Replies

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

On remand, this court anticipated but did not require that Dr. Webber, who had claimed in his affidavit that he might be able to restore Mrs. Schiavo's speech and some of her cognitive functioning, would testify for the parents and provide scientific support for his claim. However, Dr. Webber, who was so critical in this court's decision to remand the case, made no further appearance in these proceedings. Instead, the parents provided testimony from Dr. William Maxfield, aboard-certified physician in radiology and nuclear medicine, and Dr. William Hammesfahr, a board-certified neurologist. Michael Schiavo, Mrs. Schiavo's husband and guardian, selected Dr. Ronald Cranford and Dr. Melvin Greer, both board-certified neurologists, to testify. The fifth physician, selected by the guardianship court when the parties could not agree, was Dr. Peter Bambakidis, a board-certified neurologist practicing in the Department of Neurology at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Cleveland, Ohio. He is a clinical professor of neurology at Case Western Reserve University. His credentials fulfilled the requirements of our prior opinion. Through the assistance of Mrs. Schiavo's treating physician, Dr. Victor Gambone, the physicians obtained current medical information about Theresa Schiavoincluding high-quality brain scans. Each physician reviewed her medical records and personally conducted a neurological examination of Mrs. Schiavo. Lengthy videotapes of some of the medical examinations were created and introduced into evidence. Thus, the quality of the evidence presented to the guardianship court was very high, and each side had ample opportunity to present detailed medical evidence, all of which was subjected to thorough cross-examination. It is likely that no guardianship court has ever received as much high-quality medical evidence in such a proceeding. On the issue that caused this court to reverse in our last decision, whether new treatment exists which offers such promise of increased cognitive function in Mrs.Schiavo's cerebral cortex that she herself would elect to undergo this treatment andwould reverse the prior decision to withdraw life-prolonging procedures, the parents presented little testimony. Dr. William Hammesfahr claimed that vasodilation therapy and hyberbaric therapy "could help her improve." He could not testify that any "specific function" would improve. He did not claim that he could restore her cognitive functions. He admitted that vasodilation therapy and hyberbaric therapy were intended to increase blood and oxygen supply to damaged brain tissue to facilitate repair of such tissue. These therapies cannot replace dead tissue. Although the physicians are not in complete agreement concerning the extent of Mrs. Schiavo's brain damage, they all agree that the brain scans show extensive permanent damage to her brain. The only debate between the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:Il7CENonq2QJ:www.2dca.org/opinion/June%252006,%25202003/2D02-5394.pdf+schiavo+schindler+browning+florida+supreme+court&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

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?

Facts:

Oct. 17, 2001: Using Dr. Webber's affidavit as a main reason, the 2nd District Court of Appeal rules that five doctors can examine Terri to determine whether she has any hope of recovery. Two doctors are picked by the Schindlers, two are picked by Michael Schiavo and one is picked by the court.

Oct. 12, 2002: Weeklong evidentiary hearing begins in the case. Three doctors, including the one appointed by the court, testify that Terri is in a persistent, vegetative state with no hope of recovery. The two doctors selected by the Schindlers say she can recover.

You quoted the remand by the Second Court of Appeals in 2001 to prove that Dr. Webber was not given a chance to testify in 2002.

If you have read the 2001 document carefully, you would have noticed that the court of appeals ordered that the Schindlers be allowed to present two doctors in a brand-new evidentiary hearing. The new evidentiary hearing was held in 2002.

You have to keep up with your time line. Quoting a newspaper from 2000 to prove that the Marlins are not World Champions in 2003 is useless.

Dr. Webber was given his opportunity to testify in 2002 and he did not show up. The Schindlers could not come with two neurologists in 2002, so they presented a radiologist and a neurologist. The Schindlers' neurologist has his license on probation and is a poster boy for Quack Watch.

Which brings about the questions: Why did Dr. Webber not testify? Did he change his mind about Terri?