|
October 11, 2002 HEARING File No. 90-2908-GD-003 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA PROBATE DIVISION THE COURT: We’re here in the matter of Teresa[misspelled] Marie Schiavo, 90-2908GD. We are here at the direction of the Second District Court of Appeals in its opinion handed down October 17, 2001.<snip> THE COURT: Mr. Felos, you filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena of Mr. Schiavo? MR. FELOS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: You faxed over a copy of that. Here you are. MR. FELOS: If it please the Court, both the mandates of the Second District Court of Appeals and this Court’s case—specifically this Court’s Case Management Order of February 25, 2002 and Conference Order issued October 1 as a result of our prehearing conference in August, all contemplate and direct that the appointed have a hearing limited in scope, in scope of witnesses to the five doctors, two selected by each side and one select by the Court, in lieu of the parties’s agreement. Which—the court did have a prehearing conference at the discretion of Dr. Gambone to testify today.<snip> So I’d think it’s extremely late in the game here to say that—it’s against the rules set by this Court and the Second District to say now we’re going to open this up open in this proceeding and call all of the witnesses we would like. I don’t think that is what was intent of the order. So we would ask that not only that the subpoena directed to the petitioner be quashed, but the Court reaffirm that the witnesses be limited to those mentioned by the Court. THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Felos. Ms. Anderson. <snip> MS. ANDERSON: Your Honor, the Second District id interested in her current medical condition. I have a few questions for Mr. Schiavo related to her current medical condition. That’s all that I want to show. He has testified that he is responsible for making all of her care decisions. And nowhere in the Second District’s opinion does it say you can’t call other witnesses that relate to these ussues they want to know about. They specifically say one, two, three, four. That’s all. I’m not going into the whole rigmarole about this marriage. I just have some wuestions that relate to this number one issue, the current medical condition. Also, Judge— THE COURT: What can he add to what Dr. Gambone would say? MS. ANDERSON: He makes medical decisions for her. He communicates with Hospice. My guess is that Dr. Gambone is not aware of that. That would help explain her condition. It would flush out the picture of what her current medical condition is, how we got to where we are. THE COURT: Well, the reason the Court added Dr. Gambone was for the very purpose of establishing the current medical condition. I do not want to get into a bunch of lay testimony and I am not going to about her condition. The mandate of the Second District speaks of taking the testimony of the five doctors and limited discovery. Limited hearing, that’s their word, to assess these things. And I think the doctors can certainly tell me what her current medical condition is. Your doctors—not your doctors. The doctors you have selected, I know, have examined her. I don’t know for sure if the others have. And Dr. Gambone has examined her. I think that’s the relevant testimony regarding her current medical condition. <snip> MS. ANDERSON: He [Schiavo] is in charge of her medical condition. THE COURT: I am well aware of that. MS. ANDERSON: There is nobody else who can say that, not even Dr. Gambone. I am raising that Dr. Gambone will prove that Mr. Schiavo controls her medical condition….Now, there is going to be a big gapping hole in this record if we don’t have his testimony. THE COURT: The issue the Second District has framed for this Court to consider is this, quote, “new treatment” set forth in the affidavits. I am going to reserve ruling on this motion. If something develops after the testimony of Dr. Gambone and after the testimony of your physicians, I’ll reconsider whether or not to let Mr. Schiavo testify. But my previous position based upon prior ruling is that I am going to hear from six medical experts and I am going to hear some excellent closing arguments. And I am going to decide, based upon all of that, what the Second District Court of Appeal left for me to decide. |