors. She just said it. So, for example, we
designate on page 203, line 8 -- "Simple question, sir. In all your dealings with Michael Jackson, did he
seem like a kind person?" "Yes." I mean, why can't we talk about what the guy's impression of Mr.
Jackson was if they're bringing out a case that he's befriending them only to get drugs? I mean, it's like --
Ms. Cahan: That's not what we're saying, and that's not what our addiction experts say. They say it's

usually a subconscious motivation for people to protect their supply of drugs, whatever that supply is.
Judge: This thing you're talking about, the testimony you're talking about, Mr. Boyle, doesn't have to do
with anything of Neverland, it's just somebody's opinion about Michael Jackson's character; whereas the
other testimony has something to do with -- Neverland, what happened there, that has absolutely nothing
to do with what happened at Neverland.
Ms. Cahan: I'm sorry.
Mr. Boyle: I'm sorry, your honor, I had just jumped ahead to where you sustained an objection to theirs. I
guess I'm arguing something else.
Judge: Let's finish the first -- what is it that you have a problem with? I sustained the objection to -- and
defense is the one that wants that in, right?
Ms. Cahan: Right. And plaintiffs objected on grounds of hearsay, and it's clearly not hearsay.
Judge: It's not hearsay, but I think I sustained it because I thought it was irrelevant.
Mr. Boyle: That's it, your honor. I think -- you know --
Judge: It will come in, but there's probably other stuff now that's going to come in as a result.
Mr. Boyle: Okay.
Ms. Cahan: The next --
Judge: But not that he was a nice guy. That has nothing to do with what happened at Neverland.
Mr. Boyle: I agree. That's going to be a separate issue. I'll argue that separately. That's more of the
addiction friendship issue.
Ms. Cahan: The next one I have is more in the nature of the physician issues, your honor. And it's page
61, line 25, to page 62, line 7.
Judge: Beginning "So Dr. Klein"?
Ms. Cahan: Yes. Right. So it says so Dr. Klein and Dr. Hoefflin indicated that Dr. John Borenstein would
be Mr. Jackson's anesthesiologist for the procedure. This is the procedure that happened in march of 1993.
And he affirms that, that's a procedure that Dr. Sasaki did. This is the scalp surgery. So he saw that john
Borenstein was there, so I don't think that there's any hearsay issue with that. He was told this would be
the anesthesiologist, this is the anesthesiologist, this is one of the people that Mr. Fournier just referenced.
I don't think that there's a problem with reliability of that statement. It's not being offered for the truth.
The guy actually showed up and performed the anesthesia at the surgery on march 16, 1993.

Mr. Boyle: If it's not being offered for the truth, I don't know what it's being offered for. It says these two
doctors indicated that a third -- it's hearsay.
Ms. Cahan: I think it's relevant to the fact that this was a big, painful surgery for which anesthesia was
required and appropriate. That's something that plaintiffs were
addressing today with Mr. Fournier. If they really wanted to keep that out, if they feel so strongly about
it, I could let that one go; but I don't think it's hearsay and I don't think there's a problem with the
reliability of that statement.
Mr. Boyle: I really don't care. I mean, I just don't want to open the door to hearsay.
Judge: Okay. So what portion did you want in? 25 through what?
Ms. Cahan: Line 7 on page 62.
Judge: And you want that in because there's no other way to show what, that Borenstein was his
anesthesiologist?
Ms. Cahan: And I think it references -- I think it is at this point of the designated testimony in which it's
referenced that this was a procedure that required anesthesia. There's then subsequent discussion about all
the pain medication that was prescribed afterwards. I actually think it's probably something plaintiffs
would not object to given that it shows that Mr. Jackson had a really painful procedure that required
anesthesia and he subsequently was given pain medication for it.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, this seems like Ms. Cahan and I could just talk about these things rather than
forcing this all on the court. We could figure this out.
Ms. Cahan: And I emailed Mr. Boyle about this and didn't get a substantive response.
Judge: To be honest with you, I don't see how this adds anything.
Ms. Cahan: That's fine, your honor. We can keep it out. It might be a little confusing for the jurors.
Judge: It just doesn't add anything to the testimony, as far as I can tell, but --
Ms. Stebbins: I think it's more in the matter of explaining the chain of events so there's not gaps and the
jurors aren't confused, we had this change, we needed an anesthesiologist, we brought him in and did the
procedure. Sometimes it's easier if you tell those in order. I noticed in the one we watched yesterday at the
beginning I was confused as to what was happening, and then it kind of smoothed this stuff out. I think
that's all this is.
Mr. Boyle: Do you know that, Jessica, or are you just saying that?

Ms. Stebbins: I'm saying that, but that's my understanding from what Ms. Cahan was saying.
Ms. Cahan: It requires the context of it being a big deal surgery that required -- if your honor wants to
keep that out, I don't think we need to spend more time on that one.
Judge: I don't think it needs to be in. Okay. What's next?
Ms. Cahan: Okay. The next is page 89, line 25, to page 90, line 22.
Judge: "Do you understand whether Dr. Klein had ever prescribed pain medication to Michael Jackson
before July 3rd?" And he says, "I don't know." Okay.
Ms. Cahan: And then he talks about --
Judge: So does it lack foundation, or you just -- what was the objection?
Ms. Cahan: Relevance, hearsay, calls for speculation.
Judge: Well, he answers, "I don't know," so I think --
Mr. Boyle: The designation goes all the way down to page 22 where he's asked about conversations with
debbie rowe. That's clearly hearsay, out-of-court statement.
Judge: Did I just do a general sustaining? Is that what happened? I didn't break it down?
Mr. Boyle: Yes, your honor.
Ms. Cahan: That's right. And here we're offering the part about what he was informed about by Ms.
Rowe about Mr. Jackson's pain management. If you may remember, your honor, he performed the
surgery. In an unusual turn of events Dr. Hoefflin and Dr. Klein said, "we'll manage his pain medication,"
he didn't come to Dr. Sasaki for follow-up visits, so Dr. Sasaki was -- needed to speak with Hoefflin and
Klein and Ms. Rowe, who was functioning as Mr. Jackson's nurse at the time, about how he was doing,
basically had to manage him remotely. And he was asked several times to prescribe additional pain
medications for Mr. Jackson even though he wasn't seeing him in office. So this isn't used for the truth of
the increase of the pain medication, but it goes to Dr. Sasaki's understanding of Mr. Jackson's health status
in prescribing medication for him because he wasn't getting the information directly, he was getting it
from other healthcare providers who were seeing Mr. Jackson directly. It's a little bit of a unique situation.
It's not something we have with any of the other doctors who had direct access to Mr. Jackson when they
were taking care of him.
Mr. Boyle: It's straight-up hearsay.
Judge: What I hear you saying is you're saying --
Ms. Cahan: We're not offering it for the truth --

Judge: To show that --

Ms. Cahan: -- of Mr. Jackson's need for pain medication, we're offering it for Dr. Sasaki's understanding
that Mr. Jackson -- of Mr. Jackson's health status and subsequent plan about how to care for his health.
Judge: Well, I thought what you were offering it for is to show that that's why Sasaki didn't manage his
pain or give him pain medication, is because others were doing it; but that would be offered for the truth.
Ms. Cahan: It's really the effect on the listener, your honor.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, may I suggest that maybe -- now that we have some time, we know that this is
not being played tomorrow, make Ms. Cahan and I can just talk and get to an agreement on some of
these?
Ms. Cahan: I tried, your honor.
Mr. Boyle: Well, no. We just didn't have time. You sent me an email last night. What am I supposed to
do? You're putting on a witness today.
Judge: Well, it sounds like you're offering it for the truth.
Ms. Cahan: We aren't. We're offering it for the effect on the listener.
Judge: Which is the effect of what?
Ms. Cahan: That he prescribed Percocet to Mr. Jackson because he understood that it was an appropriate
treatment for pain.
Judge: See, but I thought Sasaki wasn't doing the pain management, it was somebody else.
Ms. Cahan: So Dr. Hoefflin and Dr. Klein --
Judge: They're responsible.
Ms. Cahan: -- even though they have prescribing abilities, they themselves were administering Demerol
to Mr. Jackson, but then they came to Dr. Sasaki and said, "will you write Mr. Jackson a prescription for
45 Percocet, and another prescription for 45 Percocet, and another prescription for 45 Percocet?" and Dr.
Sasaki wasn't able to see Mr. Jackson directly for follow-up visits during that time. He was just hearing
from Dr. Klein and Dr. Hoefflin that Mr. Jackson was having his pain and that was his reason for
prescribing. He's a very reputable doctor, and I'm afraid it's going to look suspicious to the jury if they
hear that he's prescribing Percocet to this patient who he is not seeing for followup appointments because
if they don't know that he's relying on the physicians who are taking care of Michael directly, or --

Mr. Boyle: Your honor, there are multiple followup appointments. It's hard to argue against this. And Dr.
Sasaki did a major surgery on Michael, and I don't think it's unusual for him to prescribe some Percocets.
I don't -- they're just trying to get hearsay stuff from other doctors on -- and non-doctors on drug use.
That's all they're doing. I mean, but, again, if I could just talk to Ms. Cahan, it's like, you know --
Ms. Cahan: I'm happy to speak with Mr. Boyle about it. We don't have a great track record on agreeing
to any of these things. I had asked him to agree to them and explain the non-hearsay justification for this
before we filed the combined chart with your honor and didn't get a substantive response. If he's saying
he'll talk to me now, I'm happy to do that.
Mr. Boyle: Ms. Cahan, please, you never agreed to one proposed --
Judge: All this stuff about, "Did he tell you whether Michael Jackson had ever taken Percocet before?" I
don't know why that would be relevant. "Did he tell you if Michael Jackson had taken any medication
prior to July 3rd, 1993?" What does that have to do with a simple request, "Can you prescribe him with
Percocet now?"
Ms. Cahan: It goes to whether it's appropriate for him to be prescribing it because if it's a medication
he's not taken before, it could have adverse health effects. And it goes to his understanding and why he
would do anything in terms of prescribing Mr. Jackson any kind of pain medication.
Judge: Okay. I'm going to sustain the objection. I'm sure there's something in here you could find where,
you know, some -- they called -- Dr. So and so called, asked for Dr. Sasaki to prescribe Percocet or some
type of pain medication to Mr. Jackson, and that's fine. But all this other stuff about has he ever used it in
the past, and how many times, did you ever know about it -- I mean, all of that is just -- it's hearsay.
Ms. Cahan: I'm just looking through to see if there are any other --
Judge: You two will have to sift through that to find that relevant portion.
Mr. Boyle: I think your honor's rulings so far take care of the rest that she was going to argue. For
example, the 93-22, which is simply saying what Ms. Rowe said to him, that's hearsay.
Ms. Cahan: Okay. We can ask Ms. Rowe about some of these things when she comes -- if she comes to
testify.
Mr. Boyle: That's fine.
Ms. Cahan: Sorry, your honor. One other I was considering. Then the only other one, your honor, that I
wanted to address is on page 127.
Judge: "Why were --" on page 94, "Why were you speaking to Debbie Rowe?" "I have no idea. She
just calls." "Did she explain why she was calling?" "No." "So this was the first time Debbie Rowe had
called you?" "If it's in the chart, that's the first time."

Ms. Cahan: If your honor would turn to page 126 and 127, there's three lines on 127, lines 5 to 8, that
were excluded. And this is the discussion back and forth about the prescription of Percocet. And it's
generally included at 126, you included -- allowed significant portions of that. The portion of 127 is "what
was Dr. Klein's response when you told him you would no longer prescribe more Percocet for Michael
Jackson?" answer, "I'll take care of it." and I think that that's a relevant part of the prior testimony that's
been allowed in about, you know, can you please prescribe Percocet, yes, I'll prescribe it, can you please
prescribe some more, yes, I'll prescribe some more, can you please prescribe again, this is the last time
I'm doing it, I'm not doing it anymore. And then the response, I think, is appropriate to include. It's not for
the truth of the ongoing medical care but to understand that Dr. Sasaki was relinquishing the pain
medication going forward to the care of other physicians. It's just those three lines on 127.
Mr. Boyle: Well, no. Your honor, that's a hearsay statement. "What was his response?" And then the
response was given, an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. And previously
they have the testimony where Sasaki says, "I stopped prescribing Percocet." That's the end. Why do we
need then a hearsay statement after that to put an exclamation point on it? I don't understand why --
Judge: The inference is when Klein says, "I'll take care of it" -- the inference is that Klein is going to
prescribe him more, I think.
Mr. Boyle: Or take care of the pain management.
Ms. Cahan: Right. Which is not a -- it's not being offered for the fact that he then did take care of pain
medication, but just that Dr. Sasaki was relinquishing that part of Michael Jackson's medical care to
somebody else.
Judge: And isn't that already in here somewhere?
Mr. Boyle: Yes.
Judge: "Did you, in fact, inform both Dr. Klein and Michael Jackson that you would no longer prescribe
him Percocet because of the frequency of his requests on August 10, 1993?" "If I wrote it, yes."
Mr. Boyle: Right. So that's -- that ends it. Now they want to get something in about Klein. I don't know
why they're tarnishing Klein. They can bring Klein in to testify.
Ms. Cahan: It's not tarnishing Klein, your honor. We're only offering it to show that Dr. Sasaki didn't
say, "I'm sorry. I'm washing my hands of you. Tough. Good luck with your pain." he transferred care back
to somebody else, and he doesn't know what happened after that. He was doing what a responsible
physician would do, which is not to leave a patient who is in pain without recourse to medical care.
Judge: Well, okay. The problem is it has an inference -- a different type of inference that could be drawn.
When he says -- Well, okay. You read on, it says, "I'll take care of it." "Uh-huh." "Did you ask him what
he meant by that?" "No." So nobody knows what --
Mr. Boyle: Just hanging out there.

Ms. Cahan: He didn't need to ask him because he understood that it meant Dr. Klein would be handling
his pain management going forward.
Judge: Where does he say that, though?
Ms. Cahan: There's testimony throughout about that they were sort of jointly managing the pain. He
wasn't seeing Mr. Jackson directly, and then there came a time when he wasn't comfortable prescribing
more Percocet, and he said, "I'm -- you know, I'm essentially turning over Mr. Jackson's future pain
management to you" and Dr. Klein said, "I'll take care of it."
Mr. Boyle: It's just a hearsay statement that's unnecessary. There's no exception, as we've talked about. I
mean, this is Klein talking to Sasaki for -- and it's clearly not in furtherance of any treatment because
Sasaki just said, "I'm out of here."
Ms. Cahan: We're not offering it for the truth of the fact that Dr. Klein then took care of it.
Judge: It's being offered for -- to show that Sasaki transferred the care?
Ms. Cahan: Right; that he wasn't irresponsible in just washing his hands of Michael Jackson, saying,
you know, "you're just going to have to tough it out or you can't get any pain medication," or "good luck
with that." he did what's appropriate, which is to make sure that there was a physician that would take
care of Michael going forward. He'd had a major surgery, he was taking quite a lot of pain medications. It
would not have been appropriate to just cease all medical care for Mr. Jackson, so he was transferring the
care.
Mr. Boyle: I'm glad they're so concerned about Dr. Sasaki's reputation now when they're also trying to
infer that he's one of Michael Jackson's buddies at Neverland all in an effort to get drugs.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, that is really not a fair characterization of what I've said.
Judge: I sustained this objection, didn't I?
Mr. Boyle: Yes, you did, your honor. All of these were sustained and have been reargued here.
Judge: Well, the thing, too, isn't this the same ruling that I made about doctors talking to each other?
Mr. Boyle: Yes, your honor.
Judge: And how you did the research on that, and apparently there was no exception on hearsay on and
on and on?
Ms. Stebbins: One thing to note on that, your honor. There's no exception specifically for doctors talking
to each other, but the normal exception still applies. So if something is not offered for its truth, if it's
offered to explain someone's conduct or the effect --

Judge: Right. I know that.

Ms. Stebbins: -- it's still admissible. And I think what Ms. Cahan is saying is that's the purpose she's
offering it for here.
Judge: To show the conduct of --
Ms. Cahan: Dr. Sasaki.
Ms. Stebbins: That he was passing it off in a responsible manner. It's not offered for anything about what
Dr. Klein did or didn't do afterwards, which would be offering it for its truth.
Ms. Cahan: And it's such a general statement, your honor, "I'll take care of it." it's an acceptance of
transfer of care; it's not, you know, "I'm going to give him 300 milligrams of demerol tomorrow." it's not
anything specific, not something from which anybody would infer a specific conduct or specific
continuing care. It's the idea of the transfer of care in a responsible manner.
Mr. Boyle: It's irrelevant.
Ms. Cahan: There wasn't a relevance objection to this, your honor.
Mr. Boyle: There is now. Relevance.
Judge: All right. I'll reverse myself on it. But it's just really pushing it. What's the next one?
Ms. Cahan: That was all I had, your honor.
Mr. Boyle: I'll talk to Ms. Cahan about the Michael was a good father stuff. But, your honor, on page 31,
there's -- 31, you sustained an objection. The stated grounds were unduly prejudicial, undue consumption
of time. What 31 through 34 is is the description of the procedure that Dr. Sasaki did on Mr. Jackson, and
so we think that's totally within the scope because they're designating Sasaki for his treatment of Mr.
Jackson, and that it was a very painful procedure.
Judge: I thought this was a different procedure.
Mr. Boyle: No. This is the description of the one that was actually done.
Judge: I thought he said, "This is not the one that I did."
Mr. Boyle: I don't think so. I tried to designate the one that was actually done.
Judge: Because he talks about two different procedures, so I had the impression this was the one that he
didn't do. But --
Mr. Boyle: You're right that he does do that. But this is the one that I think ultimately was decided on and

was done. And that comes out later in the designation.

Ms. Cahan: He says, "But this was not the technique that I recommended." Page 33, line 2.
Mr. Boyle: Then he goes on and described this technique.
Ms. Cahan: He's talking about Dr. Hoefflin at the bottom of that page -- what Dr. Hoefflin thought,
which is hearsay. If we want to live by plaintiffs' interpretation of hearsay, this is about this meeting of the
minds between Dr. Sasaki and Dr. Hoefflin and going back and forth about which of these surgical
procedures would be more appropriate for Mr. Jackson. I don't know why that would come in if the
statements about Dr. Hoefflin and Dr. Sasaki conferring about Michael's treatment on a going-forward
basis were disallowed.
Judge: "Well, so what technique did you ultimately use for Michael Jackson's scalp surgery?" isn't that
in? That's fine. But the one before it which talks about, "this is the procedure I used on jessica lapure,
that's not the one I used for Michael Jackson, that's not the one I recommended," why are we going to
discuss that one?
Mr. Boyle: I agree, your honor. I was going to direct your attention to 35, line 13. "and all these steps
that you have just outlined occurred during the surgery on Michael Jackson on february 16?" "that's
correct." that's all. So we can go back and pick out the ones -- that's all I meant to do, is whatever was
done on the 16th.
Judge: Right. There's a combination of something that wasn't used. My concern is get rid of the one that
wasn't used.
Ms. Cahan: And your honor correctly allowed the part beginning at page 34, line 3, when he talks about
what he actually did use, and that part is all in.
Mr. Boyle: Done. Never mind. I agree with you. You're right.
Judge: Okay.
Ms. Cahan: Thank you, your honor.
Ms. Stebbins: Did you say 9:30 tomorrow?
Judge: I did.
Mr. Putnam: Thank you.
(Court adjourned to Friday, July 26, 2013, at 9:30 am)