This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
2013 Please note we have run out of
funds NO MORE transcripts will be posted after this week unless we receive funds,
donation can be sent via paypal to firstname.lastname@example.org. Thank you
Dr. David Slavit(Performed health check on MJ 4 Insurance)
By Video Depo
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors)
The Judge. I understand we have a videotape this afternoon. It won't take up the whole
afternoon, so we'll let you go home early. But know that we are going to continue working
because we have other things that we're going to do while we let you go. Okay. I believe,
defense, you're going to announce the video.
Ms. Cahan. Yes, your honor. Defendants call by video deposition Dr. David Slavit, s-l-a-v-I-t.
The Judge. Thank you.
(Excerpts of the videotaped deposition of David Slavit were played.)
Can you please state your full name for the record and spell your last name, please.
A. David Hal Slavit, S-l-a-v-i-t.
Q. I would like to ask you just a few questions about your educational and professional
background. From where did you receive your undergraduate degree?
A. Cornell University.
Q. And you graduated in 1982?
Q. And you received a BS from the College of Engineering?
Q. And you attended subsequently Mt. Sinai School of Medicine of the City University of New
Q. And graduated in 1986?
Q. With an M.D.?
Q. Did you then complete a residency?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you do a surgical residency at the Mayo Graduate School of Medicine?
A. I did an otolaryngology residency.
Q. Did that begin with an intern year and then you completed a residency?
Q. And you completed your residency in June of 1991?
Q. Do you have any other graduate-level education?
A. I got a master's of science while I was at Mayo Clinic through Mayo Graduate School of
Q. And are you board certified, Dr. Slavit?
A. I'm board certified in otolaryngology - head and neck surgery.
Q. Do you have any other special licenses, degrees or certifications related to the medical
A. I'm a fellow of the American College of Surgeons.
Q. Where are you currently employed, sir?
A. I'm currently employed by David H. Slavit M.D., P.C.
Q. You are licensed to practice medicine in New York?
Q. Are you also licensed to practice medicine in New Jersey?
Q. Any other states?
Q. Have you ever been suspended from the practice of medicine?
Q. Have you ever performed a physical examination of a patient?
Q. Approximately how many physical exams have you performed in your career?
A. I couldn't give an approximate number.
A. Again, hard for me to know exactly.
Q. So number of physical exams you would say over a hundred?
Q. Possibly over a thousand?
Q. Are you able to estimate how long a physical exam typically takes you to complete?
A. It is hard to estimate that and it is also a question of what's -- because it is a question of what
is included within the physical examination.
Q. Okay. Well, let's talk about that a little bit. Are there different types of physical examinations?
A. Well, it becomes -- yes, there are different types of physical examinations.
Q. And can you tell me in general terms what types of physical examinations you've performed,
just by category?
A. Well, you can have a problem-focused physical examination. You can have a more complete
and you can have a comprehensive physical examination. You can have an examination that's
performed in front of the practice of medical clearance for a surgical procedure as far as a more
general examination. You can have an examination that's more common as far as what would be
performed by an otolaryngologist - head and neck surgeon.
Q. What's the difference between a complete and a comprehensive physical examination?
A. I think -- in my experience a complete would be more than a problem-focused as far as a
thorough and a comprehensive would then probably I would consider it something that would
include further adjuvant testing within the examination.
Q. I'm sorry, that was further adjuvant testing?
Q. And do you also perform physicals from time to time for the purpose of obtaining insurance?
A. I have. Is there a physical exam component of an insurance physical?
Q. Approximately how long does the physical exam component take in general?
A. In general, 20 to 30 minutes.
Q. And there's a medical history component of those physicals as well?
Q. Generally speaking how long does the history component take?
A. That's a hard one to generalize. There is a lot more variation depending upon the complexity
of the history.
Q. Can you give a range? What's the least or most time you have experienced it taking?
A. 20 minutes to an hour.
Q. What do insurance physicals as you conduct them typical entail? You mentioned a physical
exam and a history. Are there any other components?
A. Specifically with regards to the physical examinations I have performed for performance
Q. Is there a difference between insurance physicals for performance cancellation insurance and
insurance physicals for other purposes, say, life insurance or other types of insurance?
A. I would suspect that there is.
Q. Do you ever perform physicals for the purposes of obtaining life insurance?
Q. Is the only type of insurance physical you perform a physical for performance cancellation
A. That I can recall at this time.
Q. So specifically with regard to the insurance physicals you've conducted for performance
cancellation insurance, you mentioned that there's a physical exam and a history. Are there any
other components to that physical?
A. Within the history component there is a specific insurance form that's completed.
Q. And generally speaking, what are the components of the physical exam?
A. So the vital signs, the examination of the ears, nose, throat, neck, eyes, as far as movements of
the eyes, not a fundoscopic examination. Examination of the heart, lungs, abdomen, and
examination of peripheral pulses.
Q. And peripheral pulses are the pulses in the extremities of the body?
Q. And what does that tell you or measure?
A. You are measuring the heart rate and you are measuring circulation or assessing circulation.
Q. Is there also blood work that you typically do in connection with these types of physicals?
A. I would not say that blood work is typical.
Q. What would cause you to do blood work in a physical of this nature?
A. I would be requested by the person asking me to do the physical to do the blood work.
Q. And what about urinalysis?
A. Analysis of?
A. Oh, urinalysis. Again, it would be a question of whether it was requested or not.
Q. Any other components of a physical performance -- typical physical performance cancellation
insurance that we haven't touched on yet?
A. Not that I can think of.
Q. And the history component, what is that typically based on? Is that typically based on a self-
reporting by the person you are analyzing, medical records, both, something else?
A. It is typically based on self-reporting and answering of specific questions.
Q. Are those questions that you formulate or that are included on some kind of an insurance
A. There are standard questions on the insurance form.
Q. Do you typically seek medical records as part of the history for this type of physical?
Q. Who typically contacts you to perform a physical examination for performance cancellation
A. I would be contacted typically by the insurance broker or insurance broker company and
might be contacted by the artist management.
Q. Approximately how many performance cancellation insurance physicals have you completed
in your career?
A. Approximately 30.
Q. Are those typically for singers, vocal artists?
A. Typically, but not always.
Q. In your experience, who typically compensates you for an insurance performance cancellation
A. I would say the majority of times the check comes from the broker.
Q. The insurance broker?
Q. Okay. Typically when you conduct a performance cancellation insurance physical, who is
present, if anyone, other than you and the person you are examining?
A. Typically no one else.
Q. Are you usually assisted by a nurse or other healthcare practitioner?
Q. Typically where do you perform such physicals, if there is any typical?
A. There is nothing that's, you know, specific as to a location.
Q. Okay. Do you ever perform them in your office?
Q. Do you ever perform them at someone's home?
Q. Any other locations?
A. I have done them in hotels. I have done them in rehearsal studios.
Q. And what type of equipment do you typically require for a physical of this nature?
A. So I would use a thermometer for a temperature and I'm going to use a blood pressure cuff for
the blood pressure and stethoscope. I'm going to use an otoscope. I'm going to use a nasal
speculum, possibly some method to decongest the nose. I may use a fiber optic endoscope. I use
a tongue depressor. I use mirrors. Those would be the, I would say, the standard equipment.
Q. And do you typically bring that equipment with you if the physical is occurring outside of
Q. Do you typically bring a scale with you?
Q. Do you typically ask a patient being examined for this purpose for a full medical history? Do
you take a full medical history?
Q. Do you ask about prior history of illness?
Q. Do you ask about chronic illnesses?
Q. Do you ask about other physicians who are treating the person you are examining?
Q. Do you ask about diet and exercise?
Q. Do you ask about allergies?
Q. Do you ask whether the patient is taking any medications?
Q. Do you ask about drug abuse?
Q. Do you ask about treatment for substance abuse?
Q. Do you look for signs of drug abuse?
Q. Do you ask about smoking?
Q. Alcohol consumption?
Q. Past hospitalizations?
Q. Is it your usual practice to send a letter, prepare a letter to the insurance company discussing
the results of your examination?
A. That's not done 100 percent of the time.
Q. Is it dependent on whether the insurance company requests it?
A. To me, part of it is whether there are tests such as blood tests that are not on the standard
form, and then an explanation of those test results in a narrative is the main reason for a
Q. In the instances where you conduct blood work in connection with a performance cancellation
physical, what do you generally test for or have tested for?
A. The general tests that are performed, in my experience what's been requested and performed
has been complete blood counts and complete chemistry tests.
Q. Have you ever performed a physical exam for the insurance broker Robertson Taylor?
Q. And approximately how many physical exams have you performed for persons seeking
insurance through Robertson Taylor?
A. Roughly 20.
Q. Did you ever provide medical care to Michael Jackson?
Q. Did you ever perform a physical on Michael Jackson?
Q. Is the time that you saw Michael Jackson for a physical examination the only time that you
had contact with him?
Q. And did that occur on February 4th, 2009?
Q. You examined him in connection with an application for performance cancellation insurance,
Q. And you gave him a physical examination?
Q. Did you ever speak to Michael Jackson before or after the February 4th, 2009 examination?
Q. Did Robertson Taylor contact you to request that you perform this physical examination?
Q. Do you remember who specifically contacted you?
A. Bob Taylor.
Q. Approximately when did he contact you about this physical?
A. I don't recall exactly when.
Q. Within a few weeks or a few months of the physical occurring?
A. Initial contact was somewhere in the months range before the physical.
Q. And what did Mr. Taylor say when he first contacted you about this physical?
A. He basically asked if I would be willing to do the physical examination for him.
Q. And did you agree?
A. I agreed, yes.
Q. Did he tell you that it was for Michael Jackson?
A. That is what he was asking me to do, so yes.
Q. And did he tell you that it was in connection with a request for performance cancellation
Q. And did you understand that Michael would be going on tour or was intending to go on tour?
A. It was my understanding that he was going to perform.
Q. In London?
Q. A series of concerts?
A. I don't know the specifics.
Q. And your practice is based here in New York City, correct?
A. That is correct. Do you have any understanding as to why Mr. Taylor contacted you to
perform this physical as opposed to perhaps a physician based in Los Angeles?
Q. And I believe you testified that you have previously been asked to perform performance
cancellation insurance physicals for professional singers?
A. That's true.
Q. And other performing artists?
Q. Is that an area of focus in your practice?
A. These physicals, no.
Q. But you've done them approximately 30 times?
A. Approximately. Did you discuss payment for this examination of Michael Jackson in your
initial conversation with Mr. Taylor?
Q. Did you ever discuss payment for this physical with anyone prior to sending out a bill for it?
Q. Did you speak with anyone else prior to conducting the examination about the examination?
Q. Did you have multiple conversations with Mr. Taylor just about the logistics of getting it set
up and when it would occur?
A. I had more than one conversation.
Q. Okay. Did you ask for any records or other documentation in advance of the physical?
Q. And what did you ask for?
A. I had requested to review the prior five years of medical records.
Q. Why did you ask for that?
A. To be as accurate as possible in my assessment.
Q. Is it typical for you to request medical records going back five years in advance of a physical
you are conducting for performance cancellation insurance?
A. I would say it is not typical.
Q. Have you ever done it other than in connection with Mr. Jackson?
Q. And what, generally speaking, what circumstances would give rise to your request for
historical medical records in advance of a physical of this nature?
A. If there were prior questions of medical health.
Q. And there were prior questions of medical health with regard to Mr. Jackson?
A. There were questions that had been raised by the broker.
Q. What questions were raised by the broker?
A. I don't recall the specific questions.
A. Generally, just general questions of health.
Q. Any particular aspect of his health that was identified, anything relating to, for example, his
lungs, his heart, his weight, his prior drug use, if any?
A. I can't recall the specifics.
Q. Do you recall anything generally?
A. The only thing generally was -- I think -- generally I believe that there was a question about
his breathing capacity or his pulmonary status. I think there was more just general questions of
his overall health.
Q. Nothing about prior drug abuse?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. And did you have any understanding as to why the insurance broker had a concern about his
Q. Did he tell you? Did he say take a look at this article in The Sun, The Mirror?
A. He didn't say anything specific other than, you know, questions as to what's true or not as far
as various rumors, nothing specific.
Q. Okay. And did you understand him to be referring to rumors in the press, the tabloid press?
A. I'm not sure where he had heard it and whether it was through his circles or whether
something more mainstream.
Q. You testified that you wanted the prior five years of medical records, you asked for the prior
five years of medical records for Mr. Jackson before his exam. Is there anything else that you
asked for in advance of your physical examination of Mr. Jackson?
Q. Were there any limitations placed on you in advance of the physical as to what you were
permitted to do in examining Mr. Jackson?
A. Not that I'm aware of.
Q. Were you in any way limited in the examination of Mr. Jackson at any time?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Did you in fact receive any information regarding Michael Jackson's medical history before
the physical exam?
Q. Did you ever receive any information regarding Michael Jackson's medical history other than
what he self-reported during the physical?
Q. Where did you perform Mr. Jackson's exam on February 4th, 2009?
A. In his house.
Q. In Los Angeles?
MS. CAHAN: Okay. I will ask the reporter to mark as Exhibit 2 documents that have been
marked Slavit 1 through Slavit 1 through Slavit 7.
Q. Dr. Slavit, do you recognize this document as a copy of the records that you produced in
response to our subpoena earlier this week?
Q. And are these true and correct copies of your records of your treatment -- I'm sorry, your
physical examination of Michael Jackson?
Q. And did you prepare -- well, it looks like the first two pages are a report from Westcliff
Q. I assume that you received these from Westcliff Medical Laboratories, and there is a date in
the top corner February 6th, 2009, on or about February 6th, 2009?
Q. Pages Slavit 3 through 7 are an insurance form and a letter. Did you prepare those yourself?
A. Yes. Well, sorry, the form was prepared with Michael Jackson. The letter was prepared by
Q. The handwriting on the form that's pages 3 and 4 here, other than the signatures, is that your
Q. And did you prepare -- create the documents that are Slavit 3 to Slavit 7 on or about the time
you conducted the physical examination of Mr. Jackson?
Q. The first, looking at Exhibit 2, Dr. Slavit, the first page, the first two pages lists the patient
name as Mark Jones. Is that an alias for Michael Jackson?
Q. And did you use the name Mark Jones in requesting that this blood analysis be performed?
Q. Did anyone suggest to you that Mark Jones in particular is the alias that you should use?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. And did you do that just to protect Mr. Jackson's privacy?
Q. But these are blood work results for Michael Jackson?
Q. Let's look at pages 5 to 7 of Exhibit 2, which is a letter dated February 8th, 2009. Do you
recognize this letter?
Q. And did you write this letter?
Q. Did you write it on or about February 8th, 2009?
Q. Did you send this letter to anyone?
Q. To whom?
A. I sent this letter to Bob Taylor at Robertson Taylor.
Q. And there is letterhead on here that says David H. Slavit, M.D., P.C. Is that your standard
letterhead for your medical corporation?
Q. Is this the address of your office at the time you wrote the letter?
Q. Looking at the last page of the letter, there is a signature above the name David H. Slavit,
M.D. Is that your signature?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Turning back to the first page of the letter, Slavit 5, the very first line of the body of the letter
says "On February 4th, 2008, Mr. Michael Jackson was examined at his home in California." Is
that a typographical error, should that be 2009?
A. That should be 2009.
Q. Is all of the information in this letter other than the date error that we just discussed true and
accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Q. And does this letter reflect information you learned in connection with your physical
examination of Mr. Jackson?
Q. No one else was present when you examined Michael Jackson on February 4th, 2009,
Q. Approximately how long did your physical exam of Mr. Jackson last?
A. A few hours.
Q. What was the first thing you did as part of your physical exam with Mr. Jackson? Did you
take a history or do something else?
A. We started with a history.
Q. Were some of the questions asked in your history the questions listed on the form that is pages
Slavit 3 and 4?
Q. Did you ask him additional questions as part of the history?
A. I don't recall specific questions.
Q. After you completed the history, did you do a physical examination?
Q. And what did that consist of?
A. So it consisted of temperature, blood pressure, pulse, examination of the ears, nose and throat,
examination of the heart and lungs, examination of the abdomen and skin and peripheral pulses.
Q. Did you draw blood from Mr. Jackson?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Was that at the end of the physical examination?
Q. And is the equipment that you used for this physical examination the types of equipment that
you described previously, including a thermometer, a blood pressure cuff, a stethoscope, an
otoscope, and things of that nature?
A. Things of that nature, yes.
Q. And is everything that you did in connection with examining Mr. Jackson consistent with the
protocol, the typical protocol for a physical of this sort?
Q. After you completed your physical exam of Mr. Jackson, you determined he was in good
A. Based on the information that I had, yes.
Q. Looking at the second page of your letter, which is Slavit 6, the third paragraph that begins
"Today's examination," it says "Today's examination found Mr. Jackson to be in excellent
condition." Is that accurate?
A. "Today's examination found nothing wrong other than some minor nasal congestion."
Q. And looking at the first page of the letter, the first paragraph, it says, in part, the only current
conditions that Mr. Jackson suffers with are a resolving cold and an allergy to the sun. Do you
Q. Was that accurate at the time that you performed the physical?
A. Based on the history and physical, yes.
Q. And also on the first page it notes that other than the short course of antibiotic, he is not on
any other medication. Is that a conclusion that you made in connection with his physical?
A. That was a conclusion made in connection with his history.
Q. Okay. So did Michael Jackson tell you during this physical exam that the only medication he
was taking was antibiotics?
A. That's true.
Q. Did he tell you he was taking any painkillers?
A. He said he was not taking any painkillers.
Q. Did you specifically ask about that?
A. Specifically I asked about whether he was taking any other medications, yes.
Q. So I take it that he didn't tell you if he was taking any medication for sleep?
A. He stated he was not taking any medication other than antibiotics.
Q. And in your physical examination of him, did you see anything that suggested he wasn't
telling you the truth about that, that he was taking only antibiotics?
Q. Have you ever examined anyone who you believed to be under the influence of narcotics?
A. Yes. Are you familiar with the typical signs of narcotic intoxication?
Q. And did you see any of those signs present when you examined Mr. Jackson?
Q. If you had, would you have conducted additional examination to assess his health condition?
A. I perhaps would have done that or commented on the findings that I observed.
Q. And is it typical in doing a performance cancellation insurance physical to test for illegal
drugs in the blood or drug levels in the blood?
A. That is something that I have typically not done.
Q. Have you ever done that in connection with a physical of this sort?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. And that's not something you recall an insurance company or an insurance broker ever asking
you to do?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Looking at the second paragraph on page Slavit 5, the first page of your letter, it says "Dr.
Conrad Murray in Las Vegas, Nevada," and then it has an address and phone number, "follows
Mr. Jackson on a regular basis." Do you see that?
Q. What does "follow on a regular basis" mean?
A. He was identified by Mr. Jackson as his personal physician, and he reported seeing him as
needed and he reported seeing him a couple of months ago just for a general checkup as opposed
to being symptom-driven as far as an illness.
Q. A couple of months prior to your physical examination?
Q. Did Mr. Jackson report to you what the checkup with Dr. Murray a few months prior to your
physical examination of Mr. Jackson entailed?
A. He didn't tell me the specifics of what the examination entailed.
Q. Did he tell you generally what kind of an examination it was?
A. Other than saying it was a routine checkup, he didn't go into the specifics of what was looked
at or tested.
Q. Did he tell you when he first began to be treated by Dr. Murray?
A. He didn't give me a specific time.
Q. Did you understand that Dr. Murray had been treating him regularly for some time as of the
date of your physical?
A. I'm not sure specifically how long he had been treating him, other than to know that that was
the doctor that was taking care of him. And other than Dr. Kantor, no other doctor was
mentioned as far as providing care.
Q. Okay. Other than what's reflected in this letter at Slavit 5 and the reference at Slavit 3 to Dr.
Murray, the form, did Mr. Jackson tell you anything else about Dr. Murray?
Q. Did he tell you what kind of doctor Dr. Murray is?
A. Basically not specifically, just that he was in essence a personal physician or a primary care
Q. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off.
A. Or a primary care physician.
Q. So you understood from Mr. Jackson that Dr. Murray was treating him in his capacity as a
primary care doctor, not as a specialist?
A. That was my understanding.
Q. On Slavit 5, it says Dr. Murray follows Mr. Jackson on a regular basis, correct?
Q. And it says that Dr. Murray's last examination was a couple of months ago?
Q. And that that was a routine checkup to make sure that Mr. Jackson was in good health?
Q. Other than that, did Mr. Jackson tell you anything about the medical care that Dr. Murray
provided to him?
Q. Did Mr. Jackson tell you that Dr. Murray had found Mr. Jackson to be in good health?
Q. Did Mr. Jackson specify what kind of examination was done during the routine checkup?
Q. Did he tell you whether that routine checkup included blood work?
Q. Did he tell you whether that routine checkup was prompted by anything, whether there was an
impetus for the visit?
A. Other than a routine checkup to see how his health was, there was no complaint that
Q. Did Michael Jackson tell you that he liked Dr. Murray?
Q. Did he tell you that he thought he was a good doctor?
A. I'm not sure if he used those specific words.
Q. Tell me what you remember generally about what Mr. Jackson said his impression of Dr.
Murray was. Anything more than that he liked him?
A. That he was caring for him, that he was satisfied with the care he was getting. That was
basically what he said.
Q. It says in the letter that essentially in the past back to back performances had caused
dehydration and exhaustion, or back to back performances were connected with dehydration and
exhaustion that had led to some cancellations, correct?
A. Per Michael Jackson.
Q. That's what he told you?
Q. And did he tell you anything about the schedule of the concerts he was intending to perform
A. Other than that they weren't going to be back to back and they were going to be in one
location, I don't think that there was anything else that was discussed.
Q. In your opinion, does traveling frequently during a tour tend to have a greater adverse effect
on the health of a performer than doing a series of concerts in a single location?
A. In my opinion, yes.
Q. And why is that?
A. There is more work involved in traveling, more exposure to germs involved in traveling, more
of a tendency for exhaustion related to traveling.
Q. Looking at the third paragraph on the second page of your letter, which is Slavit 6, there is a
report of vital signs there.
Q. Those vital signs were normal, within normal ranges, correct?
Q. And looking toward the end of that paragraph, it says "the heart sounds were normal, with no
evidence of murmurs"?
Q. And that's consistent with what you found during the exam?
A. That is what I found during the exam.
Q. Okay. And you found no abnormalities of the abdomen or neurologic system?
Q. What about Michael Jackson's lungs, did you observe anything abnormal about his lungs?
A. No, there was no wheezing, bronchii or rales on listening to the chest.
Q. Did you assess his pulmonary reserve?
A. Can you define that?
Q. The reserve capacity -- his reserve capacity, his pulmonary reserve capacity.
A. I assessed his pulmonary capacity -- I assessed his pulmonary status with a stethoscope. There
was no pulmonary function tests performed.
Q. And it appeared -- his pulmonary status appeared within normal limits to you based on the
examination that you did?
Q. Let's look at the next paragraph, which starts "Further assessment of Mr. Jackson." You
testified previously that you drew blood at the end of the physical examination, correct?
Q. And you personally drew the blood?
Q. Did you have any difficulty with the blood draw, getting a vein?
A. I had a little bit of difficulty. You drew blood from his left arm?
A. I drew blood from his left arm.
Q. And how did the blood specimens get from your hands to the lab, the Westcliff lab?
A. I hand carried them.
Q. And what is Westcliff Medical Laboratories?
A. It is a medical laboratory that's in California, in Los Angeles.
Q. And to your knowledge did Westcliff Medical Laboratories run blood tests on the specimens
that you retrieved from Michael Jackson on February 4th, 2009?
Q. And the results of that blood work is shown on pages Slavit 1 and 2?
Q. And those laboratory results were normal and consistent with the physical examination
findings that Mr. Jackson was in good health, correct?
Q. Let's look at the first full paragraph on the last page of your letter, Slavit 7. During the
February 4th, 2009 physical examination of Michael Jackson, did you find that he was mature,
communicative, open and candid?
Q. Why did you feel that he was mature?
A. I can't recall.
Q. Did he seem intelligent to you?
Q. Did he seem capable of making decisions for himself?
Q. Did he seem in control of his health?
Q. Did he seem in control of his medical care?
Q. Why did you feel that Michael Jackson was open and candid with you?
A. That was the perception I got from our, you know, the time spent doing the history and the
Q. And nothing about the history and physical suggested that Michael Jackson was not telling
you the truth?
A. Not that I could tell.
Q. Did Michael Jackson seem lucid when you examined him?
Q. Did his speech slur at any point?
Q. Did he seem tired?
Q. Did he tell you whether he was having trouble sleeping?
A. He didn't say he was having trouble sleeping.
Q. Did he tell you that he had insomnia?
A. He did not say he had insomnia.
Q. Did he say whether he was in any pain?
A. He did not say he was in any pain.
Q. Did he tell you whether he had any chronic pain issues relating to prior injuries?
A. He denied any medical problems other than the sun allergy and the recent cold.
Q. During your February 4th, 2009 physical examination, did you find that Mr. Jackson appeared
very capable with regards to assessing his physical condition?
A. He appeared so.
Q. And what did you mean when you wrote that in your letter? This is, again, on the first
paragraph of Slavit 7.
A. He had been in good health, asically doing diet and exercise. He had interacted with his
personal physician for a routine checkup to make sure that he was doing fine. He reported seeing
his laryngologist for minor issues as needed, and basically even -- he said even when not
manifesting illness, to ensure proper health. So in that regard he appeared to be proactive and
attuned to his health.
Q. Looking again at that first paragraph on page 7 of the production, it says "He appears very
capable with regards to assessing his physical condition and respecting the need for rest and
proper medical care on a preventative basis." What did you mean by Michael Jackson appearing
capable of respecting the need for rest and proper medical care on a preventative basis? Anything
beyond what you just testified to?
A. Just his specific reporting as to what his problem in the past was with regards to the
cancellation and his acknowledgment of the need for rest or avoidance of exhaustion.
Q. Did Michael Jackson ask you to prescribe him any medication in connection with your
Q. Let's look now at the Westcliff Medical Lab report that's pages 1 and 2 of your production.
There is a line in the header that says Collected, February 4th, 2009, 1:44. Do you see that?
Q. Does that refer to the time when you drew blood from Michael Jackson, the time that you
gave the blood to the lab, or something else?
A. I have no idea what that --
Q. But the date is consistent with the date of your physical examination?
Q. And the date is also consistent with your hand delivery of the medical -- the blood samples to
Q. And you received a copy of this report?
Q. Did you receive it by fax?
Q. And did you review this record as part of completing your report of the physical examination
of Mr. Jackson?
Q. Let's turn now to page 3 of the production, pages 3 and 4. Is that two separate documents or
one document? Is it a double-sided form?
A. It is two individual sheets of paper that are the insurance physical form.
Q. Okay. Where did you get the insurance physical form? Was it provided by the insurance
broker? Is it something that's a standard form that you keep in your office?
A. Provided by the insurance broker.
Q. In your experience, is this form typical of the forms insurance brokers generally use? Is there
something unique about this form to Robertson Taylor?
A. I believe this is the form that is used by the insurance company and approved by the insurance
company for the brokers to use.
Q. Okay. And I believe you testified previously this is your handwriting on page Slavit 3?
Q. And is the handwriting on Slavit 4 from part 2 down your handwriting?
Q. And there are two signatures on the upper half of Slavit 4. Whose signatures are those?
A. Michael Jackson.
Q. Did you watch him sign?
Q. So that you know that that's his handwriting?
Q. And the rest of the form is yours?
Q. So Slavit 3 and 4 are part of the record of your physical examination of Mr. Jackson?
Q. Did you fill out the record on page 3 at or near the time that you performed your examination
of Michael Jackson on February 4th, 2009?
A. At the time of the examination, the form was filled out with Michael Jackson and then
attested to by his ignature.
Q. On page 4?
Q. And you reviewed the form with him before he signed?
A. I reviewed the form with him before he signed. I reviewed the form as we completed the
question and answer.
Q. Did you complete pages 3 and 4 of your production in the ordinary course of your physical
examination of Mr. Jackson?
Q. There is a series of questions on Slavit 3 running from 1 to 15. Do you see that?
Q. Are the answers recorded to those questions information that Mr. Jackson provided to you
when you were speaking with him on February 4th, 2009?
Q. Any other source of information for numbers 1 through 15?
A. The only source is Mr. Jackson.
Q. And at the bottom there is a line that says "for yes answers, give diagnosis, treatment, results,
dates of disability, degree of recovery, name and address of attending physician." Do you see
Q. And, again, is the information that is written there information that was provided to you by
Q. Item number 3 asks "Have you had any significant change of weight in the past year," and
"no" is circled there. Is that something Mr. Jackson told you?
Q. Item number 4 asks "Have you ever been treated for or had any indication of excessive use of
alcohol or drugs?" Do you see that?
Q. And, again, "no" is circled. Is that what Mr. Jackson told you?
Q. Did you do anything to confirm that that was true?
A. Did I do anything other than complete the examination? No.
A. I had requested that records be available for review, but records were not provided.
Q. In item number 7, it says "When were you last examined," and it says "couple of months ago"
in the response line, and then it says "Why," and in the response line, it says "in Las Vegas,
routine." Did Mr. Jackson tell you that he had had a routine examination a couple of months prior
A. A couple of months ago in Las Vegas. "When were you last examined?" "Couple of months
ago in Las Vegas." "Why?" "Routine."
Q. And item number 8 identifies Dr. Murray as the personal physician for Mr. Jackson?
Q. Item number 9 asks "Are you now or in the past 30 days taking any medication or health
treatments?" There is an answer "yes," and that says "State full particulars," and there is a
handwritten note that says "antibiotic for a cold from children." Is that what Mr. Jackson told
A. That is true.
Q. Item number 11 asks "To the best of your knowledge and belief, are you in good health and
free from any physical impairment or disease?" Do you see that?
Q. And there is an answer written in there, "yes"?
A. That was his response.
Q. And did you see anything from your examination of him that suggested that was not true?
Q. Looking at the Physical Examination section on page 4 of the production, first the
temperature line, the copy that I have here makes it look like it says 76 degrees -- 78 degrees.
Should that say 98 degrees?
A. It is 98. That must be a weak copy.
Q. I assumed so. I just wanted to confirm for the record. It says weight, 127 pounds. Is that what
Mr. Jackson told you he weighed or did you weigh him on the scale that day?
A. That's what he told me he weighed.
Q. And based on your experience, did that appear to be a roughly accurate report of his weight
when you examined him physically?
Q. In the Physical Examination section, Mr. Jackson self-reported his weight. Is everything else
in there information that you independently assessed?
A. His height was self-reported also.
Q. Other than his height and weight, is everything in that Physical Examination section
information that you assessed?
Q. And based on your experience, did you believe it accurate when he told you he was five foot
Q. Is this your signature at the bottom of page Slavit 4?
Q. And the date of February 4th, 2009 appears above your signature?
Q. And that is the date that you completed this form?
Q. It says, in the Physical Examination section, it says General Appearance, it says "healthy,"
Q. And you wrote that?
Q. Did you submit an invoice for your physical examination of Mr. Jackson?
Q. Did you receive payment for your physical examination of Mr. Jackson?
Q. Full payment?
Q. Did you complete any other paperwork in connection with your physical examination of Mr.
A. Just the paperwork that we've reviewed.
Q. Did you notice any track marks when you physically examined Michael Jackson?
A. There were none.
Q. Did you look at his arms?
Q. Did you look at his legs?
A. I looked at his legs, yes.
Q. Did you ask him about prior surgeries?
Q. And what did he tell you?
A. In the course of reviewing the past medical history, he did not report any surgeries.
Q. How many years back, is that a question that is limited in time?
A. No. Part 1, question 2, is "Have you, to the best of your knowledge and belief, ever had or
been told you had." There was a limit of five years with regards to who you have consulted as a
doctor, surgical advice or treatment, confined to a hospital, in question 6.
Q. Is there a place in 2 where it asks about surgery?
A. It asks about specific conditions.
Q. Right. Does it specifically reference surgery in question 2? I understand some of those are
conditions that would require surgery.
A. Just in the sense of whether you have had treatment for any of those various conditions, parts
of the body, systems of the body, and the answer was no with regards to all those various systems
Q. I believe you said that you gave the medical records to the coroner in response to a request,
A. A legal request, yes.
Q. Did you also provide the medical records you had with respect to Michael Jackson to
Q. Has anyone ever given you medical records for Michael Jackson?
Q. I believe you said, you testified, that the only time you met Michael Jackson was on February
4th, 2009; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you ever speak with Michael Jackson apart from your February 4th, 2009 meeting with
Q. Did you ever communicate with him in writing apart from -- at all?
Q. Are you aware of ever meeting anyone who works for AEG Live, LLC?
Q. Are you aware of ever meeting anyone who works for AEG Live Productions, LLC?
Q. Have you ever met Brandon, otherwise known as Randy, Phillips?
Q. Have you ever met Paul Gongaware?
Q. Do you have any recollection of what your fee was?
A. Fee plus expenses?
Q. Fair enough. That's fair enough, I'm sorry. Let me break it down. $6,000 for a physical
examination, including time away from office, $3,000 for medical supplies, lab specimen
collection and processing, preparation of reports, completion of insurance forms and review of
confidentiality agreement, and then $5,849 for travel, hotel and so forth.
A. That sounds about right.
Q. And do you -- this was an agreement that you reached with Mr. Taylor to perform this service;
is that correct?
A. He was the person who in essence hired me or asked me to -- he was the one who engaged me
to do this. How your assessment was going to be used, did Mr. Taylor tell you?
A. My understanding was the examination was to find out whether he was physically capable or
in physically good shape as far as moving forward with the aspect of him performing. How it
was going to be used as far as insurance, etc., I don't know the specifics.
Q. Well, did you -- did he tell you that he was working with a concert promoter?
A. I don't recall. You did get paid, I take it, eventually for your services and the expenses?
Q. Do you remember your fee coming in two different payments?
A. I don't recall.
Q. I notice on the page, if you have your exhibit in front of you, the page with Mr. Jackson's
MS. CAHAN: Slavit 4?
Q. That is page 4 of your production?
Q. The top of that is a medical record authorization, right?
Q. In other words, Mr. Jackson was authorizing you to get medical records from anybody he had
Q. What is a medical records authorization?
A. You are authorizing to discuss with the insurers. This is not a release to me.
Q. So did you provide this to Robertson Taylor?
A. Yes, all of this was provided.
Q. And you provided Robertson Taylor with Conrad Murray's name and address?
Q. And so this document signed by Mr. Jackson would have authorized Robertson Taylor to
obtain medical records of Michael Jackson from Conrad Murray; is that correct?
A. I would believe that that's what it would say.
Q. And do you have any information that Robertson Taylor in fact sought any records from
A. I wouldn't know that.
Q. To your knowledge, Robertson Taylor never told you before you wrote your report that they
had obtained records from Dr. Murray; is that correct?
A. I was never provided any records.
Q. Did you ever ask Mr. Jackson to sign a release to you allowing you to get records from Dr.
Q. Did you yourself contact Dr. Murray?
Q. Okay. And never asked Mr. Jackson for permission to contact Dr. Murray; is that correct?
A. That's correct. You drew -- do you have any idea how many CCs of blood you drew from Mr.
A. I don't recall how many vials.
Q. Do you think more than one?
A. Definitely more than one.
Q. Had Mr. Taylor -- withdrawn. Mr. Taylor did not ask you to test for opiates or other drugs?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. And if he had asked you to test for opiates, you would have been able to order that; would
A. I would require the permission of Mr. Jackson in order to run any such test.
Q. And you did not ask Mr. Jackson for permission to do that?
Q. Because Mr. Taylor did not ask for permission -- ask you to run those tests; is that fair?
A. That would be a fair statement. You have no information about Mr. Jackson's medical
condition after the day that you examined him; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Do you have an opinion within a reasonable degree of medical probability whether Mr.
Jackson was capable of making medical decisions on his own behalf in June of 2009?
A. I could not say anything about his condition in June. I can only speak with regards to his
condition in February.
Q. Okay. Same answer for do you have an opinion within a reasonable degree of medical
probability as to his physical or psychological condition in May 2009?
A. I can't -- I have no information as to any change within his mental -- medical condition or
mental condition or capabilities between February and May or June.
Q. And your specialty in particular is what?
A. Is otolaryngology - head and neck surgery.
Q. I think, correct me if I'm wrong, I sometimes make notes that are not totally accurate, but I
think you said that you've performed roughly 30 examinations of this nature?
A. As far as pre-insurance cancellation policies, roughly.
Q. And approximately 20 of those have been at the request of Mr. Taylor?
A. I believe so.
Q. And before Mr. Jackson's examination, can you break out at all how many you believe you
performed before Mr. Jackson's examination?
A. Not specifically, no.
Q. Do you know how many -- approximately, what's your best estimate of how many you
performed at the request of Mr. Taylor before Mr. Jackson's examination?
A. Proportionally more than after, just in the sense of more time existed that I've been working
with Mr. Taylor before than since 2009.
Q. So when did you start working with Mr. Taylor?
A. I don't know the specific year that we started working together.
Q. What's your best recollection? Five years before the Jackson examination? Ten years? Two
A. Ten years.
Q. And approximately how many examinations at Mr. Taylor's request had you done before the
A. Maybe 15. You understood Mr. Hawk was Michael Jackson's lawyer?
A. That's what I was told at that time.
Q. Fair enough, right, in February -- January/February 2009, right?
Q. Did you take any steps to try to get medical records from Mr. Hawk of Michael Jackson?
Q. Or to ask Mr. Hawk to try to help get medical records?
Q. What discussion did you have with Mr. Hawk as to the ability to produce medical records?
A. I don't recall a discussion with him.
Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. Taylor about producing medical records of Mr. Jackson?
A. I believe that's who I requested or suggested getting the records.
Q. And do you remember how you responded, if any, if at all?
Q. Were you asked to give Mr. Jackson a list of the tests and examinations that you would be
conducting before the examination, if you remember?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Did Mr. Taylor tell you that the reason that he wanted to have this examination done was that
Mr. Jackson was being badly mauled in the press in England and it was making placement of
Q. I think you testified earlier that Mr. Taylor mentioned rumors about Mr. Jackson's health?
A. He did mention questions or rumors, okay.
Q. Okay. I wrote, again, I wrote down rumors.
A. Or just, again, inferences without medical documentation to support.
Q. That were in the press?
A. That existed. I don't know where they existed.
Q. And do you remember any more substance about what those questions or rumors involved?
Q. Did any of them involve drug use?
A. Not that I'm aware of.
Q. Did any of them involve Mr. Jackson hurting his back at a concert in Germany in prior years?
A. Not that I'm aware of.
Q. Or surgery on his scalp?
A. None of that was discussed.
Q. With Mr. Taylor and you?
Q. And you have some experience in the field of plastic surgery; do you not?
Q. And was it clear to you that Mr. Jackson had had plastic surgery at some point in the past?
Q. Did you ask him about that at all, or was that not material to your evaluation?
A. With regards to his nose, just as far as functionally how he was doing, and then just as far as
examining inside the nose as to how it looked.
Q. Did it look okay?
Q. But in terms of who did the plastic surgeries, that didn't come up?
Q. Did Mr. Jackson refuse to authorize his blood to be examined for drugs?
A. That was never asked.
Q. Were you with Mr. Jackson for five hours on the day of the physical?
A. I do not believe it was that long.
Q. The history part of it took about half an hour?
A. The history probably took at least an hour.
Q. Then what's the total amount of time that you were with Mr. Jackson at the house, to the best
of your recollection?
A. I would say somewhere around two and a half, three hours.
Q. Okay. And then you dropped off the blood?
Q. The difference between -- you called this I think a complete physical, and you also described
something called a comprehensive physical. Do you remember that?
Q. What's the difference between a comprehensive physical and a complete physical?
A. Comprehensive physical, as I mentioned before, which is typically adjuvant testing, may
include chest x-ray, pulmonary function test, EKG.
Q. Any other blood work?
A. Blood work may include thyroid profile. And testing would be partly indicated -- it would be
directed based upon history and physical findings as far as suspicion.
Q. If in your physical exam or based on Mr. Jackson's history you had suspected that he was
using opiates or other drugs improperly, would you have asked his permission to check his blood
for those substances?
A. I may have.
Q. And in this instance you didn't have any suspicion based on your physical exam and history
that Mr. Jackson was using opiates or other drugs improperly?
Q. Okay. Did Mr. Jackson refuse any request that you made of him with respect to his physical?
Q. Did you ask Mr. Jackson when you were with him to try to get medical records before you
wrote your report?
END OF VIDEO
Ms. Cahan. Your honor, that concludes the playing of the deposition of Dr. Slavit. At this time,
defendants move into evidence the document that was shown and marked as exhibit 2 to Dr.
Slavit's deposition, which has trial exhibit number 2333, and then page numbering up to page 7.
And for the record, it is identical, substantively, to trial exhibit 12147, as well. And I understand
there's no objection from plaintiffs.
Mr. Boyle. We have no objection to the one they used in the depo video being admitted.
The Judge. That's received.
(Received into evidence, exhibit 2333, document.)
Ms. Cahan. Thank you, your honor.
The Judge. And no corrections of this, correct?
Ms. Cahan. No corrections, your honor.
The Judge. Okay. That will conclude today. Let's return tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. 9:30 a.m.
(the following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jurors:)
The Judge. Okay. We have our discussion this afternoon; and then tomorrow what are you
Ms. Bina. Tomorrow is Dr. Gary green, one of our experts, your honor. He's affiliated with
The Judge. Is he all day?
Ms. Bina. I would suspect we're going to take about a half day with him. I told Mr. Panish two to
two and a half hours for our side, and I asked whether he thought he'd be able to finish him. He
said he wasn't sure, so
Mr. Panish. I mean, he's depends on what he says, obviously; but he's pretty limited in his
deposition. I don't know if he's done more since then. I hope we don't have to deal with that
The Judge. What is his area of expertise?
Ms. Bina. Your honor, he's he's in sports medicine, as well, kind of opines on some of the same
issues that Dr. Matheson covered. He has reviewed further material since his deposition, which
he said he would do at his deposition; but I don't think any of his opinions have changed.
Mr. Panish. Well, we can discuss that. But, I mean, as of his deposition, he told us everything he
reviewed. Apparently he only had six pieces of paper when he formed all his opinions.
Apparently now they may have given him a lot more, so we may have issues with that tomorrow.
But we were pretty clear in pinning him down on everything he relied on and considered at the
time of his deposition. Interestingly, he was first contacted on March 2nd, was given information
on March 3rd, and was designated on march 4th, and had all his opinions by then. And we
deposed him I'm not sure of the date, but I had anticipated that this may happen, and that's why
we closed asked the specific questions in his deposition about all the materials he reviewed and
relied on in depositions, and what he'd seen and what he hadn't seen. And I anticipated that this
may happen, that's
Ms. Bina. Your honor, that's not correct. As Mr. Panish notes, this was a supplemental expert. He
was retained after Dr. Matheson was announced on their side. We did the initial expert witness
exchange; he came in afterwards because we had not realized they were going to be relying on a
sports medicine expert. He had, as a result, only a few weeks to prepare for his deposition. He
reviewed as much as he could in that time period. At his deposition, we expressly said he may
review further materials. He said that he would consider he didn't have specific plans at that
time, but if more materials were presented, he would review them, he might even change his
opinions based on them. He said all of that on the record at his deposition. He has not changed
his opinions, but he has reviewed trial testimony and deposition testimony that was produced
since his deposition, including the trial testimony of Dr. Matheson. If you'll recall, your honor,
Dr. Matheson had reviewed considerably more between his deposition and trial testimony.
There's no rule against that. Unless an expert specifically says, "I'm not going to review anything
else and this is the full scope of my opinions," there's no rule against reviewing trial testimony in
order to form opinions. There's not any change in opinions, but he has reviewed further
Mr. Panish. First of all, he sat through Dr. Matheson's deposition before his deposition. Second
of all, he said he had no intention at that time to review any additional material. That's what he
testified in his deposition. Trial testimony is one thing. Okay? He, obviously, could not have
reviewed trial testimony when he gave his deposition. I don't you know, we, obviously, want to
know what it is; but if he went they then supplemental expert is irrelevant. He was designated.
They stated under oath that he would be ready to give a complete and full deposition of his
opinions, and the materials on which he relied on based his opinion. He did that, gave his
opinions, and gave everything he reviewed, and said he didn't intend to review anything
additional. Now, I knew, reading it, that that they were not going to go they didn't like what he
had had and seen, so now they're giving him more information that was available when he they
made a decision to only give him a limited amount of information, he was deposed on that. Now,
apparently and I that's why I brought it up, because I figured this was going to happen, he's
reviewed all kinds of additional information that was available when he was deposed.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, the next sentence after the one Mr. Panish just said is, "I may be presented
with additional materials; and if so, I will review them." again, your honor, that's just a
misrepresentation of what was stated at the deposition. That said, the bulk of the additional
material is trial testimony and things that he was specifically asked at his deposition have you
reviewed, or things that Dr. Matheson relied on in his trial testimony, your honor. I don't think
that this is any kind of issue. He has I said that as I said, he specifically said he might review
further materials. He had roughly three weeks between the time he was retained and his initial
deposition in order to and he reviewed as much as he could in that time period, but he said at the
same time, "I may need to review further materials," and expressly said that on the record, your
Mr. Panish. No. He said, "if I at this time, I have no intention to review any additional
materials." that was his statement.
Ms. Bina. And the next sentence was, "however, if additional materials are presented to me, I
will review them and consider them."
The Judge. Additional materials. Trial testimony of Matheson?
Ms. Bina. Trial testimony of a number of witnesses, your honor.
Mr. Panish. Who?
Ms. Bina. I can't recall offhand, but the witness will have a list of everything he reviewed
The Judge. I think you should tell us now.
Ms. Bina. I can't recall offhand. It was trial testimony of a number of witnesses, your honor, who
testified during the trial. They've had nearly every witness they called testify on conflict of
interest, so I think he looked at Dr. Matheson, Dr. Berman, some parts of Mr. Gongaware and Mr.
Phillips. I believe Ms. Jorrie, he had previously reviewed her criminal trial testimony, but he had
not, obviously, had a chance to review her trial testimony.
Mr. Panish. He had not reviewed that at the depo.
Ms. Bina. He had.
Mr. Panish. Is that all the trial testimony?
Mr. Putnam. First of all, she's in the middle of giving an answer, if she could finish it. If you
could stop telling us what you think and let us tell you what we actually know
Mr. Panish. You did say what you know, and then you
The Judge. Wait a minute. Let her finish. I want to write this down. Matheson, Berman, Paul
Gongaware, Randy Phillips, Jorrie.
Ms. Bina. I believe possibly Dr. Wohlgelernter because Dr. Matheson discussed his testimony.
I'm trying to remember who else. Like I said, your honor, I'll have a complete list tomorrow, but
those are the ones I can recall offhand. I don't have the full list with me. But it was a number of
trial witnesses, many of whom Dr. Matheson relied on who Dr. Matheson discussed. Mr. Trell, I
don't remember if I said that. Again, it was portions that related to the opinion on conflict of
interest that Dr. Matheson then gave and relied on. So, again, your honor, it was the kind of thing
that one would have expected him to review based on his testimony I think Mr. Ortega, he had
reviewed Mr. Ortega's deposition previously, but he reviewed portions of Mr. Ortega's
Mr. Panish. That's not true. He hadn't reviewed Mr. Ortega's deposition as of the time of his
Ms. Bina. You're mistaken, Mr. Panish.
The Judge. The criminal trial?
Ms. Bina. No. His deposition testimony, your honor. He said he had reviewed it, and he was
asked specifically what he relied on for it, and he talked about descriptions of it. I read it an hour
Mr. Panish. I want to know what additional we heard this trial testimony. What did he review
from other than trial testimony? There's a lot of additional stuff.
The Judge. Is there something else other than trial?
Ms. Bina. The only thing I can think of in addition to trial testimony, your honor, he had
reviewed Dr. Murray's police interview. He was asked at deposition had he had a chance to look
at Dr. Murray's treatment records of Mr. Jackson, he had not at that time, so I think he's reviewed
Mr. Panish. He didn't have them.
Ms. Bina. Yeah. He had not had them at that time.
Mr. Panish. So they didn't give him the treatment records, and he and he didn't say that he
needed he didn't say that he needed to review those.
Ms. Bina. He was specifically asked, "have you reviewed them." there were a couple of things
where Mr. Bloss asked, "have you had a chance to review this that Dr. Matheson discussed that
he reviewed." that's one that comes to mind. Also, Ms. Chase, because her trial testimony related
and was relied on by Dr. Matheson for some of the conflict of interest opinions, so we gave him
that. Dr. Schnoll because he asked for it because one of the other witnesses had mentioned it.
Prince Jackson, again, because it related it was something that Dr. Matheson relied on and
Mr. Panish. Are we talking about trial testimony now?
Ms. Bina. This is trial testimony, only trial testimony. And I believe also Karen Faye and
detective Martinez in portions as they related to Dr. Matheson's conflict of interest opinion. I
don't remember exactly what was from those or whether he received the entire thing or not.
Mr. Panish. What I was wondering was
Ms. Bina. This is all trial testimony.
The Judge. Hold on. The police investigator, is that one of them?
Ms. Bina. Yes, detective Martinez, your honor, I think because of his relevance to Dr.
Matheson's opinion about the extreme financial pressure and conflict.
The Judge. And who was the one after that?
Ms. Bina. Karen Faye, your honor. And I don't remember exactly what we sent him about Karen
Faye or whether that was something he requested because, again, at his deposition, he had not
reviewed Ms. Faye, Mr. Ms. Faye's deposition. Mr. Bloss questioned him extensively on it,
suggested it was very important and something he should review, so I think that he asked for her
Mr. Panish. What I'm wondering now, we've heard the trial testimony, and I still don't have an
answer of what materials from the case unrelated to the trial testimony he's reviewed or been
provided since his deposition. The only thing I heard was Dr. Conrad Murray’s records.
Ms. Bina. That's the only one I can think of at the moment, your honor.
The Judge. The police interview?
Ms. Bina. He reviewed it before that.
Mr. Panish. He had that. He didn't review it all, but he had it.
Ms. Bina. No, he had reviewed it beforehand. As of right now, I can't recall anything else. He
was presented with a number of e-mails at his deposition. He might have asked for some related
ones to those. That, I can't remember. Most of those would have been exhibits to the depositions
that he'd already reviewed, specifically Mr. Phillips and Mr. Gongaware and Mr. Ortega. So I
don't know if there was anything in addition. But that that's all I can think of at the moment.
Mr. Panish. I have a list right here of everything he said he reviewed as of the time of his
deposition, and it's exhibit number 2 to his deposition. And
Ms. Bina. I think a couple of things were added to that on the record.
The Judge. I don't think there's a problem with him reviewing trial testimony.
Mr. Panish. There's no e-mails. I didn't raise that wasn't available at the time of his deposition,
and I didn't raise that. But I want to know
The Judge. You want to know other documents.
Mr. Panish. What has been represented to me is the only thing that he's reviewed that was
available at the time of his deposition that he did not have at his deposition were Dr. Murray's
records and Karen Faye’s trial testimony, which wasn't available. So the only thing that they've
told us now and represented is Dr. Murray's records.
Ms. Bina. That's all I can recall at the moment, your honor. The witness will be bringing
tomorrow a full list of everything he's reviewed. I will confirm that there's not anything else
additional. That's the only thing at the moment that I can think of. There may also be some trial
exhibits that came with that trial testimony. That's that's kind of one area. I know that he had
reviewed most of the agreement I know he reviewed the Dr. Murray draft agreement as well as
the AEG Live agreement beforehand. I don't think
The Judge. The e-mails?
Ms. Bina. The e-mails were exhibits to the depositions he had already reviewed, your honor, so I
don't think those were new.
Mr. Panish. He had the independent contract agreement and the tour agreement on his list of
what he read.
Ms. Bina. Right. I don't think that there's really anything substantial. The other possibility
Mr. Putnam. I don't understand why we're doing this.
Mr. Panish. It's really not
Ms. Bina. Again, your honor, I think he principally reviewed trial testimony and a few things
that were mentioned at his deposition. He had expressly said he might consider further
documents, and his opinions are fundamentally the same as those he gave at his deposition other
than, your honor, Dr. Matheson changed some of his nuances at trial for instance, pretrial he said
he didn't think there was any ethical way that the doctor could have gone on tour. He modified
that at trial, softened it somewhat, so there are some changes in Dr. Green's opinions to respond
to the changes in Dr. Matheson's opinions and take into account the new material. But I don't
think that there's
The Judge. There's nothing wrong with that. If he's reviewing the trial testimony, he's going to
respond to that. That's appropriate.
Ms. Bina. Right.
Mr. Putnam. On the stand.
Mr. Panish. If trial exhibits were available at the time he was deposed, and he didn't review
them, that's a different story. If there was available information that he wasn't provided to review,
that's a different issue. But trial testimony, just because it refers to exhibits that were available
that they chose not to give him at the time when he was ready for his meaningful and complete
deposition is a different story.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, I don't know whether that is even an issue; and if it is, I don't think it's
actually an issue. For instance, Dr. Matheson we had no idea was going to rely on detective
Martinez to the degree that he did, since detective Martinez had not testified at all prior to trial,
had not been deposed. Dr. Matheson relied on him considerably, so there may have been some
exhibits to detective Martinez’s trial testimony, for instance. And I'm only saying for instance
because I honestly don't remember what was provided, that sort of thing, your honor. I don't it's
not like we said, you know, let's depose you and then give you everything that's relevant to the
case. He had done a lot of work in three weeks, your honor. He said, "I might need to review
additional documents as things go forward." his deposition was two days after Dr. Matheson's. At
the time, your honor, he hadn't even had an opportunity to review all of Dr. Matheson's
Mr. Panish. He was in the deposition. He told he did 17 hours of work, and eight of the hours
were sitting in Dr. Matheson's deposition. So that he did considerable amount of work
Ms. Bina. No. He had done 30 something hours of work, 14 to 15 hours at that time of reviewing
documents. You're mistaken.
The Judge. That's not a lot of work, number of hours.
Mr. Panish. It isn't. And I'll bet you he's done 20 times more.
The Judge. If he's going to read the trial transcripts, it's going to be a lot more.
Mr. Panish. Well, trial testimony is one thing; but I'm raising this because I believe it's going to
come up. And we'll see tomorrow.
Ms. Bina. I think it will be fine, your honor. He was retained three weeks before he was deposed.
He was traveling for a week and a half out of that. He did as much as he could prior to the
deposition, but as every expert does, he reviewed trial testimony that's come in since.
Mr. Panish. We'll see.
Ms. Cahan. Your honor, do you mind if we just take a two-minute break before we I think we're
going to talk about Dr. Gordon's deposition.
Mr. Panish. Can I go back to my office and review all this stuff now?
The Judge. Yes.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, I may head back, as well.
The Judge. Just Mr. Boyle and Ms. Cahan.
(17-minute recess taken.)
Mr. Boyle. Good afternoon, your honor. Kevin Boyle for the plaintiffs.
Ms. Cahan. Good afternoon. Kathryn Cahan for defendants.
The Judge. The only ones left.
Ms. Cahan. We've been abandoned by our colleagues. For some reason they don't think going
over deposition designations is the exciting part of this trial.
Mr. Boyle. Someone has to make the sausage.
The Judge. Who are we looking at?
Ms. Cahan. I think we agreed that we would start with Dr. Steven Gordon. The good news is
that some of the issues are common to multiple depositions where we've gotten your honor's
rulings, so hopefully dealing with some of these will resolve some of the other outstanding
issues. But there are a number that we need to discuss for Dr. Gordon.
The Judge. Okay.
Ms. Cahan. There are five or six I think that I wanted to address. The first is on page 4 of the
rulings with respect to pages 62, line 8, to 63, line 8, of the testimony. There's just a question
mark that your honor had indicated and not ruled, so I wanted to address that issue.
Mr. Boyle. I might be able to short circuit this one. Our position on that is we designated that,
and that explains a procedure that he had done on Mr. Jackson that is referenced in a medical
record that I believe is going to be introduced. So we think that if that's going to be introduced,
the procedure itself needs to be explained that was done on Mr. Jackson. So that's my
understanding of what that designation is.
Ms. Cahan. Plaintiffs designated a related piece of testimony. Basically the discussion of this
procedure goes through page 65.
The Judge. Okay. So you're saying
Ms. Cahan. Just to provide a little bit of context, if you don't mind
The Judge. Why don't you
Ms. Cahan. So plaintiffs this is an October 4th this testimony is about an October 4th, 2002
follow-up appointment after a surgical procedure. And this was the only procedure where Mr.
Jackson was anesthetized by Dr. Habashy. And Dr. Gordon, in this testimony, is sort of
wondering out loud whether the record was for somebody else and mistakenly put under
Jackson's name. And he didn't specifically recall it himself, and he's talking about Dr. Habashy's
anesthesia records that ended up in his chart because that's the typical practice, for
anesthesiologists to leave their records with the treating physician. But our concern here is that to
the extent that Dr. Gordon's confusion about whether the procedure ever took place creates some
confusion for the jury, we would then have to add Dr. Habashy's deposition in; and we're trying
not to do that, just trying to streamline things for the rest of trial. Dr. Habashy did testify at his
own deposition that he gave anesthesia on this date, on October 4th, 2002, and produced the
anesthesia records; so we don't have an issue with the testimony a huge issue with the testimony
per se, but we might want to pause the playing of the deposition at this point and just stipulate,
you know "the parties stipulate that Dr. Habashy authenticated these records and verified the
procedure when he was deposed in the case."
Mr. Boyle. If the concern is just whether or not he was sure it was Michael Jackson, I think we
can stipulate that it was. I don't think either side disagrees. And we, as the plaintiffs here, given
what the defense is we want to be able to show he got anesthesia but it was part of a medical
procedure that was happening, so that's why we wanted the testimony about what the procedure
The Judge. It was a short procedure, 8:25 to 8:55.
Mr. Boyle. Right. And your honor overruled the defense objection to 63 to 65, which is a
continuation and description of the procedure. The one with the question mark is just the
beginning of the procedure.
The Judge. There was some confusion as to
Ms. Cahan. He didn't have an independent recollection at the time of deposition; but if Mr.
Boyle would be willing to stipulate to something short explaining that these are legitimate
records for a legitimate procedure, I think we don't have an issue there.
The Judge. So you'll figure out something if I overrule the objection, you'll figure out some way
to either stipulate orally during the playing of the depo or something else. I don't know
Mr. Boyle. Sure.
Ms. Cahan. Yes, your honor.
The Judge. Okay. All right. Thank you for the explanation.
Ms. Cahan. And then the next is on page 5. There are two designations that follow in sequence.
One is page 74, line 9; and the next is page 74, line 16, to page 75, line 4. And we objected
plaintiffs objected to those on relevance and lack of foundation. We just wanted to explain the
relevance and there. I don't know which was the basis for your honor's decision to sustain the
objection. This is a piece of testimony about billing for procedures. And the issue there, your
honor, is not the truth of what he was told on the phone, but it does go to the larger point that
physicians made exceptions in the way that they sort of their normal course of care in terms of
taking care of Mr. Jackson; they would do things outside of normal hours, after hours, on
weekends, they would not bill for things, they would not require payment in advance. And Dr.
Gordon did testify his normal practice for any cosmetic procedure that he does is to get payment
up front. For Mr. Jackson, not only did he not do that, but he sort of let the nonpayment linger for
a while. And it goes to what our addiction experts will be talking about in terms of the special
treatment. And, actually, Ms. Rowe said something about it earlier today; that celebrities, you
know, are treated differently by physicians. That was the relevance for that designation. It's not
about the truth of what was said to him on the phone.
Mr. Boyle. I think perhaps why the court did sustain our objection is if the court sees page 75,
lines 8 through 10, it points out that the prior testimony is about a phone call he had with
someone about trying to get payment, and the identity of that person on the other end of the
phone call is not identified, and we know it's not Michael Jackson, so there's really no foundation
for anything he said. I would probably add then add a hearsay objection, also, to that.
The Judge. Do you know who this Evvy person is? Is that who he thought he was speaking to
Mr. Putnam. Evvy is his personal assistant, your honor.
Mr. Boyle. Yes, Evvy was a personal assistant at the time. That's true.
The Judge. Okay. Well, if it's his personal assistant, she's speaking on his behalf as his agent.
Mr. Putnam. Yes, your honor; and she's been noted a number of times on the stand.
Ms. Cahan. And, again, it's not for the truth, it's for him explaining the context of, you know,
normally at page 74, line 23, he says "normally we are paid in advance. That's how we work,
that's how we operate." but for Mr. Jackson, they took him at his word he would take care of his
financial responsibilities and that they would get paid eventually and they deviated from their
normal practice. And that is something that our addiction experts believe is a relevant piece of
the puzzle about Mr. Jackson's medical care and the sort of issues attendant to that.
The Judge. The only part that seems kind of odd to me the part that stuck out to me is he
seemed determined not to pay when there really was no discussion with him, and that seems
more of a mind reader kind of
Ms. Cahan. I agree with that question. The question is did he seem determined not to pay.
Answer, "well, let's just say whoever is on the other end of the phone or let's just say I don't
know whether it was an accident or it was an oversight or who knows what." so he's not adopting
the suggestion that it was an intentional decision not to pay. And then he goes on to explain, "this
was not our normal practice, this was a unique situation." I think he says that they got paid
Mr. Boyle. He also says it wasn't even him on the phone, the doctor, it was someone from his
office. And unless I missed it, I don't know where it says it was Evvy on the phone.
The Judge. It just says, "do you know who this Evvy person is?"
Ms. Cahan. What Dr. Gordon does know is he deviated from his normal procedure of requiring
payment up front as a special treatment for Mr. Jackson, and it took some time, for whatever
reason, to get paid. I don't think there's any hearsay issue with respect to this because we're not
offering any statements of anyone other than Dr. Gordon for the truth. It's the general concept
that is relevant there. And the related portion begins on page 75, actually talking about how he
did the follow-up procedure for free. That's the next designation. That was not even objected to.
So it's part of this whole picture of, you know, different, special treatment that Mr. Jackson
received from physicians.
The Judge. Maybe, if anything, it would be line 16 through 4 on the next page. I don't know
what question was put to him.
Ms. Cahan. The question is up at line 9.
Mr. Boyle. And the court sustained the objection to the
The Judge. "did he seem determined not to pay?"
Ms. Cahan. It's all one designation
The Judge. Page 73, "do you remember that he didn't pay?"
Ms. Cahan. Personally, I don't think the answer the question, "did he seem determined not to
pay?" is problematic because he doesn't adopt that, he doesn't characterize any reason why
payment was delayed. He, in fact, refuses that and says he doesn't know why, but he does know
that it took some time. And I don't think there's anything prejudicial, and he's not speculating
about what Mr. Jackson was doing or why there.
The Judge. Okay.
Mr. Boyle. So it's relevant because he was late paying a bill in 2003?
Ms. Cahan. It's relevant that he received special treatment from physicians.
Mr. Boyle. I don't see it doesn't say here that it was special treatment.
Ms. Cahan. "Normally we are paid in advance, that's how we work, that's how we operate," but
they took him at Mr. Jackson's word that he would pay later.
Mr. Boyle. He doesn't say that he never did that for anyone else.
Ms. Cahan. That's not what he normally does.
The Judge. All right. I'll overrule it.
Ms. Cahan. Thank you, your honor.
The Judge. Let me make sure I'm which part was that?
Ms. Cahan. It was page 5 of the court, it's the 74-9 and 64-16 to 75-4. The next one I have, your
honor, is at page 8 of the chart of rulings. It refers to page 105, line 4, to page 106, line 24. And
there's an indication by your honor indicating that you sustained a hearsay statement objection at
page 105, lines 15 to 19, but then there's also a question mark, so we wanted to talk about this
and explain why we think that this isn't inadmissible as hearsay. So this is a portion of the
transcript where Dr. Gordon is talking about the sort of concierge care relationship that Dr.
Murray had developed with Mr. Jackson. As you remember, I believe from the deposition, Dr.
Gordon did some cosmetic work with Mr. Jackson in Las Vegas back in 2002. Then he didn't see
him for a number of years; and then in I don't want to get this wrong it's 2009 or 2008, Mr.
Jackson shows up with Dr. Murray, and Dr. Murray is acting as his spokesperson and
coordinating his care. And that gets us into the time period shortly before Mr. Jackson passed
away. And the specific objection at page 105, lines 15 to 19 the question that precedes it is "can
you recall speaking with him " and that means Mr. Jackson "-- at any time after this date " I'm
sorry. I'm at the wrong spot. The question is he had just been asked whether he prescribed pain
medications for a procedure that he did, whether Mr. Jackson whether Dr. Gordon prescribed
Mr. Jackson pain medications for a procedure he did in this time period. He said, "not that I can
recall, there's no record of it." and then he's asked, "was there any request for pain medications?"
he said, "not really because Conrad was taking care of his day-to-day needs." and then the
portion that's at issue here says, question, "and what makes you think that?" answer, "because
they had a very close relationship, and Conrad made it fairly clear that he was his personal
physician taking care of his needs." and there, I don't think it's hearsay because it's based on for
a couple of reasons. One, it's based on the observation of Dr. Murray and Mr. Jackson coming in
together to see Dr. Gordon and coordinating the care together where Mr. Jackson was present for
all of this. Second, to the extent that he was using Dr. Murray as sort of his agent to help
coordinate his medical care, I think that would be an authorized statement of Mr. Jackson and,
therefore, not hearsay. And my concern here is if we take this out it's going to make the
testimony really choppy and hard to understand at this portion.
Mr. Boyle. I don't know if that's an exception to the hearsay rule, that it makes the testimony
Ms. Cahan. Well, I said why it's not hearsay; but I'm then offering to the court as to why I'm
choosing to argue this particular few lines because I think the if it's removed, the testimony
surrounding it will become confusing, as well.
Mr. Boyle. Everything is based on what Conrad Murray told him. I mean, it's
Ms. Cahan. It's just these four lines we're talking about right now.
The Judge. I think the reason why I sustained it on hearsay the reason I sustained it on hearsay is
because it seems as though it's being offered for the truth that Conrad was taking care of his day-
to-day needs. That's why.
Mr. Boyle. Your honor, the first question I know you sustained those specific lines; but then over
on the right, you hit sustained for the entire designation, too, so but then there's also a question
mark, so I'm not sure
Ms. Cahan. I interpreted it differently. I assumed that because the page 105, lines 15 to 19
reference was circled, and the "s" was written next to that, that that was the only portion that was
being sustained. If not, I think I'd probably have more to argue on this.
Mr. Boyle. My view is that the court is just sustaining 105-15 through 19. I'm not going to argue
to get the other stuff in.
The Judge. The other stuff, I don't know if there's any statements
Mr. Boyle. That's why I'm not
The Judge. So it was just that statement seemed to be offered for the truth that Conrad Murray
was taking care of his day-to-day needs. Is there some other reason?
Mr. Boyle. No. I think this all lacks foundation, too. I mean, other than being told that by
Conrad, I don't know how he would know anything about that.
Ms. Cahan. Your honor, I don't think Dr. Gordon is saying this is based on anything Dr. Murray
said. He's, I think, saying this is based on his observation of the role that Dr. Murray was playing.
Dr. Murray, Mr. Jackson came together to see Dr. Gordon in this time period. They were, you
know, together. Mr. Jackson was there when Mr. Dr. Murray was speaking for him; and so I
think even if this were based on statements of Dr. Murray, they would be statements of a party
representative and, therefore, non-hearsay. But I also think there's conduct that was observed,
you know; the fact that he wasn't this is sort of like the situation where Dr. Sasaki testified he
didn't do any of the postoperative pain care because Dr. Hoefflin and Dr. Klein said they were
taking care of it. And this is another instance where there's a procedure and he didn't prescribe
pain medication, he thinks it's because Dr. Murray was sort of handling the day-to-day care.
Mr. Boyle. That could those impressions could only have come from what was said to him by
Ms. Cahan. Again, I think Dr. Murray's statements would be non-hearsay in this instance.
The Judge. I do think I think I if I remember correctly, I overruled all the hearsay objections
because it did appear that in Michael Jackson's presence, Dr. Murray was making statements on
behalf of Mr. Jackson. It seemed as though he was operating virtually as his agent at that time.
Ms. Cahan. And his spokesperson, your honor.
The Judge. His spokesperson. So that's why all the hearsay objections were overruled. So if
you're saying it's based on those statements, then
Ms. Cahan. If plaintiffs had a concern about prejudice because it's about Dr. Murray being
Michael’s personal physician I mean, we just saw that with Dr. Slavit, that Dr. that Mr. Jackson
told Dr. Slavit directly Dr. Murray was his personal physician. It's not a new concept, and I don't
think it would be prejudicial. If anything, it's just sort of adding another voice to the chorus who
have said Mr. Jackson represented that Dr. Murray was his personal physician. And, again, I
think if we cut these four lines out, it's going to be confusing
Mr. Boyle. I wouldn't be arguing it if Mr. Jackson had made the representation, but he didn't, it
was Dr. Murray. If Mr. Jackson did, it wouldn't be hearsay under the rules.
The Judge. But he made
Mr. Boyle. Dr. Gordon also goes on in this to say that he thought Michael was acting very
strangely, and it was very odd because he had been to Dr. Gordon before. It makes you wonder
The Judge. I know he made that statement.
Mr. Boyle. Right.
Ms. Cahan. Your honor, under evidence code section 1221, and 1222, an authorized admission,
you know if Dr. Murray is speaking and Mr. Jackson is standing right next to him, and Dr.
Murray says, "I'm his personal physician" and Mr. Jackson stands there and smiles, that's clearly
not hearsay under the evidence code.
The Judge. Okay. All right.
Mr. Boyle. If we had some more information on that. I mean, what if
The Judge. I'll go ahead and overrule the objection.
Ms. Cahan. Okay. Just one more for me, your honor. On page 10 and this is just this is a small
one. There's a conditional counter designation by plaintiffs at page 168, line 8 to 13.
The Judge. Yes.
Ms. Cahan. And there Mr. Boyle may agree to this. I think we need to start at 168, line 5; a few
lines earlier, to have this make sense.
The Judge. Are you talking about 168, line 8 through 13?
Ms. Cahan. You know what? And it looks like above that, that was allowed, those prior three
lines were allowed in. I think your honor had written okay, and I think that's okay as long as
those prior three lines that were not objected to above are also included as one designation.
Because if it just picks up "did you ask," I think it will be confusing. But I think that's all
appropriate based on your honor's rulings. Right?
Mr. Boyle. Yes, that's fine. I would I mean, I would add in the line 5, as well.
The Judge. Line 5?
Ms. Cahan. I think that actually was that is above, and was not objected to, so as long as it all
Mr. Boyle. I think it's already in.
Ms. Cahan. I think we're good on that. And I did not have anything else on this set of
designations, although I'm certainly happy to argue well, this will probably be it for today.
The Judge. Do you have any, Mr. Boyle?
Mr. Boyle. Let me see if you know, this 77
The Judge. Page 77?
Mr. Boyle. 77, line 2, start there.
The Judge. "did he seem familiar with the procedure generally?" "Yeah, he did, actually."
Mr. Boyle. I just think all this a lot of what's going on here with Dr. Murray is Dr. Gordon just
speculating on speculating on things. There's no foundation, he has no foundation.
Ms. Cahan. Plaintiffs didn't object to this, your honor, when the chart was filed.
The Judge. Okay. Even so, I don't think there's speculation there. It says, "You said that you
noted that Mr. Jackson seemed familiar with the Propofol, called it milk." answer, "a little bit,
yeah." "Did he seem familiar with the procedure generally?" yeah, he did, actually.
Mr. Boyle. I would object that that's speculative.
The Judge. In what way? "well, he gave the impression he was used to telling doctors what he
wanted them to do." "how did he give you that impression?" "Well, just his specificity about
what he wanted and where he wanted it and how much he wanted." that seems pretty
Ms. Cahan. Your honor, just to add some foundation to this, this is about a cosmetic procedure,
and Dr. Metzger we haven't gotten that that's the last chart that's going to get to you. But Dr.
Metzger's deposition testimony is also going to be designated and played; and Dr. Metzger, I
think, says that Mr. Jackson had, quote, innumerable cosmetic procedures over the years, like he
was not a novice to cosmetic surgical procedures. And so I think this testimony is consistent with
what other witnesses are saying about Mr. Jackson's sophistication with procedures of that
The Judge. It doesn't seem like it's vague or speculation. It seems like it's based on something,
observations, things Mr. Jackson said.
Mr. Boyle. Dr. Murray, though. That was I don't think that was about Mr. Jackson's familiarity
with the procedure, was it?
Ms. Cahan. It is.
Mr. Boyle. Fair enough. Then let's move on to 91. I really don't have a problem it starts at 91-
17. Apparently Mr. Jackson mentioned that he might want Demerol for pain and the doctor said
no. And then the doctor said, at lines 91-20, "well, I mean, I don't think he debated with me or
argued too much with me about it. I think he tried to I think he tried to convince me that it
wasn't too much for him and that, you know, he could " I'm fine with all that. That's, apparently,
what Michael was saying. But then Dr. Gordon just goes on and offers, "I get the impression that
he had had he had received Demerol from somebody before." I mean, what's the foundation for
that? And then he goes on and says, "and that I mean, that's all I can say with any confidence,
that I got the impression that he had favors like this done for him before, maybe not in that
amount." but, I mean, it just seems like complete speculation on something when apparently he
said, "I would like a shot of Demerol," the doctor said no, he didn't debate him much; and Dr.
Gordon just offers, "I got the impression he'd had favors like this before," it just seems like no
foundation and total speculation. If he had said one thing that Michael did that gave him that
impression, there might be some foundation, like the prior example; but I don't know what he's
basing that on.
Ms. Cahan. Your honor, what he's basing it on, in my view, is beginning at page 90, he's talking
about that Mr. Jackson specifically asked for a shot, a intramuscular shot of Demerol, and he
asked for a specific dosage, 300 milligrams, which I don't know how anyone would know what
amount of Demerol they thought that they should get if it's something that they hadn't gotten
before, especially because we've already heard testimony that 300 milligrams is an exceedingly
high dosage and not a typical dose or starting dose, which would be 50 or 100 milligrams. I do
think that's the foundation there.
The Judge. Okay.
Mr. Boyle. We didn't object to that portion, we just object to this portion.
Ms. Cahan. I was providing the foundation as to why I don't think it's speculative in the latter
The Judge. Okay. That will be permitted.
Mr. Boyle. Okay. Then I have nothing further.
Ms. Cahan. Your honor, I believe we have booked some time with you on Monday morning
beginning at 10:45 to address the other two that we've gotten rulings on. I know you have the
motion with respect to Dr. Shimelman, and that's just about 18 minutes of we wanted to
designate 18 minutes of testimony. There was a motion that that was the testimony of Dr.
Shimelman, who is plaintiffs' addiction expert, who wasn't called yet in trial, is somehow
cumulative of what defendants' addiction experts may testify to when they come at trial. And that
one, just because once we get the ruling, then we'll have to finish the designation process because
plaintiffs have not yet given us counters, we were hoping to be able to address Monday, if
possible. I don't have don't want to press your honor. You've been wonderful about getting these
The Judge. I hope to get through the one I'm working on now
Ms. Cahan. For Shimelman, it's just a motion at this point, not designations yet.
The Judge. And it's a motion to exclude Shimelman?
Ms. Cahan. Right. Defendants had given an 18-minute designation that we wanted to play,
plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude any testimony of Dr. Shimelman based on the idea that it
would somehow be cumulative of defendants' addiction experts. The case law is exceedingly
clear that one side's experts can't be cumulative of another side's experts, and we point out the
distinct testimony that Dr. Shimelman will be offering that no one else is offering in the case.
The Judge. If it's different, that's fine; but I don't think there's a bright-line rule that says it can
never be cumulative. But if it's not
Ms. Cahan. What Dr. Shimelman opined to is directly contradictory to what Dr. Schnoll came in
and said; so we think in this instance, a, it's unique testimony, and b, it's not actually cumulative
under the law or under an assessment of the statements.
Mr. Boyle. I don't want to argue the Shimelman motion now unless the court wants to hear it.
The Judge. Just a preview.
Mr. Boyle. Our position is they've been taking one sort of offhand comment in Shimelman
opinion that wasn't it was along the lines of and I think it's clear when you look at the whole
thing "oh, yeah, he'd be dead in one week if Dr. Murray kept treating him." and they've been
using that little thing and saying that's not what he meant. We might have to bring Shimelman in
for rebuttal and clear up that thing. But in terms of the cumulative issue, we're going to say that's
misleading because that's what he was saying; two, we tried to designate Roma Young, the
defense HR. Person, and they filed a big motion saying "it's cumulative of our HR. Person," so
that and the court ruled that it was
Ms. Cahan. To be clear, your honor, that wasn't the situation with Ms. Young. With Ms. Young,
plaintiffs wanted to designate and play a portion of her deposition testimony after defendants had
represented that we are bringing her to testify live, and so it would be Ms. Young's deposition
being cumulative of her live trial testimony, not being cumulative of any other witness, and that
was the basis upon which that request was denied at that time, I think subject to revisiting if Ms.
Young shows up and does something different.
The Judge. You still plan to bring her, then?
Ms. Cahan. Yes. But it isn't a parallel situation. But the statements of Dr. Shimelman first of all,
the statement about Mr. Jackson having a week to live has come up extensively in the testimony
of other people, including Mr. Briggs; and so I think it's fair for the jury the jury needs to hear
what was actually said. And if plaintiffs want to counter designate other things in his deposition,
which went over two days, and there was plenty of opportunity for them to clean up any concern
they had about that statement being taken out of context or misunderstood, they can certainly
deal with that with counter designations. But in addition, your honor, that's not the only
statement we're using from him. He completely, unlike Dr. Schnoll, said that Michael had a
raging drug addiction that was unstopped, as far as he could tell, for decades. And so that is not
in any way cumulative of what Dr. Schnoll said, and his opinions on Dr. Shimelman's opinions
on life expectancy are different and more specific than what defendants' experts will be offering.
Mr. Boyle. They're going to offer two experts, Dr. Earley and Levounis, to say that Michael
Jackson had a drug addiction, so it would be, then, cumulative of those two. And as for the
comment why we didn't clean up his depo transcript at the time, we never in a million years
anticipated the crux of their economist opinion would be relying on an offhanded sort of joke
comment made in a deposition.
Ms. Cahan. I don't think it was offhanded or a joke, and they could have brought him live in
their case in chief. Certainly when Mr. Briggs was deposed, the issue of life expectancy came up,
and it's come up at trial. And, again, if there's some basis for them to bring him live in rebuttal,
so be it; but the idea that we can't play 18 minutes of his deposition because we've probably
spent 18 minutes arguing about it so far in terms of, you know, it's not cumulative substantively,
the fact that plaintiffs have two addiction experts who directly contradict each other about Mr.
Jackson's addiction. Whether he had an addiction to what and for how long is relevant in and of
itself. And, in addition, what Dr. Schnoll did not do as much, but Dr. Shimelman does more, is
talk about Mr. Jackson's life expectancy, not just that he had one week to live on June 24th, but
also as of April, as of January, as of years earlier during the child molestation time, you know,
how did stress affect his life expectancy. There's more to it, and we've designated all of that.
Mr. Boyle. This is somewhat misleading. We're talking about addiction versus dependency. Dr.
Schnoll said that there was a Demerol dependency. Dr. Shimelman says, the way he addresses it,
addiction and dependency are the same thing. It's not like he's defining Michael’s you know
what I mean? It's a terminology game, it's the same ultimate opinion. I don't think anyone in the
case is going to say Michael was addicted to Propofol. Their experts don't. Everyone in the case
is saying he was dependent or addicted on Demerol, right? That's what their people are saying,
that's what our guy who testified, Schnoll, said, dependent. Shimelman says dependent ,
addiction, whatever you want to call it, so it's not some clashing difference
Ms. Cahan. And Dr. Schnoll's opinion, to be clear, at deposition was not the same as at trial. At
trial he came in and said, "Michael Jackson probably was addicted to opiates in 1993 when he
went to rehab, but having reviewed everything, I can't be sure whether he was addicted or
dependent on anything in 2009 at the time that he passed away." so there's a huge difference in
the testimony of their two addiction experts, and not everybody is on the same page in terms of
The Judge. And Shimelman says he was addicted for sure in 2009?
Ms. Cahan. For decades, with no period of no clear periods of recovery at any point, including,
he opines, for example, that when Mr. Jackson was being treated by Dr. Farshchian, there's also
evidence that he was still taking drugs. He may not have been taking opiates in the way that he
was because he had something to block them, but he was taking other drugs and seeing other
doctors during the very same time period when he was supposed to be abstinent because he had
this surgical implant. So there's a lot to Dr. Shimelman testimony. We picked out the most
relevant parts. And, certainly, plaintiffs are able to counter designate. But it's not Dr. Shimelman
and Dr. Schnoll have very different interpretations of the medical records and Mr. Jackson's
The Judge. Okay.
Mr. Boyle. That's their reading. If the court does rule they can do that, will we be granted some
leeway in counter designating so we can explain? You object to a lot of ours as being beyond the
scope on our designations.
The Judge. I'll keep that in mind.
Mr. Boyle. I know the court's position on the Murray hearsay, but it appears 98-4 through 11
Ms. Cahan. Are we going back to Dr. Gordon?
Mr. Boyle. Yes. On Dr. Gordon, 98-4 through 11, Michael wasn't present. That's relaying a Dr.
Murray telephone call. So I'll wait until your honor gets there. You can start at 98-1. You'll see,
"did you speak to Dr. Murray on the telephone?" and then it just kind of rolls from there down to
Ms. Cahan. That's the time when Dr. Murray was in 2008/2009 when he was acting as Mr.
Jackson's agent and arranging all of his medical care and acting as a spokesperson, so I don't see
how this would be any different than we already discussed.
Mr. Boyle. Well, the difference would be that Michael wasn't present here. If that's the court's
ruling for getting rid of the hearsay, if Michael’s not present, they are there ratifying it in front of
the doctor, it's straight-up hearsay.
Ms. Cahan. One's agent does not have to be the instances in which they were present together
are sufficient foundation to find that Dr. Murray was acting as Mr. Jackson's agent and
spokesperson in this time period. Mr. Jackson doesn't have to be there at every single
The Judge. I agree.
Mr. Boyle. At some point in time, then, Dr. Murray, perhaps, became AEG Live's agent and
some statements can come in against them?
Ms. Cahan. Not an analogous situation.
Mr. Putnam. If we could put in Dr. Murray's statement, that would be awesome. We've been
trying to do that for the last 15 weeks.
Ms. Cahan. See you at 9:30 tomorrow.
(Proceedings adjourned to Friday, august 16, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.)