Jackson Jambalaya

2003? Who proofreads this stuff?

This gets even more outrageous. I guess after killing two doctors his lawyers figure doctors don't have any specific talents to offer society.

Just read the Evans letter - if this isn't practicing medicine without a license I don't know what is. She needs to have a lawyer explain the term "scope of practice" to her.

Ph.D. Evans portrays a Stuart Irby who could experience a stroke and/or cardiac arrest seemingly at any moment. So, did Ph.D. Evans advise, urge, counsel or warn Stuart Irby not to operate a motor vehicle?

A lot of posturing and wasting time. Stuart is NOT going to cooperate at all. Judge will have to compel, wonder if that will happen. I would think the Criminal trial would have precedence in terms of timing. I would think that Karen's attorney would seek to prevent any and all statements out of the record vis-a-vis the civil suit. In this regard, I understand, I would expect that she be provided the best defense possible.

Now, the Dr. is completely at issue here. I know that we cannot see the medical records, however, if the plaintiffs are claiming what they outline as anywhere near truth, this doctor is putting her reputation on line, read "paid for" testimony. I think it will be interesting to see if the medical records show up on Stuart to the plaintiffs. There should be ongoing treatment, notes of said treatment, concerns, warnings, etc.

Finally, knowing the trickery that attorneys enjoy, the leaving out of the affidavit of "truthful" responses, is in my mind sanction-able after the plaintiff's "good faith" request was made to correct the "mistake." What may have been a mistake now appears deliberate. Now everything should be in question as a delay or deliberate attempt to stall/prevent justice by the defendant's attorney.

I know, I know, this might sound like a high bar of professionalism to reach...wonder where the judge will set the bar.

Some explosive stuff in there. Booze and drugs will do it every time.

Did Farese actually file a signed notice of depo? The opp side is not compelled to respond to anything unsigned.I wonder why he would attach an unsigned/unfiled copy.

I think the timing of this 'accident' is very INTERESTING...How convenient that this 'accident' occurred around the same time all of these motions were filed. Just sayin'.

Not that I don't think that the doc is full of crap, but she IS a neuropsychologist. She is able to testify to his ability to recall events related to a traumatic brain injury. That's what neuropsychologists DO. She is NOT, however, really qualified to say that he could suffer a stroke/heart attack from doing that without supporting evidence from Mr. Irby's cardiologist or attending medical physician. (Since if he's a methodist rehab he should have one of those as well)

I cannot believe the sloppy work illustrated by everything in this case at this point. If these jokers were in the corporate world and made the simple mistakes:

1. "2003"
2. No response upon reminder of insufficient information (affidavit).
3. Clear attempt to avoid, with no response (defendant).
4. Filings with no signatures, stamps, dates, etc. (plaintiff)
5. No real attempt to represent/defend/claim in "good faith." (defendant)
6. Hiring a doctor that cannot make the claims b/c she does not have the credentials to be a CARDIAC expert.
7. Using sophomoric tactics to avoid having to face the inevitable (weak attempt I might add).

...All involved would be FIRED. And I might add, no more money coming their way.

I mean its not like someone stole a pack of gum here.

I cannot believe the strategy is "I don't suck as much as the other."

the subpoena for the video deposition of Stuart Irby was filed on November 30.

For those of us who are not attorneys, when the Plaintiffs' attorneys submitted "Requests for Admission" to Stuart Irby in which they asked Irby to "admit" to certain statements (Exhibit E of the Plaintiffs' Response to Stuart Irby's Motion to Quash the Notice of Deposition), does that mean that the Plaintiffs' attorneys actually have evidence that those particular statements are true? Or are at least some of those statements just theories that the Plaintiffs wanted to get Irby's reaction to? Request for Admission No. 25 is particularly interesting: "Please admit that you caused Karen C. Irby to lose control of that vehicle and to travel into the lane of travel of Dr. Daniel Mark Pogue's Chevrolet pickup truck and collide with that truck."

I'll have to say, I , too, am appalled by the sloppiness of these and other copies of court documents filed that have appeared on this site.
Aren't the attorneys/judges reviewing these documents before they get filed?
I'd hate to think they did and were so poorly educated or so inattentive as to catch such obvious errors.
I get the clerical/paralegal staff in the criminal/personal injury world may not be paid enough to get the best, but the lawyers/judges should catch these kind of errors.

Admission number 25 is interesting.
A screaming match that got physical in the car has always been the most logical explanation to me given what I know.