Preview
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
BARNSTABLE, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
NO. 1872CV00606
DOUGLASA. CAPAK, PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF
DAWN MARIE ROBERTS,
Plaintiff
Vv.
CLOEF. SHELTON, M.D.
ANTHONY CARAVELLO, M.D.
SHARON MAHONEY, M.D.
SUSAN ANDEREGG, M.D.
CAPE COD HOSPITAL, TRISTAN MEDICAL,
P.C., G CURTIS BARRY, M.D., P.C., and CAPE
COD OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, P.C.
Defendants
FIRST MOTION IN LIMINE OF THE DEFENDANTS, SHARON MAHONEY, M.D.
TRISTAN MEDICAL, P.C., AND G. CURTIS BARRY, M.D., P.C., TO DISMISS ALL
CLAIMS AGAINST TRISTAN MEDICAL, P.C, IN COUNSTS XLI TO XLVID OF
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Now come the defendants, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., Tristan Medical, P.C., and G. Curtis
Barry, M.D., P.C., and hereby move to dismiss all claims against Tristan Medical, P.C. set forth
in Counts XLI to XLVIII ofplaintiff's Complaint. As grounds for this motion, the defendants
state as follows:
1 The plaintiff filed this medical malpractice action alleging that the defendants were Ni
negligent in connection with the interpretation and follow-up care required for Dawn
Roberts stemming from an abdominal and pelvic CT scan performed on November
11, 2011, which identified a right adrenal gland mass, and that Ms, Roberts
succumbed to adrenal cortical carcinoma on July 6, 20 17.!
The plaintiff's experts have been disclosed to testify that had Ms. Roberts had the
follow-up dedicated MRI or CT scan of the adrenal glands in 2011 or 2012, then her
cancer would have been diagnosed and treated as early as 2011 or 2012, “when it was
amenable to cure, and she would not have suffered a premature and preventable death
in July 2017.” See plaintiff's expert disclosures attached to the Joint Pre-Trial
Memorandum on file with the Court.
There is no claim by plaintiff's experts that Ms. Roberts’ highly aggressive cancer
would have been amenable to cure if it had been diagnosed and treated at any point
after 2012. See plaintiff's expert disclosures attached to the Joint Pre-Trial
Memorandum on file with the Court.
The claims asserted against the defendant, G. Curtis Barry, M.D., P.C. are for
vicarious liability for the actions of the defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D.
Between 2011 and 2015, Dr. Mahoney was employed by G. Curtis Barry, M.D., P.C.,
d/b/a Mid Cape Medical Center. See Answers and Objections of the Defendant,
Sharon Mahoney, M.D., at Answer No. 12, fattached hereto.
In 2015, G. Curtis Barry, M.D., P.C. sold its assets to Massachusetts Immediate
Care, LLC and changed its d/b/a to Tristan Medical Center.
There is no legal entity by the name of Tristan Medical Center.
' The claim against the defendant, Anthony Caravello, M.D., is also based upon his alleged failure to properly
interpret and make recommendations for a dedicated MRI or CT scan of the adrenal glands when he interpreted a
CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis on July 18, 2012.
8. Atno time did the named defendant, Tristan Medical, P.C., ever hold an ownership or
other interest in G. Curtis Barry, M.D., P.C., d/b/a Mide Cape Medical Center, nor
did it ever employ Dr. Mahoney or have anything to do with the care and treatment
rendered to Ms. Roberts.
The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., was an employee of G. Curtis Barry, M.D.,
P.C. at all times relevant to this case.
10. G. Curtis Barry M.D., P.C. will stipulate that at all relevant times in this case, Dr.
¢
Mahoney was an employee of G. Curtis Barry, M.D., P.C.
Wherefore, the defendants, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., Tristan Medical, P.C., and G.
Curtis Barry, M.D., P.C., hereby move to dismiss all claims against Tristan Medical, P.C.
set forth in Counts XLI to XLVIII of plaintiff's Complaint
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen M. O’Shea
Stephen M. O'Shea BBO No. 559236
Michael J. Keefe BBO No. 263751
Attorneys for Defendant
Sharon Mahoney, M.D., Tristan Medical, P.C. and
G. Curtis Barry M.D., P.C.
Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney
101 Merrimac Street, 7th Floor
Boston, MA 02114
617-227-3240
soshea@mmmk.com
mkeefe@mmmk.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Stephen M. O’Shea hereby certify that a true copy of the above document was served on
November 24, 2023 by emailing a copy thereof to:
Adam Satin, Esq. Edward Hinchey, Esq.
Lynn Hu, Esq. Tanya K. Oldenhoff, Esq.
Lubin & Meyer Sloane and Walsh
100 City Hall Plaza, 4th Floor One Center Plaza, Floor 8
Boston, MA 02108 Boston, MA 02108
astatin@lubinandmeyer.com ehinchey@hincheyllp.com
lhu@lubinandmeyer.com toldenhoff@bincheyllp.cpm
Christopher Lavoie, Esq.
Allyson Hammerstedt, Esq.
Dunn and Dunn
11 Beacon Street #1100
Boston, MA 02108
ahammerstedt@dunnanddunn.com
clavoie@dunnanddunn.com
ts/ Stephen M. O’Shea
Stephen M. O'Shea BBO No. 559236
Michael J. Keefe BBO No. 263751
Attorneys for Defendant
Tristan Medical, P.C.
Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney
101 Merrimac Street, 7th Floor
Boston, MA 02114
617-227-3240
soshea@mmmk,com
mkeefe(@mmmk.com
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
BARNSTABLE, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
NO. 1872CV00606
DOUGLAS A. CAPAK, PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF
DAWN MARIE ROBERTS,
Plaintiff
Vv.
CLOE F. SHELTON, M.D.,
ANTHONY CARAVELLO, M.D.,
SHARON MAHONEY, M.D.,
SUSAN ANDEREGG, M.D.,
CAPE COD HOSPITAL, TRISTAN MEDICAL,
P.C., G CURTIS BARRY, M.D., P.C., and CAPE
COD OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, P.C.,
Defendants
-
ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT,
SHARON MAHONEY, M.D., TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to the Definitions contained in Plaintiff's
First Set Of Interrogatories and answers said interrogatories pursuant to Massachusetts Rules Of
Civil Procedure.
INTERROGATORY NO, 1
Please identify yourself fully by stating your full name, date of birth, residential and business
address and your occupation.
ANSWER NO. 1
The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. | and as reason therefore
states that said interrogatory seeks information which is neither relevant nor material to this
litigation and is otherwise beyond the scope of permissible discovery under Mass. R. Civ. P. 26.
Without waiving this objection, and subject specifically to it, the defendant responds as follows:
Sharon Mahoney, M.D.; legal age; Iora Primary Care, 1070 Iyannough Road, Hyannis, MA
02601; Internal Medicine Specialist
INTERROGATORY NO. 2
Please provide a full description of your professional credentials, by stating in chronological
order the dates and places where you received your undergraduate education, your undergraduate
degree, your medical school education, your medical school degree, your internships, your
general residencies, your specialty residencies, indicating the branches of medicine covered by
specialty residencies, all medical specialty boards and colleges which have certified you,
indicating the specialties of such certifications, all state licensures and your complete
employment history commencing with your graduation from medical school.
ANSWER NO. 2
The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., refers the plaintiff to the copy of her curriculum vitae,
which has been or will be produced as part ofher response to plaintiff's request for production of
documents.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3
For cach and every occasion upon which you spoke with the plaintiff's decedent, communicated
with the plaintiffs decedent, saw the plaintiff's decedent, examined the plaintiff's decedent,
treated the plaintiff's decedent, or otherwise had any contact whatsoever with the plaintiff's
decedent, state separately:
(a) the date, time, place and form of contact (¢.g., examination, visit, taking of
plaintiffs decedent medical history, phone conversation, surgery, hospital rounds,
etc.);
() the substance/contents of everything the plaintiff's decedent said or communicated
to you, including the substance/content of the plaintiff's decedent medical history
taken by you, communicated to the plaintiff's decedent;
(©) the substance/contents of everything you said or communicated to the plaintiff's
decedent;
qd) the name and current address of each person, other than yourself and the plaintiff's
decedent who was present;
@) the complete details of each examination and diagnostic test you performed on the
plaintiff's decedent including the findings of each such examination or test;
(f each diagnosis you made regarding the plaintiff's decedent including the basis for
each such diagnosis;
(8) each alternate diagnosis you made or considered with regard to the plaintiff's
decedent including the basis for each such alternative diagnosis, and if appropriate,
the reason such diagnosis was rejected;
(h) each prognosis you made regarding the plaintiff's decedent including the basis for
each such prognosis;
@) cach course of treatment you recommended for the plaintiff's decedent including
the basis for each such course of treatment:
a a complete description of all treatment you rendered to the plaintiff's decedent;
&) the name, address and specialty of each physician you contacted with regard to the
plaintiff's decedent:
® the substance/content of all communications between yourself and each such
physician regarding the plaintiff's decedent:
(m) the substance/content of all instructions given by you to the plaintiff's decedent
and
(n) the substance/content of all communications between you and every nurse
regarding the plaintiff's decedent.
ANSWER NO. 3
The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. 3 and as reason therefore
states that said interrogatory is overly broad and unduly vague and burdensome. The defendant
further objects because she saw the plaintiff over the course of more than a decade the medical
records related to that treatment are extensive. As a result, the defendant could not possibly
provide all the information requested without limiting the timeframe of the interrogatory and/or
receiving a more factually specific question.
Without waiving this objection, and subject specifically to it, the defendant refers the plaintiff,
pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 33(c), please refer to the copy of the complete medical records of
Dawn Marie Roberts from G. Curtis Barry, M.D., P.C., which have been or will be exchanged by
the parties during this matter. In addition, the defendant states as follow
With respect to care provided prior to May 2006, please refer to the medical records.
On May 16, 2006, I referred Ms. Roberts for a CT scan of her abdomen and pelvis due to
complaints of left sided abdominal pain. The CT scan reportedly revealed an 11mm nodule in
the right adrenal gland and the left adrenal gland was unremarkable. The radiologist noted the
right adrenal nodule had high attenuation values and suggested further characterization of the
nodule with an MRI, Thereafter, I arranged for an MRI of the adrenal glands, which was
performed at Cape Cod Hospital on June 4, 2006. The report for that study indicated the
3
findings were consistent with and most likely represented an adrenal adenoma. The radiologist
noted that a follow up study in six months to confirm stability may be helpful.
On December 4, 2006, Ms. Roberts returned to my office and the need for a follow-up MRI of
the adrenal glands with contrast was noted and the study was ordered. She was also referred for a
colonoscopy. In addition, she was referred to a dermatologist to evaluate a lesion on the right
forearm. The MRI was completed at Cape Cod Hospital on December 8, 2006, and reportedly
revealed a stable appearing 11.8 mm right adrenal mass arising from the medial limb
demonstrating homogenous drop in signal density on out phase images consistent with a right
adrenal adenoma.
On February 26, 2007, Ms. Roberts underwent another colonoscopy due to abdominal
distress/pain in the left lower quadrant. A few small-mouthed diverticula and an 8 mm polyp
were found and there was a note that her pain was more in the left groin area and perhaps a
surgical consult for possible hernia should be considered. A repeat colonoscopy was also
recommended in five years. Ms. Roberts was seen a few times in 2007 to follow up for GERD,
anxiety, depression, weight problems, and for referral for a mammogram.
In 2008, Ms. Roberts was seen on various dates to follow up for medication refills for anxiety
and depression, for a complaint of lightheadedness with walking, for a Holter monitor, and for
weight issues. She also had two “no show” appointments that year.
In 2009, Ms. Roberts reportedly had a motor vehicle accident and suffered contusions to her arm,
knee, and scalp. She also complained of neck pain. She reported discontinuing her
antidepressant medication for three weeks on her own because she ran out of medication. Ata
visit on July 13, 2009, Ms, Robert’s reported that she had not been to see Dr. Anderegg in two
years and she was not motivated to do anything.
On March 4, 2010, Ms. Roberts complained of persistent neck pain stemming from her
automobile accident in January 2009. She was diagnosed with a cervical strain and was given a
list of physical therapists. On May 14, 2010, Ms. Roberts underwent a pelvic ultrasound for a
history of left pelvic pain. This study was ordered by Dr. Anderegg. Other than several small
Nabothian cysts, that ultrasound was normal. I received a copy of the report. On June 25, 2010,
I noted that Ms. Roberts had her Pap smear with Dr. Anderegg. On physical examination at this
visit, the abdomen was benign. On July 20, 2010, Ms. Roberts complained of pain in the mouth
after a tooth was pulled. On August 9, 2010, Ms. Roberts was seen for depression/anxiety,
obesity, and fatigue. On October 19, 2010, Ms. Roberts reportedly fell while standing. She was
diagnosed with contusions on the left knee and left tibia and underwent x-rays of her humerus,
left wrist, and left knee. On October 21, 2010, she was reportedly involved in another
automobile accident. She was diagnosed with multiple contusions and underwent x-rays. On
October 26, 2010, she was seen for left leg pain. She was diagnosed with a left leg contusion,
and I referred Ms. Roberts to an orthopedist. On November 9, 2010, she reported that the
Lexapro was not working and said she was “really tired”. She also reported complaints of blurry
vision and headaches. J referred her to an ophthalmologist and a neurologist. I ordered a CT scan
of the head which was reported to be normal. On December 20, 2010, Parag Parekh, M.D. (an
ophthalmologist) evaluated Ms. Robert’s vision and reported that her eyes looked very health
throughout.
On June 3, 2011, Ms. Roberts complained of feeling very depressed and said she did not feel like
doing anything. I noted that she had a therapist at the time. At her physical exam on October 14,
2011, Ms. Roberts reported that she did not want to get changed into a gown and complained of
abdominal pain. Her issues with over-eating were discussed. The records include the report of a
November 11, 2011 CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis without contrast that was ordered by Dr.
Anderegg for a history of lower quadrant abdominal pain. That study revealed a “3.3 x 2.8 x 2.3
cm low density mass arising from the medial limb of the right adrenal gland with indeterminate
Hounsfield units.” Dr. Shelton interpreted that study, and her impression included a “2 em low-
density mass arising from the medial limb of the right adrenal gland likely represents an
adenoma but has indeterminate Hounsfield units. Recommend a dedicated adrenal CT or MRI
for better characterization.” I reviewed, signed, and placed that report in Ms. Roberts’ chart
expecting Dr. Anderegg, who had ordered the study, to follow up with Ms. Roberts regarding the
recommendations because I was not asked to do so. I never discussed the CT results or the
recommendations with anyone. On November 14, 2011, I referred Ms. Roberts for another
colonoscopy due to left lower quadrant pain and because her last colonoscopy had been done in
2007 with a finding of hyperplastic polyps. In addition, the records contain a copy of a report of
a bilateral screening mammogram, which was ordered by Dr. Anderegg and was performed on
November 29, 2011. That study was normal and routine follow-up in one year was
recommended. In addition, the radiologist noted that a “layperson’s letter” was given or mailed
to the patient indicating the recommendations for follow-up. Ms. Roberts underwent the
colonoscopy on December 5, 2011, which was reportedly normal other than a few small-
mouthed diverticula.
On July 17, 2012, Ms. Roberts was complaining that her right ribs hurt, and she felt short of
breath. She also complained of right back pain, but eventually localized the pain to her right
flank. I questioned whether she might have a renal stone, and ordered a renal CT scan of her
abdomen and pelvis without contrast to assess for kidney stones. Subsequently, I received,
reviewed, and signed the report of the CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis without contrast,
which was done on July 18, 2012. The radiologist, Dr. Caravello, noted.that there was no
evidence of renal stones in the study, He also noted that in comparing the July 17, 2012 CT scan
with the November 11, 2011 CT scan, there was “a stable appearing right adrenal mass
statistically representing an adrenal adenoma.” There was no recommendation for a follow-up
study. On October 15,2012, Ms. Roberts complained of blurred right eye vision and a headache.
Based on the signature in the record, it appears as though someone other than me may have seen
her at that visit, A referral to an ophthalmologist was made at that time. Ms. Roberts was seen
on October 17, 2012 by an ophthalmologist, Dr. Ansari at OCB, who found her exam to be
completely normal. On December 19, 2012, I evaluated Ms. Roberts in connection with an
infected tooth.
On January 14, 2013, I saw Ms. Roberts for sinus pain and my diagnosis was sinusitis. On March
13, 2013, she complained of dysuria and my diagnosis was a urinary tract infection. On May
2013, I saw Ms. Roberts for chest pain/GERD symptoms and ordered an EKG and Barium
Swallow studies. The Barium Swallow revealed a suspected intramural lesion that could be
artifactual or an intramural leiomyoma. As a result, I referred Ms. Roberts for an upper GI
endoscopy, which was performed by Dr. Michael Feuer at Cape Cod Hospital on June 6, 2013.
The results were consistent with reflux esophagitis with no evidence of H Pylori or Barrett’s
Esophagus.
On June 24, 2013, Ms. Roberts presented to follow-up for her chest pain and GERD. Ms.
Roberts complained that it felt like there was something taking up space in her chest. I noted the
recent findings of the Barium Swallow and EGD, and her diagnosis was chest pain. I ordered a
chest CT scan, which indicated the reason for the study was non-exertional “constant chest pain”
Ms. Roberts’ insurer denied approval of the chest CT scan and I filed an appeal on her behalf,
noting that Ms. Roberts had GERD, was taking Prilosec, still had anterior chest discomfort, and
weighed almost 300 pounds, and I did not think a chest x-ray would be an adequate test. The
insurer responded that a chest x-ray would have to be done before a CT scan could be
considered. As a result, I ordered the chest x-ray, which was performed on August 8, 2013, and
was normal.
On November 14, 2013, Ms. Roberts-was evaluated by a Physician’s Assistant (Shelly
Ehrenzweig, P.A.) for complaints of a headache and nausea, which Ms. Roberts presumed was
related to a sinus infection, although she noted that she had “never had pain like this.” PA
Ehrenzweig referred Ms. Roberts to the ER at Cape Cod Hospital to rule out a bleed and she had
a head CT scan that day, which revealed no intracranial abnormality.
On January 14, 2014, 1 saw Ms. Roberts for a complaint of a cough and pain on the right side of
her chest with the cough. I diagnosed Ms. Roberts with an upper respiratory infection/bronchitis
and prescribed a z-pack. In June 2014, Ms. Roberts was seen for a painful left hand and an x-ray
of her left hand was ordered, Based on the signature of the note and the fact the x-ray was
ordered by Helen Dalzell, it appears that I did not see her that day. I next saw Ms. Roberts on
September 22, 2014, for a follow-up visit related to her history of fatigue, depression, and
weakness. I questioned whether the antidepressant medication should be changed and also noted
“stress test” after an in-office EKG revealed borderline left atrial abnormality. The stress test
was completed on September 29, 2014, and revealed no abnormality. On February 20, 2015,
Ms. Roberts was seen by another provider in the practice for an upper respiratory tract infection.
On September 5, 2015, Ms. Roberts was seen by another provider in the practice for issues of
depression and anxiety. Ms. Roberts reportedly noted she was having issues being around
people and was experiencing palpitations. The physical exam reportedly was unremarkable. PA
O’Hara ordered urinalysis, labs, and an echocardiogram to work up the complaint of palpitations.
She also started Ms, Roberts on Zoloft.
On September 17, 2015, Ms. Roberts returned to see PA O’Hara for a follow-up visit. Ms.
Roberts reported that Zoloft made her feel very fatigued and gave her headaches, so she only
took it for three days. A sleep study was being arranged and Ms. Roberts was instructed to
return to see PA O’Hara in 2 weeks for further follow-up.
On October 1, 2015, Ms. Roberts returned to see PA O’ Hara to follow-up on her medications
and for her test results. At that time, it was noted that Ms. Roberts had last been in counselling
four years earlier: Ms. Roberts’ primary complaint was right wrist pain that had begun the day
prior to the visit, PA O’Hara ordered an x-ray of the right wrist, which was negative, and
referred Ms. Roberts to a cardiologist for cardiomegaly and LVH consistent with HCVD on her
recent echocardiogram. PA O’Hara saw Ms. Roberts again on October 13, 2015, for follow-up
with her anti-depressant medications.
Ms. Roberts had her sleep study done at Falmouth Hospital on November 2, 2015, which
revealed mild obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. A CPAP was recommended. On November
17, 2015, Ms. Roberts returned to see PA O’Hara, who noted the sleep study was completed and
revealed mild sleep apnea and the cardiology consult had been performed. PA O’Hara noted that
Ms. Roberts would follow up with Dr. Mahoney regarding the sleep apnea, she would have a
screening bilateral mammogram and she would see a nutritionist regarding weight loss.
Ms. Roberts was scheduled for a mammogram on February 26, 2016, but then rescheduled the
appointment to March 9, 2016, and then cancelled that appointment. When Ms. Roberts saw me
on March 18, 2016, her chief complaint was left sided pelvic pain before menses and after bowel
movements. Ms. Roberts also noted that it usually occurred after a bowel movement, urinating,
after orgasm, and was occurring daily. [ performed a physical examination which was
essentially normal. I provided Ms. Roberts with names of potential local gynecologists to see for
work-up of her pelvic pain, since her previous gynecologist (presumably Dr. Anderegg) had
reportedly left the area, Ms. Roberts brought an article about pelvic congestion syndrome to the
visit, and { advised that such could be a reasonable diagnosis. | also noted that a screening
mammogram had been done that day, and the results of that study done that day revealed no
mammographic evidence of malignancy.
On June 16, 2016, Ms. Roberts was seen by PA O’Hara for a headache that had lasted for five
days, a feeling of pressure in her head, and blurry vision. Ms. Roberts’ blocd pressure at that
visit was 150/98, which was up from her baseline of 130s/90s. PA O’Hara noted that based upon
the headache that was different than the past, her vision changes, and escalating pain with
hypertension, she would refer Ms. Roberts to Cape Cod Hospital ED. After evaluation in the ED
at Cape Cod Hospital, Ms. Roberts was scheduled for an MRI of the brain without contrast,
which was performed on June 21, 2016. The results of that MRI indicated that a dural fistula
could not be ruled out and recommendation was made for MR angiography and contrast
enhanced images.. PA Rina Patel created a note in Ms. Roberts’ chart on June 22, 2016, but it is
unclear if Ms. Roberts was seen that day because the note indicates “None recorded” for chief
complaint, vitals, measurements, screening, review of systems, physical exam and
assessment/plan, and there is otherwise no information indicating an exam was done at that time.
There is a Shields Appointment Confirmation record in chart which indicates a brain angiogram
was scheduied for June 23, 2016, and that study was completed at Cape Cod Hospital that day.
However, a post-contrast brain MRI was recommended because that study was an arterial flow
sequence study and venous direction flow was saturated out of the images. Asa result, I ordered
an MRI of the head without contrast, which was done on June 24, 2016. The radiologist noted a
likely draining cortical vein along the left tentorial surface and recommended follow-up to assure
stability.
Ms. Roberts’ did not return until April 27, 2017. At that time, Ms. Roberts saw PA Patel with
complaints of chest heaviness and fluid in her legs. Ms. Roberts weighed 353 pounds, which
was a significant increase from her baseline weight of approximately 300 pounds. Her BMI was
58.7 and her blood pressure was 178/110. PA Patel noted that Ms. Roberts presented with fluid
in her legs since January, with swelling every day and occasional pain and discomfort. Ms.
Roberts also reported chest tightness over the last few weeks, with heart palpitations and
shortness of breath with activity and wheezing when laying on her left side. She also reported
blurry vision and migraines, but Ms. Roberts said she had not been to the doctor in a few months
because she did not have insurance. While she did not report abdominal or pelvic pain, she did
report feeling gassy. PA Patel’s physical examination was unremarkable, other than bilateral
lower leg edema. PA Patel ordered an electrocardiogram and lab work and recommended
compression stockings, PA Patel also told Ms. Roberts that she needed to come in for a primary
care appointment with me, which was scheduled for May 9, 2017.
On May 9, 2017, I noted Ms. Roberts’ medical problems included morbid obesity, mood
disorder, nightmares, obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, pain in pelvis, headache, snoring and
magnetic resonance imaging of brain abnormal. In addition, I noted Ms. Roberts complained of
worsening GERD, abdominal pain on and off for five months — mostly on the right side, swelling
in her legs and an elevated blood pressure. Ms. Roberts also reported not feeling well and
having shortness of breath with exertion. My assessment included abdomen pain was of unclear
etiology and I ordered a CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis with contrast. In addition, I started
Ms. Roberts on HCTZ for her hypertension and started her on Prilosec for GERD.
The CT scan ofthe abdomen and pelvis was done at Cape Cod Hospital on May 16, 2017 and
revealed a large 16.7 x 13.6 x 14.1 cm retroperitoneal mass centered in the area of the right
adrenal gland with invasion into the right hepatic lobe and right kidney and multiple hypodense
masses in the lefi and right hepatic lobes measuring up to 3 om, along with multiple bibasilar
pulmonary nodules, the largest of which was 9 mm in the left lower lobe. There was also a 2.4
cm nodule to the right of the mass and a 2.5 cm nodule to the left of the mass. The mass was
suspicious for adrenocortical carcinoma consistent with metastatic disease.
The next day, May 17, 2017, Ms. Roberts returned to review the results of the CT scan. At that
time, ! informed Ms. Roberts she did not seem to appreciate the gravity of her condition and
thought that she would have surgery to remove the cancer and would be fine. Ms. Roberts
informed me that she did not want her testing to interfere with her daughter’s upcoming
graduation on May 25". I planned to schedule a biopsy with interventional radiology for a tissue
diagnosis, as well as a chest CT scan with contrast to assess the multiple nodules in the lungs. [
also started Ms. Roberts on metoprolol and scheduled her to return on June 13, 2017.
The CT scan of the chest was done on May 20, 2017, and revealed 4 nodules ranging from 4 to 6
mm in the right lung and 3 nodules ranging from 5 to 7 mm in the left lung, along with several
other smaller nodules. There were also numerous hepatic lesions noted in the report. The
impression was innumerable pulmonary nodules, hepatic lesions, and sclerotic heterogeneity
worrisome for extensive metastatic disease related to the right retroperitoneal mass.
Ms. Roberts returned to the practice on May 24, 2017, and the reason for the visit was noted to
be “needs bloodwork.” It appears that blood was drawn for a CBC with differential and a PT
INR. A CT scan guided right adrenal gland biopsy was performed at Cape Cod Hospital on May
31, 2017, and a total of 8 eighteen-gauge, core biopsy samples were obtained from the mass. It
was also noted there had been significant disease progression throughout the liver since the most
recent study just 15 days earlier. The pathology report revealed extensive necrotic tissue
suggestive of malignancy, but a follow-up biopsy was recommended to obtain additional viable
tumor cells for further analysis.
On June 6, 2017, a CT-guided biopsy of the liver was performed at Cape Cod Hospital and a
total of 8 core biopsy samples were obtained from the left lobe of the liver. The pathology report
for that biopsy reportedly revealed neuroendocrine carcinoma, intermediate grade.
The last visit with me was a June 20, 2017, follow-up visit for neuroendocrine carcinoma. I
noted that Ms. Roberts would be seen at Dana Farber the following week. Ms. Roberts reported
she had been experiencing peripheral edema, a greater than 20 pound weight gain, blurred vision
for the last 6 months, a sensation of globus, and abdominal pain. I also noted that we would send
out labs to see if Ms. Roberts’ symptoms (fatigue, abdominal pain, and not feeling well) were
related to the cancer. A return visit to the office was not scheduled. However, there is a note by
PA O’Hara on June 23, 2017, which suggests Ms. Roberts came in for a finger stick for type 2
diabetes and metformin was prescribed.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4
Please list by title, author, publisher, volume, edition, and page, each and every article, journal,
treatise, text, or book which you did use or had available to refer to in the diagnosis, treatment
and care of the plaintiffs decedent condition.
ANSWER NO. 4
The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. 4 and as reason therefore
states that said interrogatory is overly broad, and unduly vague and burdensome.
Without waiving this objection, and subject specifically to it, the defendant answers as follows:
None that I recal] at this time.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5
Please list by title and publisher all medical journals or other professional periodicals to which
you subscribe(d) to:
(a) at the time of the alleged negligence; and
(b) currently,
ANSWER NO. 5
The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. 7 and as reason therefore
states that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, irrelevant and immaterial, and is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Mass. R. Civ. P. 26.
Without waiving this objection, and subject specifically to it, the defendant answers as follows:
New England Journal of Medicine; JAMA; and ACP Journal.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6
For each and every occasion upon which you have ever testified under oath, please state separately.
(a) the full caption of the case, including the court, full title, and docket number;
(b) the name and address of each person whom each such statement was made; and
©) the date, place and substance content of each such statement,
ANSWER NO. 6
The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. 6 and as reason therefore
states that said interrogatory is overly broad, unduly vague and burdensome, seeks information
which is neither relevant nor material to this litigation, and is otherwise beyond the scope of
permissible discovery under Mass. R. Civ. P. 26. Without waiving this objection, the defendant
states as follows:
Just once in approximately the late 1990’s in a non-medical malpractice case about a patient in
which I was not a defendant.
INTERROGATORY NO.7
Has the defendant, or any person to the defendant's knowledge obtained any statements, in any
form, from any person, relating to or concerning the incident alleged in the complaint? If so,
please supply:
fa) the name and address of each person making such statements;
(b) the name and address of each person to whom each such statements was made; and
(c) the date, place and verbatim content of each such statement.
lo
ANSWER NO. 7
‘The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. 7 and as reason therefore
states that said interrogatory is overly broad and unduly vague and burdensome, and seeks
information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and
seeks information within the scope of the attorney-client and/or work product privileges.
Without waiving this objection, none other than statements which may be contained in the
medical records that have been exchanged between the parties in this matter.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8
State the name and address of each person whom the defendant believes is a witness to, or has
knowledge of any of facts or circumstances alleged by the plaintiff's decedent.
ANSWER NO. 8
The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. 8 and as reason therefore
‘states that said interrogatory is overly broad, and unduly vague and burdensome. Without
waiving this objection, the defendant states as follows:
I am not aware any witnesses, other than the medical providers identified in the medical record
of Ms. Roberts, and possibly her family members.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9
State the name and present address of each person whom the defendant expects may be called by
the defendant as an expert witness at the trial of this action, and as to each such expert, please
provide:
(a) his/her qualifications with particular reference to the issues about which such
person may be called to testify at the trial of this action;
(b) the subject matter on which each expert may be expected to testify;
©) the substance of the facts and opinions to which each such expert may be expected
to testify; and
@ the grounds for the opinions of each such expert.
ANSWER NO. 9
The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., states that no determination has been made at this time
with regard to whom, if anyone, will be called as an expert witness at trial. The defendant
expressly incorporates herein by reference and as supplementation to this response to the extent
required by Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A)(i) and 26(c) any and all disclosures of experts set forth
in the Pre-Trial Memorandum to be filed with the Court.
11
INTERROGATORY NO. 10
Please state whether you claim to be a public employee immune from liability under G.L. c.258 at
the time you treated the plaintiff's decedent.
ANSWER NO. 10
Not applicable.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11
If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is anything but an unqualified negative, please:
(@) identify the public employer by whom you claim to have been employed; and
(b) set forth all facts and circumstances surrounding your alleged employment with
that public employer which you claim support your defense that you were a public
employee when you treated the plaintiff's decedent.
ANSWER NO. 11
Not applicable.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12
During the period of the alleged negligence, if you were employed by any professional
corporation or entity, please identify the full name and address of such entities, the period of the
employment, and any office or position you held.
ANSWER NO. 12
Between 2011 through approximately 2015, 1 was employed by G. Curtis Barry, M.D., P.C., 489
Bearse’s Way, Unit A-4, Hyannis, MA 02601. From 2015 through approximately 2019, I
believe I was employed by Massachusetts Immediate Care.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13
Please identify the insurance carrier, policy period and policy limits for all primary and excess
insurance policies which provide coverage for the alleged incident including, individual policies and
professional organizations policies.
ANSWER NO, 13
The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. 13 and as reason therefore
states that said interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and may call for a legal
12
conclusion regarding the applicability of insurance coverage, and otherwise exceeds the scope of
permissible discovery under Mass. R, Civ. P. 26 and 33.
Without waiving this objection, and subject specifically to it, the defendant refers the plaintiff to
the policy declaration page from Dr. Mahoney’s professional liability insurance carrier, which
has been produced in response to plaintiff's request for production of documents.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14
State whether you have ever pleaded guilty or been convicted of:
(a) any criminal offense(s) involving dishonesty or false statements;
(6) any felonies within the last ten (10) years; or
© any misdemeanors within the last five (5) years,
and if so, state the charge, date, Court and disposition.
ANSWER NO. 14
The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. 14 on the grounds that it is
overly broad, unduly vague and burdensome, seeks information which is neither relevant nor
material to this litigation and is otherwise beyond the scope of permissible discovery under
Mass. R. Civ. P. 26 and 33. Without waiving this objection, the defendant states as follows:
None.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15
State whether you have ever been investigated by any state licensing board, including the Board
of Registration in Medicine, and if so, state the name of the complainant, the date of the
complaint, the nature of the complaint, the disposition of the complaint, whether your license
was suspended, revoked, or limited in any way, whether you entered into a consent order,
whether your right to practice medicine was limited or restricted in any way, and whether you
were reprimanded, censured or disciplined in any way.
ANSWER NO. 15
The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. {5 and as reason therefore
states that said interrogatory is overly broad, seeks information which is-neither relevant nor
material to this litigation, and is otherwise beyond the scope of permissible discovery under
Mass. R, Civ. P. 26. Without waiving this objection, and subject specifically to it, the defendant
states as follows:
I have had two consumer complaints filed against me in approximately 2004 and 2010, both of
which were closed without any further investigation and with no recommendation for discipline.
13
INTERROGATORY NO. 16
State whether you have ever been the subject of any hospital investigation(s), and whether your
privileges to practice at any hospital have ever been limited, restricted, suspended, or revoked,
and if so, state the facts and circumstances surrounding any such investigation or disciplinary
action.
ANSWER NO. 16
The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. 16 and as reason therefore
states that said interrogatory is overly broad, seeks information which is neither relevant nor
material to this litigation, and is otherwise beyond the scope of permissible discovery under
Mass. R. Civ. P. 26. Without waiving this objection, and subject specifically to. it, the defendant
states as follows:
No.
SIGNED UNDER THE PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THIS
Gvk
DAY OF August, 2021
ws lau Machina md,
Sharon Mahoney, M.D.
AS TO OBJECTIONS
Hs/!_ Stephen M. O’Shea
Stephen M. O’Shea (BBO No. 559236)
Michael J. Keefe (BBO No. 263751)
Attorneys for the Defendant,
Sharon Mahoney, M.D.
Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney
101 Merrimac Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
(617) 227-3240
oshea@mmmk.com
mkeefe@mmmk.con
14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Stephen M. O’Shea, counsel for the defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., hereby certify
that on the day of August, I served the above document by electronically mailing a copy
thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Adam Satin, Esq. Edward Hinchey, Esq.
Lynn Hu, Esq. Tanya K. Oldenhoff, Esq.
Lubin & Meyer Hinchey and Oldenhoff
100 City Hall Plaza, 4th Mashpee Commons
Floor Boston, MA 0210 22 Steeple St., Suite 203
satin@|ubinandmeyer.com ehinche: hinch p.com
thu lubinandmeyer.com toldenhoff@hincheyllp.com
Christopher Lavoie, Esq.
Allyson Hamerstedt, Esq.
Dunn and Dunn
11] Beacon Street #1100 Boston,
MA 02108
ahammerstedt@dunnanddunn.com
lavoie@dunnanddunn.com
Stephen M. O’Shea (BBO No. 559236)
Michael J, Keefe (BBO No. 263751)
Attorneys for the Defendant,
Sharon Mahoney, M.D.
Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney
101 Merrimac Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
(617) 227-3240
oshea@mmmk.com
mkeefe@mmmk.com
15
Preview
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS BARNSTABLE, SS. SUPERIOR COURT NO. 1872CV00606 DOUGLASA. CAPAK, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DAWN MARIE ROBERTS, Plaintiff Vv. CLOEF. SHELTON, M.D. ANTHONY CARAVELLO, M.D. SHARON MAHONEY, M.D. SUSAN ANDEREGG, M.D. CAPE COD HOSPITAL, TRISTAN MEDICAL, P.C., G CURTIS BARRY, M.D., P.C., and CAPE COD OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, P.C. Defendants FIRST MOTION IN LIMINE OF THE DEFENDANTS, SHARON MAHONEY, M.D. TRISTAN MEDICAL, P.C., AND G. CURTIS BARRY, M.D., P.C., TO DISMISS ALL CLAIMS AGAINST TRISTAN MEDICAL, P.C, IN COUNSTS XLI TO XLVID OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Now come the defendants, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., Tristan Medical, P.C., and G. Curtis Barry, M.D., P.C., and hereby move to dismiss all claims against Tristan Medical, P.C. set forth in Counts XLI to XLVIII ofplaintiff's Complaint. As grounds for this motion, the defendants state as follows: 1 The plaintiff filed this medical malpractice action alleging that the defendants were Ni negligent in connection with the interpretation and follow-up care required for Dawn Roberts stemming from an abdominal and pelvic CT scan performed on November 11, 2011, which identified a right adrenal gland mass, and that Ms, Roberts succumbed to adrenal cortical carcinoma on July 6, 20 17.! The plaintiff's experts have been disclosed to testify that had Ms. Roberts had the follow-up dedicated MRI or CT scan of the adrenal glands in 2011 or 2012, then her cancer would have been diagnosed and treated as early as 2011 or 2012, “when it was amenable to cure, and she would not have suffered a premature and preventable death in July 2017.” See plaintiff's expert disclosures attached to the Joint Pre-Trial Memorandum on file with the Court. There is no claim by plaintiff's experts that Ms. Roberts’ highly aggressive cancer would have been amenable to cure if it had been diagnosed and treated at any point after 2012. See plaintiff's expert disclosures attached to the Joint Pre-Trial Memorandum on file with the Court. The claims asserted against the defendant, G. Curtis Barry, M.D., P.C. are for vicarious liability for the actions of the defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D. Between 2011 and 2015, Dr. Mahoney was employed by G. Curtis Barry, M.D., P.C., d/b/a Mid Cape Medical Center. See Answers and Objections of the Defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., at Answer No. 12, fattached hereto. In 2015, G. Curtis Barry, M.D., P.C. sold its assets to Massachusetts Immediate Care, LLC and changed its d/b/a to Tristan Medical Center. There is no legal entity by the name of Tristan Medical Center. ' The claim against the defendant, Anthony Caravello, M.D., is also based upon his alleged failure to properly interpret and make recommendations for a dedicated MRI or CT scan of the adrenal glands when he interpreted a CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis on July 18, 2012. 8. Atno time did the named defendant, Tristan Medical, P.C., ever hold an ownership or other interest in G. Curtis Barry, M.D., P.C., d/b/a Mide Cape Medical Center, nor did it ever employ Dr. Mahoney or have anything to do with the care and treatment rendered to Ms. Roberts. The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., was an employee of G. Curtis Barry, M.D., P.C. at all times relevant to this case. 10. G. Curtis Barry M.D., P.C. will stipulate that at all relevant times in this case, Dr. ¢ Mahoney was an employee of G. Curtis Barry, M.D., P.C. Wherefore, the defendants, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., Tristan Medical, P.C., and G. Curtis Barry, M.D., P.C., hereby move to dismiss all claims against Tristan Medical, P.C. set forth in Counts XLI to XLVIII of plaintiff's Complaint Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen M. O’Shea Stephen M. O'Shea BBO No. 559236 Michael J. Keefe BBO No. 263751 Attorneys for Defendant Sharon Mahoney, M.D., Tristan Medical, P.C. and G. Curtis Barry M.D., P.C. Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney 101 Merrimac Street, 7th Floor Boston, MA 02114 617-227-3240 soshea@mmmk.com mkeefe@mmmk.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen M. O’Shea hereby certify that a true copy of the above document was served on November 24, 2023 by emailing a copy thereof to: Adam Satin, Esq. Edward Hinchey, Esq. Lynn Hu, Esq. Tanya K. Oldenhoff, Esq. Lubin & Meyer Sloane and Walsh 100 City Hall Plaza, 4th Floor One Center Plaza, Floor 8 Boston, MA 02108 Boston, MA 02108 astatin@lubinandmeyer.com ehinchey@hincheyllp.com lhu@lubinandmeyer.com toldenhoff@bincheyllp.cpm Christopher Lavoie, Esq. Allyson Hammerstedt, Esq. Dunn and Dunn 11 Beacon Street #1100 Boston, MA 02108 ahammerstedt@dunnanddunn.com clavoie@dunnanddunn.com ts/ Stephen M. O’Shea Stephen M. O'Shea BBO No. 559236 Michael J. Keefe BBO No. 263751 Attorneys for Defendant Tristan Medical, P.C. Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney 101 Merrimac Street, 7th Floor Boston, MA 02114 617-227-3240 soshea@mmmk,com mkeefe(@mmmk.com COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS BARNSTABLE, SS. SUPERIOR COURT NO. 1872CV00606 DOUGLAS A. CAPAK, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DAWN MARIE ROBERTS, Plaintiff Vv. CLOE F. SHELTON, M.D., ANTHONY CARAVELLO, M.D., SHARON MAHONEY, M.D., SUSAN ANDEREGG, M.D., CAPE COD HOSPITAL, TRISTAN MEDICAL, P.C., G CURTIS BARRY, M.D., P.C., and CAPE COD OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, P.C., Defendants - ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT, SHARON MAHONEY, M.D., TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to the Definitions contained in Plaintiff's First Set Of Interrogatories and answers said interrogatories pursuant to Massachusetts Rules Of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO, 1 Please identify yourself fully by stating your full name, date of birth, residential and business address and your occupation. ANSWER NO. 1 The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. | and as reason therefore states that said interrogatory seeks information which is neither relevant nor material to this litigation and is otherwise beyond the scope of permissible discovery under Mass. R. Civ. P. 26. Without waiving this objection, and subject specifically to it, the defendant responds as follows: Sharon Mahoney, M.D.; legal age; Iora Primary Care, 1070 Iyannough Road, Hyannis, MA 02601; Internal Medicine Specialist INTERROGATORY NO. 2 Please provide a full description of your professional credentials, by stating in chronological order the dates and places where you received your undergraduate education, your undergraduate degree, your medical school education, your medical school degree, your internships, your general residencies, your specialty residencies, indicating the branches of medicine covered by specialty residencies, all medical specialty boards and colleges which have certified you, indicating the specialties of such certifications, all state licensures and your complete employment history commencing with your graduation from medical school. ANSWER NO. 2 The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., refers the plaintiff to the copy of her curriculum vitae, which has been or will be produced as part ofher response to plaintiff's request for production of documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 3 For cach and every occasion upon which you spoke with the plaintiff's decedent, communicated with the plaintiffs decedent, saw the plaintiff's decedent, examined the plaintiff's decedent, treated the plaintiff's decedent, or otherwise had any contact whatsoever with the plaintiff's decedent, state separately: (a) the date, time, place and form of contact (¢.g., examination, visit, taking of plaintiffs decedent medical history, phone conversation, surgery, hospital rounds, etc.); () the substance/contents of everything the plaintiff's decedent said or communicated to you, including the substance/content of the plaintiff's decedent medical history taken by you, communicated to the plaintiff's decedent; (©) the substance/contents of everything you said or communicated to the plaintiff's decedent; qd) the name and current address of each person, other than yourself and the plaintiff's decedent who was present; @) the complete details of each examination and diagnostic test you performed on the plaintiff's decedent including the findings of each such examination or test; (f each diagnosis you made regarding the plaintiff's decedent including the basis for each such diagnosis; (8) each alternate diagnosis you made or considered with regard to the plaintiff's decedent including the basis for each such alternative diagnosis, and if appropriate, the reason such diagnosis was rejected; (h) each prognosis you made regarding the plaintiff's decedent including the basis for each such prognosis; @) cach course of treatment you recommended for the plaintiff's decedent including the basis for each such course of treatment: a a complete description of all treatment you rendered to the plaintiff's decedent; &) the name, address and specialty of each physician you contacted with regard to the plaintiff's decedent: ® the substance/content of all communications between yourself and each such physician regarding the plaintiff's decedent: (m) the substance/content of all instructions given by you to the plaintiff's decedent and (n) the substance/content of all communications between you and every nurse regarding the plaintiff's decedent. ANSWER NO. 3 The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. 3 and as reason therefore states that said interrogatory is overly broad and unduly vague and burdensome. The defendant further objects because she saw the plaintiff over the course of more than a decade the medical records related to that treatment are extensive. As a result, the defendant could not possibly provide all the information requested without limiting the timeframe of the interrogatory and/or receiving a more factually specific question. Without waiving this objection, and subject specifically to it, the defendant refers the plaintiff, pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 33(c), please refer to the copy of the complete medical records of Dawn Marie Roberts from G. Curtis Barry, M.D., P.C., which have been or will be exchanged by the parties during this matter. In addition, the defendant states as follow With respect to care provided prior to May 2006, please refer to the medical records. On May 16, 2006, I referred Ms. Roberts for a CT scan of her abdomen and pelvis due to complaints of left sided abdominal pain. The CT scan reportedly revealed an 11mm nodule in the right adrenal gland and the left adrenal gland was unremarkable. The radiologist noted the right adrenal nodule had high attenuation values and suggested further characterization of the nodule with an MRI, Thereafter, I arranged for an MRI of the adrenal glands, which was performed at Cape Cod Hospital on June 4, 2006. The report for that study indicated the 3 findings were consistent with and most likely represented an adrenal adenoma. The radiologist noted that a follow up study in six months to confirm stability may be helpful. On December 4, 2006, Ms. Roberts returned to my office and the need for a follow-up MRI of the adrenal glands with contrast was noted and the study was ordered. She was also referred for a colonoscopy. In addition, she was referred to a dermatologist to evaluate a lesion on the right forearm. The MRI was completed at Cape Cod Hospital on December 8, 2006, and reportedly revealed a stable appearing 11.8 mm right adrenal mass arising from the medial limb demonstrating homogenous drop in signal density on out phase images consistent with a right adrenal adenoma. On February 26, 2007, Ms. Roberts underwent another colonoscopy due to abdominal distress/pain in the left lower quadrant. A few small-mouthed diverticula and an 8 mm polyp were found and there was a note that her pain was more in the left groin area and perhaps a surgical consult for possible hernia should be considered. A repeat colonoscopy was also recommended in five years. Ms. Roberts was seen a few times in 2007 to follow up for GERD, anxiety, depression, weight problems, and for referral for a mammogram. In 2008, Ms. Roberts was seen on various dates to follow up for medication refills for anxiety and depression, for a complaint of lightheadedness with walking, for a Holter monitor, and for weight issues. She also had two “no show” appointments that year. In 2009, Ms. Roberts reportedly had a motor vehicle accident and suffered contusions to her arm, knee, and scalp. She also complained of neck pain. She reported discontinuing her antidepressant medication for three weeks on her own because she ran out of medication. Ata visit on July 13, 2009, Ms, Robert’s reported that she had not been to see Dr. Anderegg in two years and she was not motivated to do anything. On March 4, 2010, Ms. Roberts complained of persistent neck pain stemming from her automobile accident in January 2009. She was diagnosed with a cervical strain and was given a list of physical therapists. On May 14, 2010, Ms. Roberts underwent a pelvic ultrasound for a history of left pelvic pain. This study was ordered by Dr. Anderegg. Other than several small Nabothian cysts, that ultrasound was normal. I received a copy of the report. On June 25, 2010, I noted that Ms. Roberts had her Pap smear with Dr. Anderegg. On physical examination at this visit, the abdomen was benign. On July 20, 2010, Ms. Roberts complained of pain in the mouth after a tooth was pulled. On August 9, 2010, Ms. Roberts was seen for depression/anxiety, obesity, and fatigue. On October 19, 2010, Ms. Roberts reportedly fell while standing. She was diagnosed with contusions on the left knee and left tibia and underwent x-rays of her humerus, left wrist, and left knee. On October 21, 2010, she was reportedly involved in another automobile accident. She was diagnosed with multiple contusions and underwent x-rays. On October 26, 2010, she was seen for left leg pain. She was diagnosed with a left leg contusion, and I referred Ms. Roberts to an orthopedist. On November 9, 2010, she reported that the Lexapro was not working and said she was “really tired”. She also reported complaints of blurry vision and headaches. J referred her to an ophthalmologist and a neurologist. I ordered a CT scan of the head which was reported to be normal. On December 20, 2010, Parag Parekh, M.D. (an ophthalmologist) evaluated Ms. Robert’s vision and reported that her eyes looked very health throughout. On June 3, 2011, Ms. Roberts complained of feeling very depressed and said she did not feel like doing anything. I noted that she had a therapist at the time. At her physical exam on October 14, 2011, Ms. Roberts reported that she did not want to get changed into a gown and complained of abdominal pain. Her issues with over-eating were discussed. The records include the report of a November 11, 2011 CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis without contrast that was ordered by Dr. Anderegg for a history of lower quadrant abdominal pain. That study revealed a “3.3 x 2.8 x 2.3 cm low density mass arising from the medial limb of the right adrenal gland with indeterminate Hounsfield units.” Dr. Shelton interpreted that study, and her impression included a “2 em low- density mass arising from the medial limb of the right adrenal gland likely represents an adenoma but has indeterminate Hounsfield units. Recommend a dedicated adrenal CT or MRI for better characterization.” I reviewed, signed, and placed that report in Ms. Roberts’ chart expecting Dr. Anderegg, who had ordered the study, to follow up with Ms. Roberts regarding the recommendations because I was not asked to do so. I never discussed the CT results or the recommendations with anyone. On November 14, 2011, I referred Ms. Roberts for another colonoscopy due to left lower quadrant pain and because her last colonoscopy had been done in 2007 with a finding of hyperplastic polyps. In addition, the records contain a copy of a report of a bilateral screening mammogram, which was ordered by Dr. Anderegg and was performed on November 29, 2011. That study was normal and routine follow-up in one year was recommended. In addition, the radiologist noted that a “layperson’s letter” was given or mailed to the patient indicating the recommendations for follow-up. Ms. Roberts underwent the colonoscopy on December 5, 2011, which was reportedly normal other than a few small- mouthed diverticula. On July 17, 2012, Ms. Roberts was complaining that her right ribs hurt, and she felt short of breath. She also complained of right back pain, but eventually localized the pain to her right flank. I questioned whether she might have a renal stone, and ordered a renal CT scan of her abdomen and pelvis without contrast to assess for kidney stones. Subsequently, I received, reviewed, and signed the report of the CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis without contrast, which was done on July 18, 2012. The radiologist, Dr. Caravello, noted.that there was no evidence of renal stones in the study, He also noted that in comparing the July 17, 2012 CT scan with the November 11, 2011 CT scan, there was “a stable appearing right adrenal mass statistically representing an adrenal adenoma.” There was no recommendation for a follow-up study. On October 15,2012, Ms. Roberts complained of blurred right eye vision and a headache. Based on the signature in the record, it appears as though someone other than me may have seen her at that visit, A referral to an ophthalmologist was made at that time. Ms. Roberts was seen on October 17, 2012 by an ophthalmologist, Dr. Ansari at OCB, who found her exam to be completely normal. On December 19, 2012, I evaluated Ms. Roberts in connection with an infected tooth. On January 14, 2013, I saw Ms. Roberts for sinus pain and my diagnosis was sinusitis. On March 13, 2013, she complained of dysuria and my diagnosis was a urinary tract infection. On May 2013, I saw Ms. Roberts for chest pain/GERD symptoms and ordered an EKG and Barium Swallow studies. The Barium Swallow revealed a suspected intramural lesion that could be artifactual or an intramural leiomyoma. As a result, I referred Ms. Roberts for an upper GI endoscopy, which was performed by Dr. Michael Feuer at Cape Cod Hospital on June 6, 2013. The results were consistent with reflux esophagitis with no evidence of H Pylori or Barrett’s Esophagus. On June 24, 2013, Ms. Roberts presented to follow-up for her chest pain and GERD. Ms. Roberts complained that it felt like there was something taking up space in her chest. I noted the recent findings of the Barium Swallow and EGD, and her diagnosis was chest pain. I ordered a chest CT scan, which indicated the reason for the study was non-exertional “constant chest pain” Ms. Roberts’ insurer denied approval of the chest CT scan and I filed an appeal on her behalf, noting that Ms. Roberts had GERD, was taking Prilosec, still had anterior chest discomfort, and weighed almost 300 pounds, and I did not think a chest x-ray would be an adequate test. The insurer responded that a chest x-ray would have to be done before a CT scan could be considered. As a result, I ordered the chest x-ray, which was performed on August 8, 2013, and was normal. On November 14, 2013, Ms. Roberts-was evaluated by a Physician’s Assistant (Shelly Ehrenzweig, P.A.) for complaints of a headache and nausea, which Ms. Roberts presumed was related to a sinus infection, although she noted that she had “never had pain like this.” PA Ehrenzweig referred Ms. Roberts to the ER at Cape Cod Hospital to rule out a bleed and she had a head CT scan that day, which revealed no intracranial abnormality. On January 14, 2014, 1 saw Ms. Roberts for a complaint of a cough and pain on the right side of her chest with the cough. I diagnosed Ms. Roberts with an upper respiratory infection/bronchitis and prescribed a z-pack. In June 2014, Ms. Roberts was seen for a painful left hand and an x-ray of her left hand was ordered, Based on the signature of the note and the fact the x-ray was ordered by Helen Dalzell, it appears that I did not see her that day. I next saw Ms. Roberts on September 22, 2014, for a follow-up visit related to her history of fatigue, depression, and weakness. I questioned whether the antidepressant medication should be changed and also noted “stress test” after an in-office EKG revealed borderline left atrial abnormality. The stress test was completed on September 29, 2014, and revealed no abnormality. On February 20, 2015, Ms. Roberts was seen by another provider in the practice for an upper respiratory tract infection. On September 5, 2015, Ms. Roberts was seen by another provider in the practice for issues of depression and anxiety. Ms. Roberts reportedly noted she was having issues being around people and was experiencing palpitations. The physical exam reportedly was unremarkable. PA O’Hara ordered urinalysis, labs, and an echocardiogram to work up the complaint of palpitations. She also started Ms, Roberts on Zoloft. On September 17, 2015, Ms. Roberts returned to see PA O’Hara for a follow-up visit. Ms. Roberts reported that Zoloft made her feel very fatigued and gave her headaches, so she only took it for three days. A sleep study was being arranged and Ms. Roberts was instructed to return to see PA O’Hara in 2 weeks for further follow-up. On October 1, 2015, Ms. Roberts returned to see PA O’ Hara to follow-up on her medications and for her test results. At that time, it was noted that Ms. Roberts had last been in counselling four years earlier: Ms. Roberts’ primary complaint was right wrist pain that had begun the day prior to the visit, PA O’Hara ordered an x-ray of the right wrist, which was negative, and referred Ms. Roberts to a cardiologist for cardiomegaly and LVH consistent with HCVD on her recent echocardiogram. PA O’Hara saw Ms. Roberts again on October 13, 2015, for follow-up with her anti-depressant medications. Ms. Roberts had her sleep study done at Falmouth Hospital on November 2, 2015, which revealed mild obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. A CPAP was recommended. On November 17, 2015, Ms. Roberts returned to see PA O’Hara, who noted the sleep study was completed and revealed mild sleep apnea and the cardiology consult had been performed. PA O’Hara noted that Ms. Roberts would follow up with Dr. Mahoney regarding the sleep apnea, she would have a screening bilateral mammogram and she would see a nutritionist regarding weight loss. Ms. Roberts was scheduled for a mammogram on February 26, 2016, but then rescheduled the appointment to March 9, 2016, and then cancelled that appointment. When Ms. Roberts saw me on March 18, 2016, her chief complaint was left sided pelvic pain before menses and after bowel movements. Ms. Roberts also noted that it usually occurred after a bowel movement, urinating, after orgasm, and was occurring daily. [ performed a physical examination which was essentially normal. I provided Ms. Roberts with names of potential local gynecologists to see for work-up of her pelvic pain, since her previous gynecologist (presumably Dr. Anderegg) had reportedly left the area, Ms. Roberts brought an article about pelvic congestion syndrome to the visit, and { advised that such could be a reasonable diagnosis. | also noted that a screening mammogram had been done that day, and the results of that study done that day revealed no mammographic evidence of malignancy. On June 16, 2016, Ms. Roberts was seen by PA O’Hara for a headache that had lasted for five days, a feeling of pressure in her head, and blurry vision. Ms. Roberts’ blocd pressure at that visit was 150/98, which was up from her baseline of 130s/90s. PA O’Hara noted that based upon the headache that was different than the past, her vision changes, and escalating pain with hypertension, she would refer Ms. Roberts to Cape Cod Hospital ED. After evaluation in the ED at Cape Cod Hospital, Ms. Roberts was scheduled for an MRI of the brain without contrast, which was performed on June 21, 2016. The results of that MRI indicated that a dural fistula could not be ruled out and recommendation was made for MR angiography and contrast enhanced images.. PA Rina Patel created a note in Ms. Roberts’ chart on June 22, 2016, but it is unclear if Ms. Roberts was seen that day because the note indicates “None recorded” for chief complaint, vitals, measurements, screening, review of systems, physical exam and assessment/plan, and there is otherwise no information indicating an exam was done at that time. There is a Shields Appointment Confirmation record in chart which indicates a brain angiogram was scheduied for June 23, 2016, and that study was completed at Cape Cod Hospital that day. However, a post-contrast brain MRI was recommended because that study was an arterial flow sequence study and venous direction flow was saturated out of the images. Asa result, I ordered an MRI of the head without contrast, which was done on June 24, 2016. The radiologist noted a likely draining cortical vein along the left tentorial surface and recommended follow-up to assure stability. Ms. Roberts’ did not return until April 27, 2017. At that time, Ms. Roberts saw PA Patel with complaints of chest heaviness and fluid in her legs. Ms. Roberts weighed 353 pounds, which was a significant increase from her baseline weight of approximately 300 pounds. Her BMI was 58.7 and her blood pressure was 178/110. PA Patel noted that Ms. Roberts presented with fluid in her legs since January, with swelling every day and occasional pain and discomfort. Ms. Roberts also reported chest tightness over the last few weeks, with heart palpitations and shortness of breath with activity and wheezing when laying on her left side. She also reported blurry vision and migraines, but Ms. Roberts said she had not been to the doctor in a few months because she did not have insurance. While she did not report abdominal or pelvic pain, she did report feeling gassy. PA Patel’s physical examination was unremarkable, other than bilateral lower leg edema. PA Patel ordered an electrocardiogram and lab work and recommended compression stockings, PA Patel also told Ms. Roberts that she needed to come in for a primary care appointment with me, which was scheduled for May 9, 2017. On May 9, 2017, I noted Ms. Roberts’ medical problems included morbid obesity, mood disorder, nightmares, obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, pain in pelvis, headache, snoring and magnetic resonance imaging of brain abnormal. In addition, I noted Ms. Roberts complained of worsening GERD, abdominal pain on and off for five months — mostly on the right side, swelling in her legs and an elevated blood pressure. Ms. Roberts also reported not feeling well and having shortness of breath with exertion. My assessment included abdomen pain was of unclear etiology and I ordered a CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis with contrast. In addition, I started Ms. Roberts on HCTZ for her hypertension and started her on Prilosec for GERD. The CT scan ofthe abdomen and pelvis was done at Cape Cod Hospital on May 16, 2017 and revealed a large 16.7 x 13.6 x 14.1 cm retroperitoneal mass centered in the area of the right adrenal gland with invasion into the right hepatic lobe and right kidney and multiple hypodense masses in the lefi and right hepatic lobes measuring up to 3 om, along with multiple bibasilar pulmonary nodules, the largest of which was 9 mm in the left lower lobe. There was also a 2.4 cm nodule to the right of the mass and a 2.5 cm nodule to the left of the mass. The mass was suspicious for adrenocortical carcinoma consistent with metastatic disease. The next day, May 17, 2017, Ms. Roberts returned to review the results of the CT scan. At that time, ! informed Ms. Roberts she did not seem to appreciate the gravity of her condition and thought that she would have surgery to remove the cancer and would be fine. Ms. Roberts informed me that she did not want her testing to interfere with her daughter’s upcoming graduation on May 25". I planned to schedule a biopsy with interventional radiology for a tissue diagnosis, as well as a chest CT scan with contrast to assess the multiple nodules in the lungs. [ also started Ms. Roberts on metoprolol and scheduled her to return on June 13, 2017. The CT scan of the chest was done on May 20, 2017, and revealed 4 nodules ranging from 4 to 6 mm in the right lung and 3 nodules ranging from 5 to 7 mm in the left lung, along with several other smaller nodules. There were also numerous hepatic lesions noted in the report. The impression was innumerable pulmonary nodules, hepatic lesions, and sclerotic heterogeneity worrisome for extensive metastatic disease related to the right retroperitoneal mass. Ms. Roberts returned to the practice on May 24, 2017, and the reason for the visit was noted to be “needs bloodwork.” It appears that blood was drawn for a CBC with differential and a PT INR. A CT scan guided right adrenal gland biopsy was performed at Cape Cod Hospital on May 31, 2017, and a total of 8 eighteen-gauge, core biopsy samples were obtained from the mass. It was also noted there had been significant disease progression throughout the liver since the most recent study just 15 days earlier. The pathology report revealed extensive necrotic tissue suggestive of malignancy, but a follow-up biopsy was recommended to obtain additional viable tumor cells for further analysis. On June 6, 2017, a CT-guided biopsy of the liver was performed at Cape Cod Hospital and a total of 8 core biopsy samples were obtained from the left lobe of the liver. The pathology report for that biopsy reportedly revealed neuroendocrine carcinoma, intermediate grade. The last visit with me was a June 20, 2017, follow-up visit for neuroendocrine carcinoma. I noted that Ms. Roberts would be seen at Dana Farber the following week. Ms. Roberts reported she had been experiencing peripheral edema, a greater than 20 pound weight gain, blurred vision for the last 6 months, a sensation of globus, and abdominal pain. I also noted that we would send out labs to see if Ms. Roberts’ symptoms (fatigue, abdominal pain, and not feeling well) were related to the cancer. A return visit to the office was not scheduled. However, there is a note by PA O’Hara on June 23, 2017, which suggests Ms. Roberts came in for a finger stick for type 2 diabetes and metformin was prescribed. INTERROGATORY NO. 4 Please list by title, author, publisher, volume, edition, and page, each and every article, journal, treatise, text, or book which you did use or had available to refer to in the diagnosis, treatment and care of the plaintiffs decedent condition. ANSWER NO. 4 The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. 4 and as reason therefore states that said interrogatory is overly broad, and unduly vague and burdensome. Without waiving this objection, and subject specifically to it, the defendant answers as follows: None that I recal] at this time. INTERROGATORY NO. 5 Please list by title and publisher all medical journals or other professional periodicals to which you subscribe(d) to: (a) at the time of the alleged negligence; and (b) currently, ANSWER NO. 5 The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. 7 and as reason therefore states that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, irrelevant and immaterial, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Mass. R. Civ. P. 26. Without waiving this objection, and subject specifically to it, the defendant answers as follows: New England Journal of Medicine; JAMA; and ACP Journal. INTERROGATORY NO. 6 For each and every occasion upon which you have ever testified under oath, please state separately. (a) the full caption of the case, including the court, full title, and docket number; (b) the name and address of each person whom each such statement was made; and ©) the date, place and substance content of each such statement, ANSWER NO. 6 The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. 6 and as reason therefore states that said interrogatory is overly broad, unduly vague and burdensome, seeks information which is neither relevant nor material to this litigation, and is otherwise beyond the scope of permissible discovery under Mass. R. Civ. P. 26. Without waiving this objection, the defendant states as follows: Just once in approximately the late 1990’s in a non-medical malpractice case about a patient in which I was not a defendant. INTERROGATORY NO.7 Has the defendant, or any person to the defendant's knowledge obtained any statements, in any form, from any person, relating to or concerning the incident alleged in the complaint? If so, please supply: fa) the name and address of each person making such statements; (b) the name and address of each person to whom each such statements was made; and (c) the date, place and verbatim content of each such statement. lo ANSWER NO. 7 ‘The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. 7 and as reason therefore states that said interrogatory is overly broad and unduly vague and burdensome, and seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and seeks information within the scope of the attorney-client and/or work product privileges. Without waiving this objection, none other than statements which may be contained in the medical records that have been exchanged between the parties in this matter. INTERROGATORY NO. 8 State the name and address of each person whom the defendant believes is a witness to, or has knowledge of any of facts or circumstances alleged by the plaintiff's decedent. ANSWER NO. 8 The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. 8 and as reason therefore ‘states that said interrogatory is overly broad, and unduly vague and burdensome. Without waiving this objection, the defendant states as follows: I am not aware any witnesses, other than the medical providers identified in the medical record of Ms. Roberts, and possibly her family members. INTERROGATORY NO. 9 State the name and present address of each person whom the defendant expects may be called by the defendant as an expert witness at the trial of this action, and as to each such expert, please provide: (a) his/her qualifications with particular reference to the issues about which such person may be called to testify at the trial of this action; (b) the subject matter on which each expert may be expected to testify; ©) the substance of the facts and opinions to which each such expert may be expected to testify; and @ the grounds for the opinions of each such expert. ANSWER NO. 9 The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., states that no determination has been made at this time with regard to whom, if anyone, will be called as an expert witness at trial. The defendant expressly incorporates herein by reference and as supplementation to this response to the extent required by Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A)(i) and 26(c) any and all disclosures of experts set forth in the Pre-Trial Memorandum to be filed with the Court. 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 10 Please state whether you claim to be a public employee immune from liability under G.L. c.258 at the time you treated the plaintiff's decedent. ANSWER NO. 10 Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 11 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is anything but an unqualified negative, please: (@) identify the public employer by whom you claim to have been employed; and (b) set forth all facts and circumstances surrounding your alleged employment with that public employer which you claim support your defense that you were a public employee when you treated the plaintiff's decedent. ANSWER NO. 11 Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 12 During the period of the alleged negligence, if you were employed by any professional corporation or entity, please identify the full name and address of such entities, the period of the employment, and any office or position you held. ANSWER NO. 12 Between 2011 through approximately 2015, 1 was employed by G. Curtis Barry, M.D., P.C., 489 Bearse’s Way, Unit A-4, Hyannis, MA 02601. From 2015 through approximately 2019, I believe I was employed by Massachusetts Immediate Care. INTERROGATORY NO. 13 Please identify the insurance carrier, policy period and policy limits for all primary and excess insurance policies which provide coverage for the alleged incident including, individual policies and professional organizations policies. ANSWER NO, 13 The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. 13 and as reason therefore states that said interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and may call for a legal 12 conclusion regarding the applicability of insurance coverage, and otherwise exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Mass. R, Civ. P. 26 and 33. Without waiving this objection, and subject specifically to it, the defendant refers the plaintiff to the policy declaration page from Dr. Mahoney’s professional liability insurance carrier, which has been produced in response to plaintiff's request for production of documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 14 State whether you have ever pleaded guilty or been convicted of: (a) any criminal offense(s) involving dishonesty or false statements; (6) any felonies within the last ten (10) years; or © any misdemeanors within the last five (5) years, and if so, state the charge, date, Court and disposition. ANSWER NO. 14 The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. 14 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly vague and burdensome, seeks information which is neither relevant nor material to this litigation and is otherwise beyond the scope of permissible discovery under Mass. R. Civ. P. 26 and 33. Without waiving this objection, the defendant states as follows: None. INTERROGATORY NO. 15 State whether you have ever been investigated by any state licensing board, including the Board of Registration in Medicine, and if so, state the name of the complainant, the date of the complaint, the nature of the complaint, the disposition of the complaint, whether your license was suspended, revoked, or limited in any way, whether you entered into a consent order, whether your right to practice medicine was limited or restricted in any way, and whether you were reprimanded, censured or disciplined in any way. ANSWER NO. 15 The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. {5 and as reason therefore states that said interrogatory is overly broad, seeks information which is-neither relevant nor material to this litigation, and is otherwise beyond the scope of permissible discovery under Mass. R, Civ. P. 26. Without waiving this objection, and subject specifically to it, the defendant states as follows: I have had two consumer complaints filed against me in approximately 2004 and 2010, both of which were closed without any further investigation and with no recommendation for discipline. 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 16 State whether you have ever been the subject of any hospital investigation(s), and whether your privileges to practice at any hospital have ever been limited, restricted, suspended, or revoked, and if so, state the facts and circumstances surrounding any such investigation or disciplinary action. ANSWER NO. 16 The defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., objects to Interrogatory No. 16 and as reason therefore states that said interrogatory is overly broad, seeks information which is neither relevant nor material to this litigation, and is otherwise beyond the scope of permissible discovery under Mass. R. Civ. P. 26. Without waiving this objection, and subject specifically to. it, the defendant states as follows: No. SIGNED UNDER THE PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THIS Gvk DAY OF August, 2021 ws lau Machina md, Sharon Mahoney, M.D. AS TO OBJECTIONS Hs/!_ Stephen M. O’Shea Stephen M. O’Shea (BBO No. 559236) Michael J. Keefe (BBO No. 263751) Attorneys for the Defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D. Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney 101 Merrimac Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114 (617) 227-3240 oshea@mmmk.com mkeefe@mmmk.con 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen M. O’Shea, counsel for the defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D., hereby certify that on the day of August, I served the above document by electronically mailing a copy thereof, postage prepaid, to: Adam Satin, Esq. Edward Hinchey, Esq. Lynn Hu, Esq. Tanya K. Oldenhoff, Esq. Lubin & Meyer Hinchey and Oldenhoff 100 City Hall Plaza, 4th Mashpee Commons Floor Boston, MA 0210 22 Steeple St., Suite 203 satin@|ubinandmeyer.com ehinche: hinch p.com thu lubinandmeyer.com toldenhoff@hincheyllp.com Christopher Lavoie, Esq. Allyson Hamerstedt, Esq. Dunn and Dunn 11] Beacon Street #1100 Boston, MA 02108 ahammerstedt@dunnanddunn.com lavoie@dunnanddunn.com Stephen M. O’Shea (BBO No. 559236) Michael J, Keefe (BBO No. 263751) Attorneys for the Defendant, Sharon Mahoney, M.D. Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney 101 Merrimac Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114 (617) 227-3240 oshea@mmmk.com mkeefe@mmmk.com 15