It will be interesting to scour the documents from the ALZA v. Mylan lawsuit to see if either company took positions that are inconsistent with their positions in the numerous fentanyl lawsuits both companies are facing. Here’s a copy of ALZA’s lawsuit it filed in January of 2002 against Mylan.
Here’s a fentanyl lawsuit that predates the 2008 recall. In this case, the lawsuit was filed over a death that occurred in 2004. I’m going to dig a little and see if I can find out how this Duragesic lawsuit turned out.
District Court Judge Guzman.
(Negligence: Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.)
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, RICHARD MONTCLAIR, Independent Administrator of the Estate of KATHRYN MONTCLAIR-BOHL, deceased, by and through his attorneys, SALVI, SCHOSTOK & PRITCHARD P.C., and complaining of the Defendant JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC., a corporation, (hereinafter “JANSSEN”) states as follows:
1. On or before March 16, 2004, and at all times relevant, KATHRYN MONTCLAIR-BOHL, deceased, was a resident of the State of Illinois.
2. On or before March 16, 2004, and at all times relevant, JANSSEN was a corporation doing business in Illinois through the sale and distribution of its pharmaceutical products.
3. On or before March 16, 2004, and at all times relevant, JANSSEN was headquartered at 1125 Trenton-Harbourton Road, Post Office Box 200, Titusville, New Jersey 08560.
4. On or before March 16, 2004, and at all times relevant, JANSSEN was in the business of selling, developing, manufacturing, distributing, packaging, labeling, advertising, promoting, and/or marketing certain medicines and drugs, including Fentanyl, which it distributed through its dealer network throughout Illinois.
5. On and before March 16, 2004, and at all times relevant, KATHRYN MONTCLAIR-BOHL was under the care and treatment of Dr. Mauricio Morales, a licensed physician engaged in the practice of his profession, for chronic back pain.
6. That as part of the aforesaid care and treatment, said physician prescribed Fentanyl, which is received by the patient through the skin via a Duragesic patch (hereinafter “Fentanyl patch”).
7. This Fentanyl patch is manufactured, developed, distributed, marketed, promoted, packaged, labeled and/or sold by JANSSEN.
8. That on or prior to March 16, 2004, KATHRYN MONTCLAIR-BOHL purchased the fentanyl patch and began using it.
9. The membrane on the patch failed and was broken causing a complete failure in the control of dosage of fentanyl received by KATHRYN MONTCLAIR-BOHL.
10. This failure of the fentanyl patch membrane resulted in an overdosing of KATHRYN MONTCLAIR-BOHL.
11. An autopsy was performed on March 16, 2004 by the Office of the Coroner of Will County, Illinois whereupon the opinion was set forth that the cause of death of KATHRYN MONTCLAIR-BOHL was Fentanyl Intoxication.
12. At all times relevant, it was the duty of JANSSEN to use reasonable care in the design, modification, manufacture, distribution, marketing, packaging and/or sale of the fentanyl patch.
13. On March 16, 2004, and at all times relevant, JANSSEN breached its duty and was guilty of one or more of the following negligent acts and/or omissions:
a. Failed to exercise due care in designing, developing and manufacturing the fentanyl patch so as to avoid the overdose of a patient, including the Decedent;
b. Failed to include adequate warnings with the fentanyl patch that would have alerted the Decedent and other consumers, as well as their prescribing physicians, to the potential risks and serious side effects which included but are not limited to death;
c. Failed to adequately and properly test the fentanyl patch before placing them on the market;
d. Failed to conduct sufficient testing on the fentanyl patch, which if properly performed, would have shown that it had a serious design flaw which would and did lead to overdosing and death;
e. Failed to adequately warn the Decedent and her physician that use of the fentanyl patch carried a risk of an overdose and death; and
f. Failed to provide adequate post-marketing warnings and/or instructions concerning the risk of overdose and death after Defendant knew or should have known of the significant risk of overdose and death caused by use of the fentanyl patch.
14. That as a proximate result of one or more of the aforesaid negligent acts or omissions by JANSSEN, KATHRYN MONTCLAIR-BOHL died on March 16, 2004.
15. RICHARD MONTCLAIR attaches as Exhibit “A”
This deposition is of Sanjay Panda, an executive with ALZA. During this Duragesic lawsuit, Panda testified as to how the Duragesic fentanyl patch is manufactured at the Vacaville Duragesic factory. I believe I’ve already posted this in PDF format, but here it is in text format.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. My name is Michael Barber, and I am a videographer associated with Barkley Court Reporters located at 222 Front Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, California, 94111.
The date is October 23rd, 2006. The time is 9:21 a.m.
This deposition is taking place at the Barkley Court Reporters office at 1435 River Park Drive, Suite 502, Sacramento, California 95815, in the matter of Judith Davis versus Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 505 CV 2910C10 GRJ.
This is the videotape deposition of Sanjay Panda being taken on behalf of the plaintiff.
Counsel, would you please identify yourselves for the record and state whom you represent.
MR. ANGWIN: Ed Angwin for the plaintiffs.
MR. HARVEY: Todd Harvey for plaintiffs.
MR. ZELLERS: Michael Zellers for the defendants.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you. Would the court reporter please swear in the witness.
(Whereupon, the witness was sworn.)
MR. ZELLERS: Mr. Angwin, before we start, I would like to note that this deposition is considered by the defendants as being confidential and subject to the protective order.
We also have agreed that this deposition is being taken in a number of cases which the court reporter will note in the transcript.
One last thing: All objections except as to form are reserved.
MR. ANGWIN: Thank you. And we understand and we will be using certain documents which have been produced subject to the protective order, and we will treat them accordingly.
Also, for the sake of not having to depose Mr. Panda five times, we are taking this in the case of Debra Evans, Dorothy Hart, Lee Hendelson, and Joseph Pinedo, and the court reporter is going to designate those in the record.
BY MR. ANGWIN:
Q. Mr. Panda, I understand you have been deposed before; is that correct?
A. That's true.
Q. You are familiar with the process?
Q. Okay. You understand I am going to ask you a series of questions. If you can answer them, answer them. I don't want you to guess. I don't want you to state things unless you know them. And also if you have — if you feel a question I ask Is unclear, you are welcome to ask me to rephrase it or else you are welcome to take a break whenever you want to or confer with your counsel.
A. Thank you.
Q. Can you please state your full name for the record.
A. Sanjay Panda.
Q. Mr. Panda. And, Mr. Panda, where do you 09:23A reside?
Q. Sacramento, California?
A. North of Sacramento. Yuba City.
Q. Where are you currently employed?
A. Alza Corporation.
Q. In what city is that in?
A. Vacaville, California.
Q. Okay. Did you review any documents or other materials in preparation for this deposition?
A. No. I was traveling. I did not get time.
Q. It's my understanding you have been deposed previously.
Q. Did you review documents prior to those depositions?
Q. And I believe you testified as to what those were. Since those depositions and this deposition, have you reviewed any documents which relate to the 2003/2004 time frame or any of the lots that are involved in the five cases we are here about today?
Q. Have you also given trial testimony in any cases relating to Duragesic patches?
Q. Have you given testimony by affidavit or sworn statement in any cases involving Duragesic patches?
Q. When you previously testified, which cases was that in?
A. I don't recall the cases. I think — believe one was Thompson case, but I don't recall.
Q. That was the Thompson case, the Texas case?
A. (Witness nods head).
Q. Would that be the one where Fletch Tramble (phonetic) deposed you? Does that sound familiar?
MR. ZELLERS: If you know.
Here’s the deposition of Dr. Joshua Perper, the Chief Medical Examiner for Broward County, Florida. Because he works for the county, he wasn’t a witness for either the plaintiff or the defendant. But read his deposition and decide for yourself which side his testimony helped more.
JOSHUA A. PERPER, M.D. was called as a witness by the Defendants and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
BY MR. AUCIELLO:
Q. Doctor, will you state your name for the record, please?
A. Joshua A. Perper, P-E-R-P-E-R.
Q. Sir, what is your present position?
A. I am chief medical examiner for Broward County.
Q. Doctor, I'll show you a document that we have just received that we will mark Defendant's Exhibit 1, which I believe is a curriculum vitae (handing).
(Thereupon, the said document was marked as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 for identification.)
THE WITNESS: That's my curriculum vitae.
BY MR. AUCIELLO:
Q. Doctor, it's a very voluminous curriculum vitae. We won't go through it in detail, but just in a shorthand fashion, can you tell us about your education?
A. Okay. I have the foreign medical education. I have a medical degree from the Medical School of Hebrew University. I have a law degree from the law school of the same university. I have a master of science in forensic medicine from Johns Hopkins University.
More than 30 years I have been engaged in the practice of pathology and forensic pathology. From 1967 to 1972, I was an Associate Medical Examiner at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Baltimore, Maryland. In 1972 to 1980, I was the Chief Forensic Pathologist for the Coroner of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. From 1988, except for a few months, till 1994 I was the elected coroner for Allegheny County. From 1994 to the present, I am the Chief Medical Examiner for Broward County.
I am licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida and I have active licenses in Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C.
I'm Board certified in anatomical and surgical and forensic pathology. I am a member of various medical associations. I used to be the chairman of the State Board of Medicine in Pennsylvania, both which regulates and analyzes physicians.
And in Pittsburgh, during my stay in Pittsburgh, I was clinical professor of pathology and a clinical professor of epidemiology and public health at the University of Pittsburgh.
And I was also for short time an adjunct professor of law at Duquesne University.
And in Florida I am a clinical professor of pathology and epidemiology at the University of Miami. I'm also clinical professor of pathology and epidemiology and public health at Nova University.
I wrote several books or chapters in books, approximately seven or eight, and I have more, about 120, publications in the field of pathology and forensic pathology.
Q. Doctor, I have your publications here in your CV. Would you characterize any of them as being primarily about issues in toxicology?
A. No, but there are toxicology-related subjects.
Q. Do you consider yourself an expert in toxicology, also?
A. No. However– No, I'm not a toxicologist. However, I know about the action of drugs involved and the interpretation of results in toxicology.
Q. Not just in this autopsy that we are going to talk about, how is toxicology done here at Broward County? Is it sent to an independent lab or is it done here?
A. Well, no. Well, both. In other words, it depends on the type of analysis. Most of the tests are done in our office. We have a Department of Toxicology, and Doctor Schueler is the chief toxicologist; therefore, if you have any questions which relate to the technical or to the scientific significance of the testing, he is certainly qualified to answer that.
Now, in certain cases, if there are drugs which we do not encounter them commonly or we don't have a method for them, because of that reason they might be sent to an outside lab.
MR. AUCIELLO: I'll show you right now a document we will mark as Exhibit 2 (handing).
(Thereupon, the said document was marked as Defendant's Exhibit No. 2 for identification.)
BY MR. AUCIELLO:
Q. I'll ask you if you can identify it (handing)
A. Yeah. This is my autopsy report in this case. And, in addition to that, I can see something else. You have some other number of records from the file–
Q. From your file; correct?
–which include the investigation report by our medical examiner investigating, Linda Krivjanik; – she is still with us – a telephone note in relation to a telephone call which was received from the mother, Maxine Heller; a narrative information which comes from Transportation Service which is used in the evening hour or so, as people who take the information when somebody dies; a diagram of the body of the deceased;–
Q. This all relates to the autopsy of–
A. Just a moment. I'm not done.
–a list of the deceased's clothing and effects; the morgue intake receipt; Broward Removal Services form in which they indicate whom they transported to the office and the identification of the person. And then I believe there's a copy of prescription forms. And then there's a contact documentation from Adam Hendelson who want to speak as fast as possible with–
Q. Did you mean to say, Doctor, Lee Hendelson called instead of Adam Hendelson?
A. He called, yes. That's basically all.
This is yours; right (handing)?
Q. Yes. That will be the exhibit.
Doctor, did you do the autopsy on Adam Hendelson?
Q. Is it your practice that you will do it personally or will you supervise someone else?
A. I do it personally.
Q. Did anyone assist you in the autopsy?
I’ve posted at least one other deposition of Dr. Prausnitz. Here he is testifying on behalf of the plaintiff in another Duragesic lawsuit. This one also resulted in a win for the plaintiff.
VIDEOGRAPHER: This is Tape No. 1 in the videotaped deposition of Mark Prausnitz in the matter of Lee Hendelson, et al. versus Johnson & Johnson Company, et al. Today's date is April 30, 2007. The time on the video record is 9:34 a.m.
Would counsel and all present please introduce yourselves.
MR. DEAN: Richard Dean for the defendants.
MR. HEBSON: I'm Tony Hebson for the plaintiff.
MR. ANGWIN: Ed Angwin for the plaintiff.
VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court reporter please swear the witness.
MARK PRAUSNITZ, Ph.D., having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Q. Good morning, Mr. Prausnitz.
A. Good morning.
Q. Have you ever had your deposition taken before?
A. I have had my deposition taken once before.
Q. How long ago was that?
A. More than five years ago.
Q. What case was that in?
A. If you'll give me a moment, I can get the exact information, if you'd like.
(Defendants' Exhibit-B was marked for identification.)
Q (By Mr. Dean) Sure. And actually, you're looking at the document we've already marked as Prausnitz B, so you go right ahead and find it.
First of all, what page are you on, Doctor?
A. I am on page No. 4, and the year was 2000 and it was SpectRx versus Non-Invasive Monitoring Company, et al.
Q. You're on page 4 of your —
A. 4 of my curriculum vitae.
Q. Okay. Thank you.
A. It's the CV — it would not have the same page number, perhaps, as what you have.
Q. So it was the SpectRx case?
A. That's right.
Q. What kind of patent was involved in that case?
A. It was a patent related to drug delivery using ultrasound.
Q. Dr. Prausnitz, I'm going to be asking you some questions today, and it's important that the two of us communicate. So if I ask you a question that you don't understand, I'd like you to tell me that and I can either repeat it or rephrase it or if you just haven't heard it, the court reporter can read it back to you.
A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q. Is that all right?
A. That's fine.
Q. And all your responses have to be verbal. You can't shake your head yes or no. Even though we have a videographer here, the court reporter needs some verbal responses; okay?
A. I understand that.
Q. Dr. Prausnitz, what were you asked to do in this case?
A. I was asked to evaluate the effects of Fentanyl delivery from a patch that could have a defect in it.
Q. Who gave that you assignment?
A. Mr. Angwin did.
Q. Was that assignment given to you verbally or in writing?
A. If I recall correctly, there was an initial verbal conversation. There has been some written correspondence since that time. I don't recall the — exactly what was in the written communication and if it specified the assignment as I've said it.
Q. Did you bring that written correspondence with you today?
A. I did not.
Q. Why not?
A. I was told to bring the scientific documents that I would need for the day and I brought those. I — if it's helpful, I'd be happy to provide that letter in the future. I didn't realize it would be needed today.
Q. Is it just one letter we're talking about?
A. There was an initial letter of engagement. There were a few other letters when something was mailed to me, some additional documents for me to look at. Those were cover letters that didn't have substantial information in them.
Q. When was your conversation with Mr. Angwin — your first conversation where you got the assignment?
A. I don't recall the date of that, but it was in — I believe it was in late 2006.
Q. And as best you can recollect, can you tell me what Mr. Angwin told you during that meeting?
In any fentanyl lawsuit, there is likely to be at least one toxicologist called upon to testify on behalf of the plaintiff or the defendant. This is the deposition of a toxicologist from the Hendelson Duragesic lawsuit.
THE COURT REPORTER: Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in these proceedings?
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE COURT REPORTER: Please state your full name.
THE WITNESS: Dr. Harold Schueler.
BY MR. ANGWIN:
Q. Dr. Schueler, I appreciate your being here today. My name is Ed Angwin. We have spoken I think once before, but we are here about the Adam Hendelson case.
Q. Let me ask you to start with, what is your present position?
A. I am the chief Toxicologist at the Broward county Medical Examiner's Office.
Q. How long have you been the chief Toxicologist?
A. For nine years.
Q. As a chief Toxicologist, can you generally describe what your duties are and your responsibilities?
A. I have administrative duties where I do job performance evaluations. I do budgetary duties. I also set policy and procedure, as well as doing some testing. I do drug testing on both postmortem samples and antemortem samples, postmortem samples being from the autopsies and antemortem being in the RDY program that we do. So I do blood or blood and alcohol testing.
Q. How long have you been involved generally in the area of toxicology?
A. For probably 18, 19 years.
Q. Did you bring a copy of your CV?
A. No, I did not.
Q. I did not ask you to. I don't want to have to go back through this, but do you have a current CV?
A. I can print one out very quickly.
Q. Instead of going through your educational background and where you worked before, do you think it will be easier to get that? Is that all listed on your CV?
A. Yes, it is.
MR. ANGWIN: Can we take a break and get that?
MR. AUCIELLO: Yes.
(A recess was taken.)
Q. Dr. Schueler, during the break did you go out and get a copy of your most current curriculum vitae?
A. Yes, I have.
MR. ANGWIN: We will attach that as Exhibit 1.
(Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 was marked for identification.)
Q. Does the curriculum vitae set out your educational and professional experience?
Q. You have a BA and MS and a Ph.D. in chemis try?
Q. I would assume that area of academics applies to the area you work in today?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. With regard to being a toxicologist, have you performed analysis on blood and tissue samples during most of the 18 years you have been a toxicologist?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. How many times have you performed blood analysis to determine the presence of drugs?
A. Probably thousands of times.
Q. You are comfortable with that?
Q. We are here today about the case involving of Adam Hendelson. Tell me about your involvement in that case.
A. Until recently the only involvement I had was that I received a patch, a Fentanyl patch, which then I put into our secure storage area.
Q. When you said recently, was there further involvement in the case of a more recent nature?
A. Only the communications that I have had about testifying today on the case itself.
Q. Did you have any discussions with Dr. Joshua Perper with regard to the case?
This motion was filed by the plaintiff, and asked the court to exclude evidence of studies performed by the manufacturers of the Duragesic patch. The plaintiff presented evidence that the studies were too unreliable to go before a jury.
In every Duragesic or fentanyl lawsuit, two things will happen:
First, the plaintiff will discover evidence of other people injured by the fentanyl patches. This evidence will come in the form of FDA reports, internal company reports, and perhaps even other lawsuits.
Second, the defendants will file a motion in limine that asks the court not to let the jury see that information.
This is just one of the many tricks that defendants in product liability lawsuits such as this pull. Thankfully, I know several former defense lawyers who used to represent companies in lawsuits like this one. Now, they represent injured people and know first hand what they’ll be up against. If you’d like me to put you in touch with a Duragesic lawyer, just contact me and I will.
Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P., and ALZA Corporation hereby move for an Order excluding from trial all evidence relating to other incidents, adverse event reports, and product complaints involving Duragesic, the product at issue in this case. More specifically, Defendants move to exclude Plaintiff's Exhibit Nos. 62-70, 72-73, 84, 87, 103-104, 109, 112, 163, 165, 193, 208-210, 214-215, 217, 220-221, 228-229, 237, 246, 249-250, 257, 269, 272, 309-311, 394-400, 403, 453, 464-465, 468-474, 479-502, 505-509, 514-516, 539-541, 543, 545-557, 562-580, 583-584, 595-596, 602-652, 671-672, and 682-702 and any other document, testimony or argument relating to other incidents, adverse event reports, and product complaints involving Duragesic. Such evidence is inadmissible because these reports and complaints (1) are hearsay within hearsay, (2) reflect incidents that did not occur under reasonably similar conditions to those involved in this case, (3) are not relevant to the determination of the facts at issue in this action, and (4) are unfairly prejudicial to Defendants and confusing to the jury. Such evidence is therefore inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence Rules 401, 402, 403, and 802.
The product at issue in this case is Duragesic, a prescription pain patch that delivers medication through the skin of the user. Duragesic is manufactured by defendant ALZA Corporation and distributed by defendant Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P. Fentanyl, the active ingredient in Duragesic, is a generic opioid analgesic that is contained in a gel mixture inside each patch.
In 1996, Plaintiff's son, Adam Hendelson (“Decedent”), suffered a broken pelvic bone and other injuries from a severe car accident. In the following years, he developed a number of physical problems related to the car accident injuries, including arthritis and degenerative disk disease in his back. As his physical symptoms progressed, Decedent began taking an increasing variety of pain medications and anti-depressants. Decedent was found dead in his apartment in the early morning hours of December 17, 2003, at the age of 28. His death was ruled to be a result of a combined drug overdose. A variety of prescription and over-the-counter medications were found in Decedent's blood, but the medical examiner concluded that Decedent died from excessive amounts of three particular medications: Celexa, (citalopram, an antidepressant), Remeron (mirtazapine, an antidepressant), and fentanyl, the active ingredient in Duragesic. See Broward County Medical Examiner Autopsy Report, attached as Exhibit A.
II. THE PRODUCT REPORTS
As the manufacturers/distributors of Duragesic, a prescription drug, Defendants are required by federal law to record every adverse event and product complaint they receive. See 21 C.F.R. § 314.80. Adverse events (which involve patient injury) and product complaints (which do not involve injury) are reported to Defendants from third parties, generally healthcare providers, plaintiffs' attorneys, patients, and caregivers/family members. When Defendants receive a report of an adverse event from a third party, the information relayed to Defendants is entered onto certain forms that are then forwarded to the relevant departments within the company for follow-up. The forms are also forwarded to the FDA at certain intervals that are regulated by law.
The expert is Robert Middleberg, P.h.D., and he covers a lot of ground in his deposition. The issue in this case was whether a defectively designed and manufactured Duragesic fentanyl patch was responsible for the death of Adam Hendelson. The jury found that it was, based in part upon this expert testimony.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the video. The time is 9:06. My name is Earle Strain from Veritext Court Reporting Company.
This deposition is being taken on May 7, 2007, at 1005 Horsham Road, Montgomeryville, PA, in the case of Hendelson vs. Johnson & Johnson.
Present for the taking of this videotape deposition are the deponent, Robert Middleberg. Counsel will now introduce themselves.
MR. DEAN: Richard Dean on behalf of the defendants.
MR. ANGWIN: Edward Angwin on behalf of the plaintiffs.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The court reporter is Denise Ryan. The court reporter will now swear in the witness.
ROBERT A. MIDDLEBERG, Ph.D., after having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: You may proceed.
BY MR. DEAN:
Q. Good morning, Dr. Middleberg.
A. Good morning, sir.
Q. You have been deposed many times before, haven't you?
A. I am afraid so.
Q. So you know the basic ground rules of the deposition procedure, don't you?
Q. The only thing I would say to such a veteran witness is, and I really probably don't need to say that, but if I ever ask you a question that you don't understand, please tell me and I will rephrase it or repeat it so that it's intelligible to you, okay?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. We have marked as Exhibit 1 the Notice of Deposition in this case, and I would — you have done a report in this case, have you not, Dr. Middleberg?
A. Yes, I have.
MR. DEAN: Could you mark this as No. 2, please?
(Whereupon, Exhibit 2 was marked for identification.)
BY MR. DEAN:
Q. And, Dr. Middleberg, for the record, this is the report you prepared in this case; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you were kind enough also to bring a current copy of your curriculum vitae with you; is that —
This is the deposition of Bruce Goldberger, Ph.D., an expert witness in Hendelson v. Johnson & Johnson. That case ended with a multimillion dollar verdict against Johnson & Johnson.
To the best of my knowledge, plaintiffs have won every Duragesic fentanyl lawsuit that’s gone to a jury. If you think you should speak to an attorney regarding injuries you think were caused by a fentanyl patch like Duragesic, contact me and I’ll put you in touch with a lawyer who will investigate your claim.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the videotaped deposition of Dr. Bruce Goldberger in the matter of Lee Hendelson versus Johnson and Johnson Company, et al, Case Number 05-81116 CIV-HURLEY.
This deposition is being held at VanLandingham, Durscher and VanLandingham. The address is 201 Southeast 2nd Avenue in Gainesville, Florida. The date is May 24th, 2007. The time is 1:40 p.m. The court reporter is Jennifer Witwer. My name is RL Minnich. I'm the videographer.
Would counsel now please introduce themselves.
MR. ORR: Jim Orr on behalf of Mr. Hendelson.
MR. ANGWIN: Edward Angwin on behalf of Mr. Hendelson.
MR. AUCIELLO: Ernest Auciello on behalf of the defendants.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Now would the reporter please swear in the witness.
THE COURT REPORTER: If you'll raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you.
THEREUPON: BRUCE A. GOLDBERGER, Ph.D., was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Q. Could you please state your full name?
A. Bruce A. Goldberger.
Q. And what is your profession?
A. I'm a forensic toxicologist. I'm employed as professor and director of toxicology at the University of Florida in the College of Medicine in the departments of pathology and psychiatry.
Q. And what is the subject of the testimony you'll be offering in this case?
A. Interpretation of the Fentanyl in Mr. Hendelson.
Q. And what are your qualifications to testify on that subject?
A. My educational background includes a BA degree in zoology and MS and Ph.D. degrees in forensic toxicology. I've been employed in the field of forensic toxicology since the fall of 1982, been at the University since October of 19 — 1994.
Q. And you've been hired by the defendants as an independent expert; is that correct?
A. I have.