Yes. Okay.

You don't have any -- you don't have any reason to dispute that, do
you?

Uh-uh.

And if he testified to that, that's probably correct. Would you agree

with that?

Correct.

When you saw Mr. Devore, did he have any objective injuries such as
cuts, bruisings, abrasions, anything like that?

I don't think so. You mean the whole time he was here or when I
personally saw him?

Well, let's say when he presented to this office.

Okay. Let's go see if it has said. No comments on skin damage.

Okay. So as far as you know, there were no visible cuts, bruises or

abrasions. Is that a fair statement?

Correct.
Have you reviewed the report that was provided by Dr. Douglas with
Bluegrass Specialities Group?

You mean this one here?

Yes. It was Dr. Douglas' opinion specifically that there were no

radicular symptoms; is that correct?

Correct.

It was also Dr. Douglas' opinion that the MRI revealed multi-level
degenerative changes; is that correct?

Except for the moderate size central disc herniation of C56.

Okay.

The posterior annular tear.

We've already agreed, I think, that you do not have any way to
objectively relate that disc herniation to this motor vehicle collision,
correct?

Yeah. It's a hard question.

You just don't know?

Right.

And you don't know if the -- if what may be an annular tear is related
to this motor vehicle collision, correct?

They are quite painful when they first occur. You know, you don't
know for sure, but the chances are high that it's related to this injury.

You have no way to objectively know when that occurred; is that

correct?

You can, you know, assume an unreasonable, you know, information

but you can't know for sure.

And if somebody had a symptom coming from C56, where would that
symptom manifest itself?

Generally somewhere in the arm.

Can you tell me what part of the arm?

That is a tear. It doesn't say that -- that tear doesn't usually herniate,
it's not making sense. A tear in the disk is, you know, a -- just a tear in
the disk. The -- it's the herniations that push on the nerve that cause
the radicular symptoms. You see what I mean?

He didn't have any symptoms in the lower part of his arm, did he?
No. But the tear wouldn't cause that.

And Dr. Douglas doesn't -- in his report, doesn't attribute a tear to this
motor vehicle collision, does he?

He doesn't come out and say that. He says some of those things are
degenerative except for that tear or like causative central disc
herniation at that level. Is that the thing? Did he write that correctly?
Go ahead.

Okay. And actually, Dr. Douglas says that this is a --

Yeah. He's saying the same thing that's over here. Okay. Good luck
with that.

Dr. Douglas specifically says -- and I'm looking at the last -- the third
sentence from the bottom on his record. He says, "Due to the
presence of a possible posterior annular tear." So that's not even
definitive, that's possible, correct?

That's how he dictates.

Maybe it's there, maybe it's not.

And that's how he dictates. Yeah.

All right. So there's multi-level degenerative changes, correct?

Yes.

There's a lack of radicular symptoms, correct?

Uh-huh.

Yes?

Yes.

And there's just a possible annular tear?

No. That's the radiologist versus the orthopedic surgeon.

That's what Dr. Douglas, the orthopedic surgeon, that this office
referred Mr. Devore to assess, correct?

Uh-huh.

Do you have any information about his current condition?

Not at all.

What's happened to him in the past two years?

No idea.
Doctor, are you an orthopedic surgeon?

Oh, no.

Do you have a board certification in pain medicine?

No.

Do you have a board certification in hospice or palliative medicine?

No.

How about interventional pain medicine?

No.

Did you do a fellowship in pain medicine?

No.

When Mr. Devore first came to this office, after being referred by his
attorney, he was asked to sign a medical lien; is that correct?

Probably. I guess that's routine paperwork, I don't know.

Well, I'm going to hand you my copy of this and you tell me whether
you have that in your file.

I don't know. Physiotherapy.

I will tell you that that is page --

Okay.

-- 3 of the certified records that were obtained from Synergy Injury

Care.

Okay.

You've seen those documents before?

No.

All right. For identification purposes, we'll identify that as Exhibit 2 to

the transcript. And I'll ask you to look at that for me, Doctor. That's
signed by Mr. Devore, correct?

Uh-huh. Yes.

And that's signed on the first day that he comes here, correct?
Yes.

And that document directs Mr. Devore's attorney to pay Synergy out of
the proceeds of any settlement, judgment or verdict.

Okay.

What is that? How about some language?

Yes.

That's -- what is that?

Because I -- you know, I wouldn't be able to find all that real quick.

So Synergy has a direct interest in the outcome of this litigation, don't

they?

I don't know.

We'll tag that as Exhibit D2. Just the one-page. That is a double-sided
document. I think that's all I'm going to ask you. Thank you, Doctor.

I do have some additional questions. Do you -- anybody need to take

a break or --
Dr. Barresi, is there anything that -- that Renee reviewed before you'd
like to clarify?

I don't know. She just --

It's okay. That's fine.

Okay. Not really.

So she went over a number of prior injuries or some work comp

injuries, prior MVAs. And I know that, you know, some of the years
were different. There were some -- some additional ones to what he
was able to report when he came in or what he reported when he
came in. When we spoke before, I asked you if you knew he had had
prior back problems before he came to Synergy and you agreed.

Yes.

And he did, correct?

Yes. Uh-huh.

So you agree that those prior injuries, I mean, he was as susceptible

or more susceptible to being injured in a wreck like the one on
February 16, 2018; is that correct?

Yes.
Object to the form of the question.

Is there anything -- is there anything Renee showed you, any injuries,

any records, anything you went over with her that changes any of the
opinions you gave when we spoke before?

No. Didn't really show me much in the previous history actually.

Is it still your opinion that Anthony Devore was injured in the February
16, 2018 wreck and that all the treatment you provided was
reasonable and necessary?

Yes.

Let's see. Have you ever worked anywhere else treating patients for
acute injuries like you do at Synergy?

Well, the Urgent Treatment Center. They would come in with acute
injuries of various kinds, you know, suture them up, you know, take x-
rays, so yes. You know, we -- and then from there we will refer them
to physical therapy. In which they'd have to make arrangements and
pay co-pays to go somewhere else and all that stuff. But, you know --

So I know that they -- they're -- it's different types of treatments in

different jobs. But when you evaluated a patient at the Urgent Care
Center, when you evaluate someone at Synergy, do you do it any
differently?
Not really. The same.

You make the same kind of referrals?

Yes.

Here at Synergy, do you -- or in your opinion, does anyone treat a

patient differently? Whether an attorney referred them, whether there's
an advertising?

No, they're all -- it's all the same. Those of us who treat people really
don't know that kind of stuff. Anyway, every person is, you know, an
individual important patient and just come here to get some help and
so we do it.

And -- so you saw Mr. Devore -- you saw Anthony for the first time on
March 27th?

Uh-huh.

But you reviewed -- you reviewed all of Mar -- is that --

Marcia.

-- Marcia McGinnis' treatment records?

Yes.
And it sounds like it's not necessarily -- it's not necessarily how you
would have written things down, but do you generally agree with that?

Yes.

With her -- her treatment or evaluation --

Yes.

-- and her decisions?

Uh-huh. Personally I think I go into more detail.

You said there's no way -- there's no way to -- to really tell whether the
cervical spine issues that showed up on the February 22, 2018 MRI
were due to the wreck on the February 16th; is that correct?

Correct. You would, you know, need some comparison.

So -- so they -- they could have already been there?

They could have. The tear kind of makes you wonder if that isn't more
acute. But they could have, you know, but they kind of calm down and
then if you re-injure them -- pardon me. Sorry about that. Can we stop
this?

Temporary. I'll take record at 11:39.

(OFF THE RECORD)

We're on the record at 11:41.

If the -- so if the issues identified on the February 22, 2018 MRI were
prior -- whether they're prior to the February 20 -- the February 16,
2018 car wreck, would you -- would you expect -- expect him to have
symptoms from that wreck?

Oh, yes.

Would they be worse than if he didn't have those conditions?

That's tough question. They might be because -- and so I tell patients,

if you didn't have this before and you got it acutely, it really hurts. If
you already had them and you go re-injuring them, it really hurts.
Either way, it's, you know, rough.

Okay.

I think that's everything I have.

I think it's fine. It is 11:32. This completes the deposition.