If you ever learned why Dr. Webber never testified on the Schindlers' behalf, please ping me.
Gone to the beach to see if the waves are good enough for surfing.
Have a nice weekend.
Dr. Webber's affidavit made it to court. But the court denied Dr. Webber the petition for examination. So how could he testify on her behalf if he wasn't allowed to examine her?
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:JjKVj3NpP54J:www.flcourts.org/pubinfo/summaries/briefs/01/01-2678/Filed_02-13-2002_JurisBrief.pdf+Dr.+Webber+%2B+Terri+Schiavo+%2B+Court&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 One such doctor, Webber, claims that anon-vegetative “Mrs. Schiavo has a good opportunity to show some degree ofimprovement [cognitive and physical items such as speech recovery] if treatedwith this type of therapy [cardiovascular medication style].” 800 So.2d at 644.
Page 8
1While the court describes Webber’s treatment as “new,” closer examinationof the opinion reveals that this does not mean the subject treatment was discoveredor utilized subsequent to trial. Rather, it indicates that the treatment was available atthe time of trial but not considered. Webber, as to the alleged efficacy of this“treatment” on the ward, bases his opinion on his “years of practice.” The courtstates that the 2000 trial focused on the ward’s intent “and not on whether anyavailable medical treatment could improve her condition,” and describes thetreatment as “new evidence of additional medical procedures.” 800 So.2d at 644. While the record definitively shows that the alleged treatment pre-dated the trial bymany years, (see Motion for Stay), Petitioner cannot rely on the record, as the samecannot be used to establish jurisdiction. Nevertheless, Petitioner contends that theopinion itself is sufficient to show that the subject “treatment” is not a “change incircumstances ‘arising after’ the entry of the judgment.”3The trial court summarily denied the petition for examination and 1.540(b)(5)motion. 800 So.2d at 643.The appellate court reversed the trial court, holding that only Dr. Webber’sclaim “raises the motion to the level of colorable entitlement requiring anevidentiary hearing.”1800 So.2d at 646. The court also orders the diagnostictesting of the ward and her examination by five doctors prior to the evidentiaryhearing. The court does not limit the hearing to Webber’s alleged treatment, butpermits discovery--examination and testing--and a hearing on the other allegedtreatment for which no colorable entitlement was shown. The court’s rationale forpermitting the same is that “the opinions of the remaining doctors may have beenlimited by their inability to examine Mrs. Schiavo or obtain necessary diagnosticinformation...” 800 So.2d at 646