Preview
1 Stephen B. Heath - 237622
sheath@heathandyuen.com
2 Steven W. Yuen - 230768
syuen@heathandyuen.com
3 Joshua G. Wong - 306744 ELECTRONICALLY
jwong@heathandyuen.com FILED
4 HEATH & YUEN, APC Superior Court of California,
268 Bush Street, #3006 County of San Francisco
5 San Francisco, CA 94104 03/19/2021
Tel: (415) 622-7004 Clerk of the Court
6 Fax: (415) 373-3957 BY: JUDITH NUNEZ
Deputy Clerk
7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND
8 BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
11 GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND Case No.: CGC-17-557561
BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON,
12 PLAINTIFFS GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON,
Plaintiffs, AND BEVERLY PRESLEY NELSON’S
13 EXHIBIT INDEX, AND EXHIBITS FOR EX
v. PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER
14 SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR MOTION
DAVID KING-STEPHENS, M.D., SUTTER FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED
15 HEALTH, SUTTER WEST BAY HOSPITALS COMPLAINT, AND MOTION THEREON
DBA CALIFORNIA PACIFIC MEDICAL
16 CENTER, AND DOES 1 TO 50, [C.R.C. Rule 3.1110(f)]
17 Defendants. Date: March 22, 2021
Time: 9:30 a.m.
18 Judge: Hon Garrett L. Wong
Dept.: 504
19 File Date: March 15, 2017
Trial Date: March 17, 2021
20
21 Document Name Exhibit
22 Declaration of Steven W. Yuen.............................................................................................................. A
23 Former defendant Murali Ranjithan, M.D. deposition excerpts ............................................................ B
24 Defendant David King-Stephens, M.D. deposition excerpts ................................................................. C
25 Plaintiff Gary R. Presley-Nelson February 22, 2018 deposition excerpts ............................................. D
26 Plaintiff Beverly Presley-Nelson April 26, 2018 deposition excerpts ................................................... E
27 Dr. Ranjithan’s retained expert radiologist Daniel Hightower, M.D. deposition excerpts .................... F
28 Plaintiffs’ complaint ............................................................................................................................... G
-1-
PLAINTIFFS GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND BEVERLY PRESLEY NELSON’S EXHIBIT INDEX, AND
EXHIBITS FOR EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND MOTION THEREON
1 Document Name Exhibit
2 Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint ................................................................................................... H
3 Wendy H. Yang declaration in plaintiffs’ opposition to defendant’s dispositive motion ....................... I
4 Plaintiffs’ ex parte notice ........................................................................................................................ J
5 Plaintiffs’ proposed third amended complaint ....................................................................................... K
6 DATED: March 19, 2021
HEATH & YUEN, APC
7
8
By
9 Steven W. Yuen
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
10 GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND
BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
1 Stephen B. Heath - 237622
sheath@heathandyuen.com
2 Steven W. Yuen - 230768
syuen@heathandyuen.com
3 Joshua G. Wong - 306744
jwong@heathandyuen.com
4 HEATH & YUEN, APC
268 Bush Street, #3006
5 San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: (415) 622-7004
6 Fax: (415) 373-3957
7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND
8 BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
11 GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND Case No.: CGC-17-557561
BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON,
12 DECLARATION OF STEVEN W. YUEN IN
Plaintiffs, SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS GARY R.
13 PRESLEY-NELSON, AND BEVERLY
v. PRESLEY-NELSON’S EX PARTE
14 APPLICATION FOR ORDER
DAVID KING-STEPHENS, M.D., SUTTER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR MOTION
15 HEALTH, SUTTER WEST BAY HOSPITALS FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED
DBA CALIFORNIA PACIFIC MEDICAL COMPLAINT, AND MOTION THEREON
16 CENTER, AND DOES 1 TO 50,
Judge: Hon Garrett L. Wong
17 Defendants. Dept.: 504
File Date: March 15, 2017
18 Trial Date: March 17, 2021
19 I, Steven W. Yuen, declare:
20 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in all courts of the State of California, and am
21 the managing partner of the law firm of Heath & Yuen, APC, attorneys of record for
22 plaintiffs Gary R. Presley-Nelson, and Beverly Presley-Nelson (collectively herein “plaintiffs”). As
23 part of my managing partner duties, I oversee between approximately 150 to 175 cases at any one time.
24 I have personal knowledge of the information set forth herein, all of which is true and correct of my
25 own personal knowledge, and if called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto.
26 2. The daily handling of this case was assigned to my senior associate Joshua G. Wong.
27 3. I did not draft plaintiffs’ original complaint; my senior associate did. My associate was
28 also handling the challenges to the prior versions of plaintiffs’ complaints. I prepared plaintiffs’
-1-
DECLARATION OF STEVEN W. YUEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND
BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND MOTION THEREON
Exhibit A
1 second amended complaint by essentially deleting words that were required to be deleted after a
2 successful challenge to the prior complaint, leaving only a first cause of action for medical negligence,
3 and a second cause of action for loss of consortium. When I prepared the second amended complaint,
4 no depositions had yet occurred.
5 4. On November 29, 2019, I, on plaintiffs behalf, accepted and had filed Dr. Ranjithan’s
6 statutory 998 offer to compromise to agree to dismiss him, and did dismiss him.
7 5. Trial was previously set in this matter for December 2, 2019, and December 14, 2020. I
8 did not prepare the trial pleadings for the prior trial calls; my senior associate did. I also did not appear
9 at the December 2, 2019 trial call as I was in trial in the matter of Lian Tong v. Wu, et al. venued
10 in San Francisco Superior Court. At the December 14, 2020 trial call, the court continued trial to
11 March 17, 2021.
12 6. To prepare for the March 17, 2021 trial, I began analyzing the trial pleadings my senior
13 associate had prepared beginning on March 3, 2021. In analyzing plaintiffs’ trial pleadings, I noticed it
14 had omitted information relating to Dr. Ranjithan, which was correct, as he was no longer a defendant
15 in this case, having previously been dismissed. After completing my review of plaintiffs’ trial
16 pleadings, I then started analyzing all of the other case information, including the deposition transcripts
17 of the other now dismissed defendants in which plaintiffs’ claims of negligence against them were no
18 longer at issue. During my review of Dr. Ranjithan, and Dr. Hightower’s deposition transcripts, I
19 noticed similar testimony that they both opined they saw a cyst on plaintiff Gary Presley-Nelson’s
20 2008 MRI. I then analyzed plaintiffs’ original complaint, and the operative second amended complaint
21 to confirm if plaintiffs had previously alleged an ultimate fact that defendant did not report this cyst to
22 plaintiffs, and confirmed it was alleged. Thus, I began preparing page and line designations of both of
23 these witnesses on March 10, 2021 as required by Local Rule 6.3. I also modified plaintiffs’ trial
24 pleadings to conform to the previously alleged ultimate fact to provide notice that plaintiffs would be
25 moving to amend their complaint to conform to proof. Plaintiffs filed and served their trial pleadings
26 on March 17, 2021. After the trial pleadings were served, I realized that since trial was bifurcated such
27 that defendant’s one-year statute of limitations affirmative defense was tried first, plaintiffs may be
28 unable to amend their complaint to conform to proof.
-2-
DECLARATION OF STEVEN W. YUEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND
BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND MOTION THEREON
1 7. Thus on March 18, 2021, I e-mailed notice to defendant’s counsel that plaintiffs would
2 be appearing ex parte on Monday, March 22, 2021 in department 504 to apply for an order shortening
3 time to file, serve, and hear their motion for leave to file a third amended complaint to add two new
4 causes of action for fraudulent concealment and negligent misrepresentation based on the previously
5 pled ultimate facts, which support these causes of action, and which relate back. Attached to the
6 exhibit index as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of plaintiffs’ ex parte notice. Defendant’s counsel
7 responded requesting more information, and stating they essentially oppose plaintiffs’ application.
8 8. Defendant David King-Stephens, M.D. (“defendant”) is represented by James M.
9 Goodman, Warren R. Webster, and Erik S. Faussner of Hassard Bonnington LLP, 275 Battery Street,
10 16th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111, (415) 288-9800, and John L. Supple, Robert R. Deering,
11 and Madeleine Lough-Stevens of J Supple Law, A Professional Corporation, 990 5th Avenue,
12 San Rafael, California 94901-6105, (415) 366-5533.
13 9. On March 19, 2021, plaintiffs are electronically serving a copy of this ex parte
14 application upon defendant by e-mail.
15 10. Plaintiffs have not previously applied for an order to shorten time to file, serve, and to
16 hear their motion for leave to file a third amended complaint.
17 11. Attached to the exhibit index as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of former defendant
18 Murali Ranjithan, M.D.’s deposition excerpts. Although I took this deposition on April 8, 2019, I did
19 not recall the specifics of his testimony, nor had I reviewed his deposition transcript until March 10,
20 2021.
21 12. Attached to the exhibit index as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of defendant David
22 King-Stephens, M.D.’s (herein “defendant”) deposition excerpts.
23 13. Attached to the exhibit index as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of plaintiff Gary
24 Presley-Nelson February 22, 2018’s deposition excerpts.
25 14. Attached to the exhibit index as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of plaintiff Beverly
26 Presley-Nelson April 26, 2018’s deposition excerpts.
27 ///
28 ///
-3-
DECLARATION OF STEVEN W. YUEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND
BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND MOTION THEREON
1 15. Attached to the exhibit index as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Dr. Ranjithan’s
2 retained radiology expert Daniel Hightower, M.D.’s deposition excerpts, which I did not appear at; my
3 senior associate appeared.
4 16. Attached to the exhibit index as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of excerpts of
5 plaintiffs’ original complaint filed on March 15, 2017.
6 17. Attached to the exhibit index as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of excerpts of
7 plaintiffs’ second amended complaint
8 18. Attached to the exhibit index as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of the declaration of
9 Wendy H. Yang submitted in support of plaintiffs’ opposition to defendant’s first dispositive motion.
10 19. Attached to the exhibit index as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of plaintiffs’
11 proposed third amended complaint.
12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true
13 and correct, and this declaration was executed on March 19, 2021.
14
15 Steven W. Yuen
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
DECLARATION OF STEVEN W. YUEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND
BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND MOTION THEREON
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
3 ---O0O---
4 GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND
BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON,
5
Plaintiff,
6
vs. CASE NO. CGC-17-557561
7
DAVID KING-STEPHENS, M.D.,
8 SUTTER HEALTH SUTTER WEST BAY
HOSPITALS DBA CALIFORNIA
9 PACIFIC MEDICAL CENTER, AND
DOES 1 TO 50,
10
Defendants.
11 ___________________________/
12
13
14 DEPOSITION OF MURALI RANJITHAN, M.D.
15
16
17
18 Taken before DIANA L. GONZALEZ
19 CSR No. 7935
20 April 8, 2019
21
22
Aiken Welch Court Reporters
23 One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 250
Oakland, California 94612
24 (510) 451-1580/(877) 451-1580
Fax: (510) 451-3797
25 www.aikenwelch.com
Exhibit B
Page 4
1 DEPOSITION OF MURALI RANJITHAN, M.D.
2
3 BE IT REMEMBERED, that pursuant to Notice, and
4 on the 8th day of April, 2019, commencing at the hour
5 of 10:01 a.m., in the offices of Aiken Welch Court
6 Reporters, 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1520, San
7 Francisco, California, before me, DIANA L. GONZALEZ, a
8 Certified Shorthand Reporter, personally appeared
9 MURALI RANJITHAN, M.D., produced as a witness in said
10 action, and being by me first duly sworn, was thereupon
11 examined as a witness in said cause.
12 ---o0o---
13 APPEARANCES:
14 For the Plaintiff:
15 STEVEN W. YUEN
Heath & Yuen
16 268 Bush Street, Suite 3006
San Francisco, California 94104
17 (415) 622-7004
syuen@heathandyuen.com
18
19
For the Defendant David King-Stephens, M.D.:
20
JAMES M. GOODMAN
21 Hassard Bonnington LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 1600
22 San Francisco, California 94111
(415) 288-9800
23 jmg@hassard.com
24
25
Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019
Page 93
1 A. Other than what we just mentioned, no.
2 Q. You prepared a report back in 2008, correct,
3 for Mr. Presley-Nelson?
4 A. I see that report has my name on it.
5 Q. Did you ever review it after preparing it and
6 potentially editing it?
7 A. Not that I know of.
8 Q. You talked about invasion of surrounding
9 structures. What do you mean by "invasion of
10 surrounding structures"?
11 A. What part of that is unclear?
12 Q. Is it -- do you see a certain type of image
13 going into other parts of the brain or organ, and that
14 determines whether it's benign or not benign?
15 MR. ZENERE: You're asking expert questions
16 again.
17 MR. PRYOR: As phrased, that is calling for
18 expert testimony, beyond the scope of this percipient
19 witness at deposition.
20 BY MR. YUEN:
21 Q. What I want to learn is what you recall during
22 your residency.
23 MR. ZENERE: That wasn't your question.
24 MR. YUEN: Well --
25 MR. PRYOR: You can have -- sorry to interrupt
Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019
Page 97
1 MR. YUEN: We'll go ahead and mark this as
2 Exhibit 2.
3 (Document marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2
4 for identification.)
5 BY MR. YUEN:
6 Q. I've marked as Exhibit 2 a Health Diagnostics
7 logo report.
8 Do you recognize what has been marked as
9 Exhibit 2, Doctor?
10 A. I recognize it because I reviewed it recently.
11 Q. When did you review this Exhibit 2?
12 A. About a month ago, two months ago.
13 Q. In reviewing this report, did it refresh your
14 recollection as to the events that occurred back in
15 2008?
16 A. No.
17 Q. On average when you were working at the Health
18 Diagnostics site in Daly City, how many studies would
19 you interpret per day?
20 A. Maybe between 20 and 40 studies.
21 Q. And, typically, that would be for how many
22 patients?
23 A. Same number.
24 Q. And in this report, did you transcribe
25 everything stated on here?
Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019
Page 98
1 A. I didn't transcribe it. I dictated it.
2 Q. You dictated it, okay.
3 Did you dictate everything on here in this
4 report marked as Exhibit 2?
5 A. I don't recall.
6 Q. Did you dictate the -- that the logo be added
7 to your report at the top?
8 A. I don't recall.
9 Q. Did you dictate that the address and phone and
10 fax information be added to the top?
11 A. I don't recall.
12 Q. Do you deny dictating this report as
13 transcribed in Exhibit 2?
14 MR. PRYOR: Objection. Argumentative as
15 phrased.
16 You can answer.
17 THE WITNESS: I don't deny.
18 BY MR. YUEN:
19 Q. Where did you get the information for the
20 "study" line?
21 A. What do you mean?
22 Q. You see how the first line is "Study: MRI of
23 the brain with and without contrast"? Is that
24 information that is filled in for you, or do you
25 dictate that?
Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019
Page 111
1 If you understand his question, you can answer.
2 THE WITNESS: So I presume that I would have
3 obtained that information from the provided clinical
4 history. But I don't recall specifically being in this
5 situation.
6 BY MR. YUEN:
7 Q. Okay. Next part of that sentence says, "with a
8 CSF-filled cavity."
9 What did you mean at the time you dictated this
10 report when you used the word -- the acronym or
11 initials "CSF"?
12 A. Cerebral spinal fluid.
13 Q. Could you see the CSF on the studies itself?
14 A. I don't recall.
15 Q. Would you have put this information -- or
16 dictated this information of a CSF-filled cavity if you
17 didn't see it on the studies, on the images?
18 A. This was my interpretation of the images that
19 were in front of me with the clinical history.
20 Q. Okay. And you use the words "in the prior
21 surgical bed." What do you mean by "prior surgical
22 bed" in this report?
23 A. Based on the clinical indication section, along
24 with the images in the scan, I presume that my
25 interpretation was this was a postoperative finding.
Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019
Page 128
1 Q. And the anterior falx, where is that located as
2 used here?
3 A. That's the front of the brain. The midline.
4 Q. The midline?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Is there anything in this report indicating the
7 presence of a benign cyst?
8 MR. PRYOR: Well, he's not here to look at it
9 to give you his current opinion.
10 MR. YUEN: I'm not asking for your current
11 opinion.
12 MR. PRYOR: As phrased, you just did.
13 MR. YUEN: Let me withdraw it, and I'll
14 rephrase it.
15 BY MR. YUEN:
16 Q. When you dictated this report, did you use any
17 words to indicate the presence of a benign cyst that
18 you saw?
19 MR. ZENERE: Document speaks for itself.
20 MR. PRYOR: Join.
21 You can answer.
22 THE WITNESS: I don't see the term "benign
23 cyst" anywhere in this report.
24 BY MR. YUEN:
25 Q. Even though the words "benign cyst" are not in
Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019
Page 129
1 this report, are there any other words that are
2 comparable to a benign cyst that is in this report?
3 MR. PRYOR: Same objection.
4 You can go ahead.
5 THE WITNESS: One could interpret the
6 CSF-filled cavity I'm describing, that's described in
7 the report, as a benign cyst.
8 MR. YUEN: Can I get the answer read back.
9 (Record read.)
10 BY MR. YUEN:
11 Q. When you worked for Health Diagnostics -- when
12 you worked at the Health Diagnostics facility in Daly
13 City, did you ever get any type of contact from
14 referring physicians of questions about your reports?
15 MR. ZENERE: Object to the form of the
16 question. It's argumentative.
17 MR. PRYOR: I actually didn't hear it at all,
18 or I certainly didn't hear it clearly. Could we have
19 it back, please.
20 (Record read.)
21 BY MR. YUEN:
22 Q. So you did this report, it gets sent to the
23 referring physician. Before 2009 at Health Diagnostics
24 facility, did any of the referring physicians ever
25 contact you back to say, "Hey, I have a question
Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019
Page 145
1 Q. Go ahead.
2 MR. PRYOR: You can -- that's a really, really,
3 really bad question. So you can leave it as is. I
4 don't understand it.
5 If you happen to understand it, you can answer
6 it.
7 THE WITNESS: I don't understand it. Can you
8 rephrase it?
9 BY MR. YUEN:
10 Q. Back in -- before 2009, you had used the words
11 "benign cyst" earlier today, correct?
12 MR. PRYOR: That question makes no sense.
13 BY MR. YUEN:
14 Q. You used the words "benign cyst" today,
15 correct?
16 A. I think you used it, and then I repeated it.
17 Q. Did you have an understanding as to what the
18 term "benign cyst" meant back in 2009?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What was your understanding of it back then?
21 A. My understanding of it in what regard? Meaning
22 what it looks like on a scan?
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. Typically a benign cyst would be a mass or what
25 we call a lesion that has certain characteristics on
Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019
Page 146
1 the MRI. Typically it doesn't show enhancement, and
2 usually it's bright on T2-weighted sequence.
3 Q. Is that what you just described -- or dictated
4 in Exhibit 2?
5 A. This does describe something like that, yes.
6 Q. Back in 2009, were you aware of any other
7 definitions of a benign cyst other than what you've
8 already -- may have told me?
9 MR. PRYOR: The question lacks foundation.
10 You can answer.
11 MR. ZENERE: Calls for speculation.
12 MR. PRYOR: Join.
13 You can answer.
14 THE WITNESS: You're asking if there are other
15 imaging characteristics of a benign cyst?
16 BY MR. YUEN:
17 Q. No. Back in 2009 -- you have just told me --
18 you have given testimony on certain things. I'm just
19 trying to find out if there's anything else back in
20 2009 that would describe a benign cyst.
21 MR. PRYOR: Well, as phrased, the question
22 calls for speculation, and it lacks foundation, and
23 it's vague.
24 I don't understand it. If you do, you can --
25 THE WITNESS: I don't understand it. So in
Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019
Page 184
1 Q. You also use the words "abnormal enhancement in
2 this location." What did you mean when you dictated
3 that impression for your report back in 2009? I mean,
4 2008.
5 A. Generally "abnormal enhancement" means there
6 isn't contrast in areas you would typically see
7 contrast in a normal brain.
8 Q. So on a normal brain back -- back in 2009, for
9 a normal brain you expected there to be contrast in
10 that left filled -- in that left cavity?
11 A. No. I'm not sure -- what are you asking?
12 Q. Well, contrast was used for the MRIs for
13 Mr. Presley-Nelson, correct?
14 A. Right. And I'm describing that the -- the
15 structure which I measured at 5.0 by 4.7 centimeters
16 does not demonstrate contrast enhancement.
17 Q. When it doesn't demonstrate contrast
18 enhancement, what does that mean back then?
19 A. What do you mean, "what does that mean back
20 then"?
21 Q. Well, if there's -- if you put contrast in
22 Mr. Presley-Nelson's body, the contrast would circulate
23 through the person's blood vessels?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. So there are blood vessels throughout the
Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019
Page 185
1 brain. You would expect to see contrast showing up,
2 correct?
3 A. Not necessarily in that -- in that 5 by 4.7
4 centimeter lesion. If it's a cyst, you typically would
5 not expect it to enhance.
6 Q. So you didn't see contrast in that 5.0 by 4.7
7 area, correct?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. What did that indicate to you back then?
10 A. That would generally indicate a benign or
11 nonaggressive process.
12 Q. When you're saying "nonaggressive process,"
13 what does that mean?
14 A. Meaning something that's not an infection or a
15 malignant tumor.
16 Q. Number two -- your impression for number two
17 doesn't concern the left lobe, correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Number two only involves the right temporal
20 lobe?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. And you saw there was no abnormal -- so the
23 right section of the brain, did it look fine to you?
24 A. I don't recall. But based on this report, it
25 does not sound like it looked normal to me.
Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019
Page 1
1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
3 ---oOo---
4 GARY PRESLEY-NELSON and BEVERLY
PRESLEY-NELSON,
5
Plaintiffs,
6 No. CGC-17-557561
vs.
7
DAVID KING-STEPHENS, M.D., SUTTER
8 HEALTH, SUTTER WEST BAY HOSPITALS
DBA CALIFORNIA PACIFIC MEDICAL
9 CENTER, and DOES 1 to 50,
10 Defendants.
________________________________/
11
12
13
14
15 DEPOSITION OF DAVID KING-STEPHENS, M.D.
16 (Pages 1 to 133, inclusive)
17
18 Taken before SANDRA M. LEE
19 CSR No. 9971
20 April 16, 2019
21
22
Aiken Welch Court Reporters
23 One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 250
Oakland, California 94612
24 (510) 451-1580/(877) 451-1580
Fax: (510) 451-3797
25 www.aikenwelch.com
Exhibit C
Page 3
1 DEPOSITION OF DAVID KING-STEPHENS, M.D.
2
3 BE IT REMEMBERED, that pursuant to Notice, and
4 on the 16th day of April, 2019, commencing at the hour
5 of 10:05 a.m., in the offices of Aiken Welch Court
6 Reporters, 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1520, San
7 Francisco, California, before me, SANDRA M. LEE, a
8 Certified Court Reporter, personally appeared DAVID
9 KING-STEPHENS, M.D., produced as a witness in said
10 action, and being by me first duly sworn, was thereupon
11 examined as a witness in said cause.
12 ---o0o---
13 APPEARANCES:
14 For the Plaintiffs:
15 STEVEN W. YUEN
Heath & Yuen, APC
16 268 Bush Street, Suite 3006
San Francisco, California 94104
17 (415) 622-7004
syuen@heathandyuen.com
18
For the Defendant David King-Stephens, M.D.:
19
JAMES M. GOODMAN
20 Hassard Bonnington LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 1600
21 San Francisco, California 94111
(415) 288-9800
22 jmg@hassard.com
23
24
25
Aiken Welch Court Reporters David King-Stephens 4/16/2019
Page 28
1 actual MRI scans?
2 A. Yes. I always try to review myself the images.
3 Q. In this case you didn't.
4 Is there a reason for that?
5 A. I don't recall if I reviewed the images.
6 Q. Because in your declaration at paragraph 5 --
7 I'm sorry, it's not paragraph 5 -- paragraph 7, you
8 state, "I did not review the October 14, 2008, MRI scan
9 performed on Gary Presley-Nelson."
10 Is that a true and correct statement?
11 A. Yes, it is.
12 Q. Is there a reason why you did not review the
13 MRI scan?
14 A. I believe I did not have a copy of the images
15 provided to us from the facility.
16 Q. In that case would you typically ask the
17 facility to send it to you?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. Is there a reason why you didn't ask the
20 facility to send you a copy?
21 A. I don't know if we did or did not request a
22 copy of the images.
23 MR. YUEN: I'm going to mark this as Exhibit 2.
24 (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2 marked for
25 identification.)
Aiken Welch Court Reporters David King-Stephens 4/16/2019
Page 41
1 BY MR. YUEN:
2 Q. Let's break it down -- let me withdraw that
3 question.
4 Actually, let's take a five-minute break real
5 quick.
6 MR. GOODMAN: Sure.
7 (Recess taken from 11:08 a.m. to 11:14 a.m.)
8 BY MR. YUEN:
9 Q. What date was the visit that you saw Mr.
10 Presley-Nelson after he had his MRI in 2008?
11 A. October 27th, 2008.
12 Q. Do you remember how long that visit was with
13 Mr. Presley-Nelson?
14 A. I don't remember.
15 Q. Did his wife show up with him?
16 A. I don't know.
17 Q. Do you remember the conversations or words you
18 may have spoken to him about?
19 MR. GOODMAN: You just want memory or based on
20 what's in the note?
21 BY MR. YUEN:
22 Q. Based on memory first.
23 A. I don't recall.
24 Q. If you look at your notes, would that refresh
25 your recollection as to what you may have told Mr.
Aiken Welch Court Reporters David King-Stephens 4/16/2019
Page 42
1 Presley-Nelson?
2 A. We talked about his having seizures or side
3 effects, the result of the MRI scan, and we reviewed the
4 medications he was taking, then discussed my
5 recommendations to make adjustments in the medications
6 and to schedule a follow-up visit in six months.
7 Q. For his MRI scan results, do you have any
8 recollection of any specific words you used or conveyed
9 towards him?
10 A. I don't.
11 Q. Did Mr. Presley-Nelson say anything in response
12 to your telling him the MRI scan results?
13 A. I don't recall.
14 Q. On April 27, 2009, you saw Mr. Presley-Nelson
15 again?
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. Do you have an estimate of how long typically
18 your appointments with Mr. Presley-Nelson lasted?
19 A. Follow-ups are scheduled for 30 minutes.
20 Q. For Mr. Presley-Nelson, October 27, 2008, did
21 you use the full 30 minutes?
22 MR. GOODMAN: 2009?
23 BY MR. YUEN:
24 Q. I'm going back one more to after he had the MRI
25 and he discussed the results.
Aiken Welch Court Reporters David King-Stephens 4/16/2019
Page 1
1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
3 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
4 --o0o--
5 GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON and
BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON,
6
Plaintiffs,
7
vs. No. CGC-17-557561
8
DAVID KING-STEPHENS, M.D.,
9 SUTTER HEALTH, SUTTER WEST BAY
HOSPITALS dba CALIFORNIA
10 PACIFIC MEDICAL CENTER, and
DOES 1 to 50,
11
Defendants.
12 _____________________________/
13
14 Videotaped Deposition of
15 GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON
16 Volume 1, Pages 1 to 257
17 Thursday, February 22, 2018
18 Reported by:
COLLEEN M. REDAMONTI
19 CCRR, CSR No. 7012
Job No.: 7267CMR
20
21
22
23
24
25
Exhibit D
Presley-Nelson vs King-Stephens Deposition of Gary Presley-nelson 2-22-18
Page 2
1 APPEARANCES
2
3 For the Plaintiffs:
4
5 HEATH & YUEN, APC
6 By: STEVEN W. YUEN
7 Attorney at Law
8 268 Bush Street, Suite 3006
9 San Francisco, California 94104
10 (415) 622-7004
11 SYuen@heathandyuen.com
12
13
14 For the Defendant David King-Stephens, M.D.:
15
16 HASSARD BONNINGTON LLP
17 By: KRISTEN A. PICO
18 Attorney at Law
19 275 Battery Street, Suite 1600
20 San Francisco, California 94111
21 (415) 288-9800
22 kap@hassard.com
23
24
25
BayCityReporting
www.baycityreporting.com (415-587-2000)
Presley-Nelson vs King-Stephens Deposition of Gary Presley-nelson 2-22-18
Page 153
1 doctor by the name of Murali Ranjithan.
2 Have you ever spoken to Dr. Ranjithan to your
3 knowledge?
4 A. Not that I can remember, no.
5 Q. And according to the records, the next time you
6 saw Dr. King-Stephens was on October 27, 2008, about two
7 weeks later.
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether your
10 wife was present for that visit?
11 A. Probably, but I can't remember in particular.
12 Q. Okay. Do you recall having any discussion with
13 Dr. King-Stephens about what the October 14, 2008, MRI
14 showed?
15 A. Was that the last MRI I had?
16 Q. The last one before 2015.
17 MS. DeGOIS: That we know of.
18 MS. PICO: That we know of. Good point.
19 THE WITNESS: I remember he said "You'll never
20 need it again."
21 Q. BY MS. PICO: You'll never need an MRI again?
22 A. That's right. It will never grow back. Yeah.
23 He said that because I can remember the "Hallelujah."
24 Q. And you think this was in 2008?
25 A. I think that that -- it was after the MRI, that
BayCityReporting
www.baycityreporting.com (415-587-2000)
Presley-Nelson vs King-Stephens Deposition of Gary Presley-nelson 2-22-18
Page 154
1 last one I had. That's when he told us. I believe
2 that's when he told us.
3 Q. Um, Ms. DeGois just raised a good point.
4 You had this MRI that we've been talking about
5 in 2008, and then the next one that we have any record
6 of is in 2015 at UCSF.
7 A. Right.
8 Q. Do you know whether you had an MRI between 2008
9 and 2015?
10 A. I did not.
11 Q. You're certain of that?
12 A. I'm fairly sure if my memory is right.
13 Q. Okay. So you think this conversation with
14 Dr. King-Stephens to the effect that you would never
15 need an MRI again and that the tumor would never grow
16 back was on October 27, 2008?
17 A. Well, that's because you said that was the last
18 one I had.
19 Q. Right.
20 A. If that was the last one I had, that's -- for
21 him.
22 Q. Okay. You continued to see him after --
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. -- 2008?
25 A. Right.
BayCityReporting
www.baycityreporting.com (415-587-2000)
Page 1
1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
3 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
4 --o0o--
5 GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON and
BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON,
6
Plaintiffs,
7
vs. No. CGC-17-557561
8
DAVID KING-STEPHENS, M.D.,
9 SUTTER HEALTH, SUTTER WEST BAY
HOSPITALS dba CALIFORNIA
10 PACIFIC MEDICAL CENTER, and
DOES 1 to 50,
11
Defendants.
12 _____________________________/
13
14 Videotaped Deposition of
15 BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON
16 Volume 1, Pages 1 to 200
17 Thursday, April 26, 2018
18
19 Reported by:
COLLEEN M. REDAMONTI
20 CCRR, CSR No. 7012
Job No.: 7317CMR
21
22
23
24
25
Exhibit E
Presley-Nelson vs King-Stephens Deposition of Beverly Presley-Nelson 4-26-18
Page 2
1 APPEARANCES
2
3 For the Plaintiffs:
4
5 HEATH & YUEN, APC
6 By: STEVEN W. YUEN
7 Attorney at Law
8 268 Bush Street, Suite 3006
9 San Francisco, California 94104
10 (415) 622-7004
11 SYuen@heathandyuen.com
12
13
14 For the Defendant David King-Stephens, M.D.:
15
16 HASSARD BONNINGTON LLP
17 By: KRISTEN A. PICO
18 Attorney at Law
19 275 Battery Street, Suite 1600
20 San Francisco, California 94111
21 (415) 288-9800
22 kap@hassard.com
23
24
25
BayCityReporting
www.baycityreporting.com (415-587-2000)
Presley-Nelson vs King-Stephens Deposition of Beverly Presley-Nelson 4-26-18
Page 85
1 Q. Do you know if Gary ever provided copies of
2 that 2002 MRI to any healthcare provider?
3 A. I don't -- I don't know.
4 Q. You did not; correct?
5 A. I didn't -- no, I didn't give anybody anything.
6 Q. Did Gary ever discuss the results of the 2002
7 MRI with you?
8 A. As I said earlier, he would come home and say
9 things are fine.
10 Q. Did he relate to you any discussions he had
11 with a healthcare provider related to the 2002 MRI
12 results, other than telling you that everything was
13 fine?
14 A. All I know is that he said things looked okay.
15 Q. Okay. The records also indicate that Gary
16 underwent an MRI in October -- on October 14, 2008.
17 Is that the MRI you're referring to that was in
18 the middle of his time --
19 A. Yeah, around there.
20 Q. -- with King-Stephens?
21 A. Yeah, I guess.
22 Q. Do you know where that was performed?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did you accompany him to that MRI?
25 A. I don't believe so.
BayCityReporting
www.baycityreporting.com (415-587-2000)
Presley-Nelson vs King-Stephens Deposition of Beverly Presley-Nelson 4-26-18
Page 86
1 Q. Do you know why it was ordered?
2 A. I don't know any detailed reason why.
3 Q. Did you ever review the radiology report
4 related to the 2008 MRI?
5 A. No. I was just told it was okay.
6 Q. Who told you that?
7 A. I think Gary said it was fine.
8 Q. Anyone else discuss the MRI results with you?
9 A. Not that I recall in particular, but it's
10 possible that Dr. King-Stephens on one visit or another
11 said that it was fine.
12 Q. Are you speculating?
13 A. That could be.
14 Q. Okay. So you actually --
15 You don't have a memory of Dr. King-Stephens
16 telling you that the 2008 MRI results were fine;
17 correct?
18 A. I largely just remember him saying that things
19 were fine, to just keep working on the symptoms and the
20 triggers.
21 Q. Okay. Do you have a recollection of
22 Dr. King-Stephens ever discussing with you this -- the
23 results of the 2008 MRI in particular?
24 A. I don't recall him in particular mentioning
25 that.
BayCityReporting
www.baycityreporting.com (415-587-2000)
Page 1
1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
3
4
5
Preview
1 Stephen B. Heath - 237622 sheath@heathandyuen.com 2 Steven W. Yuen - 230768 syuen@heathandyuen.com 3 Joshua G. Wong - 306744 ELECTRONICALLY jwong@heathandyuen.com FILED 4 HEATH & YUEN, APC Superior Court of California, 268 Bush Street, #3006 County of San Francisco 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 03/19/2021 Tel: (415) 622-7004 Clerk of the Court 6 Fax: (415) 373-3957 BY: JUDITH NUNEZ Deputy Clerk 7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND 8 BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 11 GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND Case No.: CGC-17-557561 BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON, 12 PLAINTIFFS GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, Plaintiffs, AND BEVERLY PRESLEY NELSON’S 13 EXHIBIT INDEX, AND EXHIBITS FOR EX v. PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER 14 SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR MOTION DAVID KING-STEPHENS, M.D., SUTTER FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED 15 HEALTH, SUTTER WEST BAY HOSPITALS COMPLAINT, AND MOTION THEREON DBA CALIFORNIA PACIFIC MEDICAL 16 CENTER, AND DOES 1 TO 50, [C.R.C. Rule 3.1110(f)] 17 Defendants. Date: March 22, 2021 Time: 9:30 a.m. 18 Judge: Hon Garrett L. Wong Dept.: 504 19 File Date: March 15, 2017 Trial Date: March 17, 2021 20 21 Document Name Exhibit 22 Declaration of Steven W. Yuen.............................................................................................................. A 23 Former defendant Murali Ranjithan, M.D. deposition excerpts ............................................................ B 24 Defendant David King-Stephens, M.D. deposition excerpts ................................................................. C 25 Plaintiff Gary R. Presley-Nelson February 22, 2018 deposition excerpts ............................................. D 26 Plaintiff Beverly Presley-Nelson April 26, 2018 deposition excerpts ................................................... E 27 Dr. Ranjithan’s retained expert radiologist Daniel Hightower, M.D. deposition excerpts .................... F 28 Plaintiffs’ complaint ............................................................................................................................... G -1- PLAINTIFFS GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND BEVERLY PRESLEY NELSON’S EXHIBIT INDEX, AND EXHIBITS FOR EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND MOTION THEREON 1 Document Name Exhibit 2 Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint ................................................................................................... H 3 Wendy H. Yang declaration in plaintiffs’ opposition to defendant’s dispositive motion ....................... I 4 Plaintiffs’ ex parte notice ........................................................................................................................ J 5 Plaintiffs’ proposed third amended complaint ....................................................................................... K 6 DATED: March 19, 2021 HEATH & YUEN, APC 7 8 By 9 Steven W. Yuen Attorneys for Plaintiffs 10 GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 1 Stephen B. Heath - 237622 sheath@heathandyuen.com 2 Steven W. Yuen - 230768 syuen@heathandyuen.com 3 Joshua G. Wong - 306744 jwong@heathandyuen.com 4 HEATH & YUEN, APC 268 Bush Street, #3006 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 622-7004 6 Fax: (415) 373-3957 7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND 8 BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 11 GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND Case No.: CGC-17-557561 BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON, 12 DECLARATION OF STEVEN W. YUEN IN Plaintiffs, SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS GARY R. 13 PRESLEY-NELSON, AND BEVERLY v. PRESLEY-NELSON’S EX PARTE 14 APPLICATION FOR ORDER DAVID KING-STEPHENS, M.D., SUTTER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR MOTION 15 HEALTH, SUTTER WEST BAY HOSPITALS FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED DBA CALIFORNIA PACIFIC MEDICAL COMPLAINT, AND MOTION THEREON 16 CENTER, AND DOES 1 TO 50, Judge: Hon Garrett L. Wong 17 Defendants. Dept.: 504 File Date: March 15, 2017 18 Trial Date: March 17, 2021 19 I, Steven W. Yuen, declare: 20 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in all courts of the State of California, and am 21 the managing partner of the law firm of Heath & Yuen, APC, attorneys of record for 22 plaintiffs Gary R. Presley-Nelson, and Beverly Presley-Nelson (collectively herein “plaintiffs”). As 23 part of my managing partner duties, I oversee between approximately 150 to 175 cases at any one time. 24 I have personal knowledge of the information set forth herein, all of which is true and correct of my 25 own personal knowledge, and if called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto. 26 2. The daily handling of this case was assigned to my senior associate Joshua G. Wong. 27 3. I did not draft plaintiffs’ original complaint; my senior associate did. My associate was 28 also handling the challenges to the prior versions of plaintiffs’ complaints. I prepared plaintiffs’ -1- DECLARATION OF STEVEN W. YUEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND MOTION THEREON Exhibit A 1 second amended complaint by essentially deleting words that were required to be deleted after a 2 successful challenge to the prior complaint, leaving only a first cause of action for medical negligence, 3 and a second cause of action for loss of consortium. When I prepared the second amended complaint, 4 no depositions had yet occurred. 5 4. On November 29, 2019, I, on plaintiffs behalf, accepted and had filed Dr. Ranjithan’s 6 statutory 998 offer to compromise to agree to dismiss him, and did dismiss him. 7 5. Trial was previously set in this matter for December 2, 2019, and December 14, 2020. I 8 did not prepare the trial pleadings for the prior trial calls; my senior associate did. I also did not appear 9 at the December 2, 2019 trial call as I was in trial in the matter of Lian Tong v. Wu, et al. venued 10 in San Francisco Superior Court. At the December 14, 2020 trial call, the court continued trial to 11 March 17, 2021. 12 6. To prepare for the March 17, 2021 trial, I began analyzing the trial pleadings my senior 13 associate had prepared beginning on March 3, 2021. In analyzing plaintiffs’ trial pleadings, I noticed it 14 had omitted information relating to Dr. Ranjithan, which was correct, as he was no longer a defendant 15 in this case, having previously been dismissed. After completing my review of plaintiffs’ trial 16 pleadings, I then started analyzing all of the other case information, including the deposition transcripts 17 of the other now dismissed defendants in which plaintiffs’ claims of negligence against them were no 18 longer at issue. During my review of Dr. Ranjithan, and Dr. Hightower’s deposition transcripts, I 19 noticed similar testimony that they both opined they saw a cyst on plaintiff Gary Presley-Nelson’s 20 2008 MRI. I then analyzed plaintiffs’ original complaint, and the operative second amended complaint 21 to confirm if plaintiffs had previously alleged an ultimate fact that defendant did not report this cyst to 22 plaintiffs, and confirmed it was alleged. Thus, I began preparing page and line designations of both of 23 these witnesses on March 10, 2021 as required by Local Rule 6.3. I also modified plaintiffs’ trial 24 pleadings to conform to the previously alleged ultimate fact to provide notice that plaintiffs would be 25 moving to amend their complaint to conform to proof. Plaintiffs filed and served their trial pleadings 26 on March 17, 2021. After the trial pleadings were served, I realized that since trial was bifurcated such 27 that defendant’s one-year statute of limitations affirmative defense was tried first, plaintiffs may be 28 unable to amend their complaint to conform to proof. -2- DECLARATION OF STEVEN W. YUEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND MOTION THEREON 1 7. Thus on March 18, 2021, I e-mailed notice to defendant’s counsel that plaintiffs would 2 be appearing ex parte on Monday, March 22, 2021 in department 504 to apply for an order shortening 3 time to file, serve, and hear their motion for leave to file a third amended complaint to add two new 4 causes of action for fraudulent concealment and negligent misrepresentation based on the previously 5 pled ultimate facts, which support these causes of action, and which relate back. Attached to the 6 exhibit index as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of plaintiffs’ ex parte notice. Defendant’s counsel 7 responded requesting more information, and stating they essentially oppose plaintiffs’ application. 8 8. Defendant David King-Stephens, M.D. (“defendant”) is represented by James M. 9 Goodman, Warren R. Webster, and Erik S. Faussner of Hassard Bonnington LLP, 275 Battery Street, 10 16th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111, (415) 288-9800, and John L. Supple, Robert R. Deering, 11 and Madeleine Lough-Stevens of J Supple Law, A Professional Corporation, 990 5th Avenue, 12 San Rafael, California 94901-6105, (415) 366-5533. 13 9. On March 19, 2021, plaintiffs are electronically serving a copy of this ex parte 14 application upon defendant by e-mail. 15 10. Plaintiffs have not previously applied for an order to shorten time to file, serve, and to 16 hear their motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. 17 11. Attached to the exhibit index as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of former defendant 18 Murali Ranjithan, M.D.’s deposition excerpts. Although I took this deposition on April 8, 2019, I did 19 not recall the specifics of his testimony, nor had I reviewed his deposition transcript until March 10, 20 2021. 21 12. Attached to the exhibit index as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of defendant David 22 King-Stephens, M.D.’s (herein “defendant”) deposition excerpts. 23 13. Attached to the exhibit index as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of plaintiff Gary 24 Presley-Nelson February 22, 2018’s deposition excerpts. 25 14. Attached to the exhibit index as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of plaintiff Beverly 26 Presley-Nelson April 26, 2018’s deposition excerpts. 27 /// 28 /// -3- DECLARATION OF STEVEN W. YUEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND MOTION THEREON 1 15. Attached to the exhibit index as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Dr. Ranjithan’s 2 retained radiology expert Daniel Hightower, M.D.’s deposition excerpts, which I did not appear at; my 3 senior associate appeared. 4 16. Attached to the exhibit index as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of excerpts of 5 plaintiffs’ original complaint filed on March 15, 2017. 6 17. Attached to the exhibit index as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of excerpts of 7 plaintiffs’ second amended complaint 8 18. Attached to the exhibit index as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of the declaration of 9 Wendy H. Yang submitted in support of plaintiffs’ opposition to defendant’s first dispositive motion. 10 19. Attached to the exhibit index as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of plaintiffs’ 11 proposed third amended complaint. 12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true 13 and correct, and this declaration was executed on March 19, 2021. 14 15 Steven W. Yuen 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- DECLARATION OF STEVEN W. YUEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND MOTION THEREON 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 ---O0O--- 4 GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON, AND BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON, 5 Plaintiff, 6 vs. CASE NO. CGC-17-557561 7 DAVID KING-STEPHENS, M.D., 8 SUTTER HEALTH SUTTER WEST BAY HOSPITALS DBA CALIFORNIA 9 PACIFIC MEDICAL CENTER, AND DOES 1 TO 50, 10 Defendants. 11 ___________________________/ 12 13 14 DEPOSITION OF MURALI RANJITHAN, M.D. 15 16 17 18 Taken before DIANA L. GONZALEZ 19 CSR No. 7935 20 April 8, 2019 21 22 Aiken Welch Court Reporters 23 One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 250 Oakland, California 94612 24 (510) 451-1580/(877) 451-1580 Fax: (510) 451-3797 25 www.aikenwelch.com Exhibit B Page 4 1 DEPOSITION OF MURALI RANJITHAN, M.D. 2 3 BE IT REMEMBERED, that pursuant to Notice, and 4 on the 8th day of April, 2019, commencing at the hour 5 of 10:01 a.m., in the offices of Aiken Welch Court 6 Reporters, 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1520, San 7 Francisco, California, before me, DIANA L. GONZALEZ, a 8 Certified Shorthand Reporter, personally appeared 9 MURALI RANJITHAN, M.D., produced as a witness in said 10 action, and being by me first duly sworn, was thereupon 11 examined as a witness in said cause. 12 ---o0o--- 13 APPEARANCES: 14 For the Plaintiff: 15 STEVEN W. YUEN Heath & Yuen 16 268 Bush Street, Suite 3006 San Francisco, California 94104 17 (415) 622-7004 syuen@heathandyuen.com 18 19 For the Defendant David King-Stephens, M.D.: 20 JAMES M. GOODMAN 21 Hassard Bonnington LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 1600 22 San Francisco, California 94111 (415) 288-9800 23 jmg@hassard.com 24 25 Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019 Page 93 1 A. Other than what we just mentioned, no. 2 Q. You prepared a report back in 2008, correct, 3 for Mr. Presley-Nelson? 4 A. I see that report has my name on it. 5 Q. Did you ever review it after preparing it and 6 potentially editing it? 7 A. Not that I know of. 8 Q. You talked about invasion of surrounding 9 structures. What do you mean by "invasion of 10 surrounding structures"? 11 A. What part of that is unclear? 12 Q. Is it -- do you see a certain type of image 13 going into other parts of the brain or organ, and that 14 determines whether it's benign or not benign? 15 MR. ZENERE: You're asking expert questions 16 again. 17 MR. PRYOR: As phrased, that is calling for 18 expert testimony, beyond the scope of this percipient 19 witness at deposition. 20 BY MR. YUEN: 21 Q. What I want to learn is what you recall during 22 your residency. 23 MR. ZENERE: That wasn't your question. 24 MR. YUEN: Well -- 25 MR. PRYOR: You can have -- sorry to interrupt Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019 Page 97 1 MR. YUEN: We'll go ahead and mark this as 2 Exhibit 2. 3 (Document marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2 4 for identification.) 5 BY MR. YUEN: 6 Q. I've marked as Exhibit 2 a Health Diagnostics 7 logo report. 8 Do you recognize what has been marked as 9 Exhibit 2, Doctor? 10 A. I recognize it because I reviewed it recently. 11 Q. When did you review this Exhibit 2? 12 A. About a month ago, two months ago. 13 Q. In reviewing this report, did it refresh your 14 recollection as to the events that occurred back in 15 2008? 16 A. No. 17 Q. On average when you were working at the Health 18 Diagnostics site in Daly City, how many studies would 19 you interpret per day? 20 A. Maybe between 20 and 40 studies. 21 Q. And, typically, that would be for how many 22 patients? 23 A. Same number. 24 Q. And in this report, did you transcribe 25 everything stated on here? Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019 Page 98 1 A. I didn't transcribe it. I dictated it. 2 Q. You dictated it, okay. 3 Did you dictate everything on here in this 4 report marked as Exhibit 2? 5 A. I don't recall. 6 Q. Did you dictate the -- that the logo be added 7 to your report at the top? 8 A. I don't recall. 9 Q. Did you dictate that the address and phone and 10 fax information be added to the top? 11 A. I don't recall. 12 Q. Do you deny dictating this report as 13 transcribed in Exhibit 2? 14 MR. PRYOR: Objection. Argumentative as 15 phrased. 16 You can answer. 17 THE WITNESS: I don't deny. 18 BY MR. YUEN: 19 Q. Where did you get the information for the 20 "study" line? 21 A. What do you mean? 22 Q. You see how the first line is "Study: MRI of 23 the brain with and without contrast"? Is that 24 information that is filled in for you, or do you 25 dictate that? Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019 Page 111 1 If you understand his question, you can answer. 2 THE WITNESS: So I presume that I would have 3 obtained that information from the provided clinical 4 history. But I don't recall specifically being in this 5 situation. 6 BY MR. YUEN: 7 Q. Okay. Next part of that sentence says, "with a 8 CSF-filled cavity." 9 What did you mean at the time you dictated this 10 report when you used the word -- the acronym or 11 initials "CSF"? 12 A. Cerebral spinal fluid. 13 Q. Could you see the CSF on the studies itself? 14 A. I don't recall. 15 Q. Would you have put this information -- or 16 dictated this information of a CSF-filled cavity if you 17 didn't see it on the studies, on the images? 18 A. This was my interpretation of the images that 19 were in front of me with the clinical history. 20 Q. Okay. And you use the words "in the prior 21 surgical bed." What do you mean by "prior surgical 22 bed" in this report? 23 A. Based on the clinical indication section, along 24 with the images in the scan, I presume that my 25 interpretation was this was a postoperative finding. Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019 Page 128 1 Q. And the anterior falx, where is that located as 2 used here? 3 A. That's the front of the brain. The midline. 4 Q. The midline? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. Is there anything in this report indicating the 7 presence of a benign cyst? 8 MR. PRYOR: Well, he's not here to look at it 9 to give you his current opinion. 10 MR. YUEN: I'm not asking for your current 11 opinion. 12 MR. PRYOR: As phrased, you just did. 13 MR. YUEN: Let me withdraw it, and I'll 14 rephrase it. 15 BY MR. YUEN: 16 Q. When you dictated this report, did you use any 17 words to indicate the presence of a benign cyst that 18 you saw? 19 MR. ZENERE: Document speaks for itself. 20 MR. PRYOR: Join. 21 You can answer. 22 THE WITNESS: I don't see the term "benign 23 cyst" anywhere in this report. 24 BY MR. YUEN: 25 Q. Even though the words "benign cyst" are not in Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019 Page 129 1 this report, are there any other words that are 2 comparable to a benign cyst that is in this report? 3 MR. PRYOR: Same objection. 4 You can go ahead. 5 THE WITNESS: One could interpret the 6 CSF-filled cavity I'm describing, that's described in 7 the report, as a benign cyst. 8 MR. YUEN: Can I get the answer read back. 9 (Record read.) 10 BY MR. YUEN: 11 Q. When you worked for Health Diagnostics -- when 12 you worked at the Health Diagnostics facility in Daly 13 City, did you ever get any type of contact from 14 referring physicians of questions about your reports? 15 MR. ZENERE: Object to the form of the 16 question. It's argumentative. 17 MR. PRYOR: I actually didn't hear it at all, 18 or I certainly didn't hear it clearly. Could we have 19 it back, please. 20 (Record read.) 21 BY MR. YUEN: 22 Q. So you did this report, it gets sent to the 23 referring physician. Before 2009 at Health Diagnostics 24 facility, did any of the referring physicians ever 25 contact you back to say, "Hey, I have a question Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019 Page 145 1 Q. Go ahead. 2 MR. PRYOR: You can -- that's a really, really, 3 really bad question. So you can leave it as is. I 4 don't understand it. 5 If you happen to understand it, you can answer 6 it. 7 THE WITNESS: I don't understand it. Can you 8 rephrase it? 9 BY MR. YUEN: 10 Q. Back in -- before 2009, you had used the words 11 "benign cyst" earlier today, correct? 12 MR. PRYOR: That question makes no sense. 13 BY MR. YUEN: 14 Q. You used the words "benign cyst" today, 15 correct? 16 A. I think you used it, and then I repeated it. 17 Q. Did you have an understanding as to what the 18 term "benign cyst" meant back in 2009? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. What was your understanding of it back then? 21 A. My understanding of it in what regard? Meaning 22 what it looks like on a scan? 23 Q. Yes. 24 A. Typically a benign cyst would be a mass or what 25 we call a lesion that has certain characteristics on Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019 Page 146 1 the MRI. Typically it doesn't show enhancement, and 2 usually it's bright on T2-weighted sequence. 3 Q. Is that what you just described -- or dictated 4 in Exhibit 2? 5 A. This does describe something like that, yes. 6 Q. Back in 2009, were you aware of any other 7 definitions of a benign cyst other than what you've 8 already -- may have told me? 9 MR. PRYOR: The question lacks foundation. 10 You can answer. 11 MR. ZENERE: Calls for speculation. 12 MR. PRYOR: Join. 13 You can answer. 14 THE WITNESS: You're asking if there are other 15 imaging characteristics of a benign cyst? 16 BY MR. YUEN: 17 Q. No. Back in 2009 -- you have just told me -- 18 you have given testimony on certain things. I'm just 19 trying to find out if there's anything else back in 20 2009 that would describe a benign cyst. 21 MR. PRYOR: Well, as phrased, the question 22 calls for speculation, and it lacks foundation, and 23 it's vague. 24 I don't understand it. If you do, you can -- 25 THE WITNESS: I don't understand it. So in Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019 Page 184 1 Q. You also use the words "abnormal enhancement in 2 this location." What did you mean when you dictated 3 that impression for your report back in 2009? I mean, 4 2008. 5 A. Generally "abnormal enhancement" means there 6 isn't contrast in areas you would typically see 7 contrast in a normal brain. 8 Q. So on a normal brain back -- back in 2009, for 9 a normal brain you expected there to be contrast in 10 that left filled -- in that left cavity? 11 A. No. I'm not sure -- what are you asking? 12 Q. Well, contrast was used for the MRIs for 13 Mr. Presley-Nelson, correct? 14 A. Right. And I'm describing that the -- the 15 structure which I measured at 5.0 by 4.7 centimeters 16 does not demonstrate contrast enhancement. 17 Q. When it doesn't demonstrate contrast 18 enhancement, what does that mean back then? 19 A. What do you mean, "what does that mean back 20 then"? 21 Q. Well, if there's -- if you put contrast in 22 Mr. Presley-Nelson's body, the contrast would circulate 23 through the person's blood vessels? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. So there are blood vessels throughout the Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019 Page 185 1 brain. You would expect to see contrast showing up, 2 correct? 3 A. Not necessarily in that -- in that 5 by 4.7 4 centimeter lesion. If it's a cyst, you typically would 5 not expect it to enhance. 6 Q. So you didn't see contrast in that 5.0 by 4.7 7 area, correct? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. What did that indicate to you back then? 10 A. That would generally indicate a benign or 11 nonaggressive process. 12 Q. When you're saying "nonaggressive process," 13 what does that mean? 14 A. Meaning something that's not an infection or a 15 malignant tumor. 16 Q. Number two -- your impression for number two 17 doesn't concern the left lobe, correct? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. Number two only involves the right temporal 20 lobe? 21 A. That's right. 22 Q. And you saw there was no abnormal -- so the 23 right section of the brain, did it look fine to you? 24 A. I don't recall. But based on this report, it 25 does not sound like it looked normal to me. Aiken Welch Court Reporters Murali Ranjithan 4/8/2019 Page 1 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 ---oOo--- 4 GARY PRESLEY-NELSON and BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON, 5 Plaintiffs, 6 No. CGC-17-557561 vs. 7 DAVID KING-STEPHENS, M.D., SUTTER 8 HEALTH, SUTTER WEST BAY HOSPITALS DBA CALIFORNIA PACIFIC MEDICAL 9 CENTER, and DOES 1 to 50, 10 Defendants. ________________________________/ 11 12 13 14 15 DEPOSITION OF DAVID KING-STEPHENS, M.D. 16 (Pages 1 to 133, inclusive) 17 18 Taken before SANDRA M. LEE 19 CSR No. 9971 20 April 16, 2019 21 22 Aiken Welch Court Reporters 23 One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 250 Oakland, California 94612 24 (510) 451-1580/(877) 451-1580 Fax: (510) 451-3797 25 www.aikenwelch.com Exhibit C Page 3 1 DEPOSITION OF DAVID KING-STEPHENS, M.D. 2 3 BE IT REMEMBERED, that pursuant to Notice, and 4 on the 16th day of April, 2019, commencing at the hour 5 of 10:05 a.m., in the offices of Aiken Welch Court 6 Reporters, 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1520, San 7 Francisco, California, before me, SANDRA M. LEE, a 8 Certified Court Reporter, personally appeared DAVID 9 KING-STEPHENS, M.D., produced as a witness in said 10 action, and being by me first duly sworn, was thereupon 11 examined as a witness in said cause. 12 ---o0o--- 13 APPEARANCES: 14 For the Plaintiffs: 15 STEVEN W. YUEN Heath & Yuen, APC 16 268 Bush Street, Suite 3006 San Francisco, California 94104 17 (415) 622-7004 syuen@heathandyuen.com 18 For the Defendant David King-Stephens, M.D.: 19 JAMES M. GOODMAN 20 Hassard Bonnington LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 1600 21 San Francisco, California 94111 (415) 288-9800 22 jmg@hassard.com 23 24 25 Aiken Welch Court Reporters David King-Stephens 4/16/2019 Page 28 1 actual MRI scans? 2 A. Yes. I always try to review myself the images. 3 Q. In this case you didn't. 4 Is there a reason for that? 5 A. I don't recall if I reviewed the images. 6 Q. Because in your declaration at paragraph 5 -- 7 I'm sorry, it's not paragraph 5 -- paragraph 7, you 8 state, "I did not review the October 14, 2008, MRI scan 9 performed on Gary Presley-Nelson." 10 Is that a true and correct statement? 11 A. Yes, it is. 12 Q. Is there a reason why you did not review the 13 MRI scan? 14 A. I believe I did not have a copy of the images 15 provided to us from the facility. 16 Q. In that case would you typically ask the 17 facility to send it to you? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. Is there a reason why you didn't ask the 20 facility to send you a copy? 21 A. I don't know if we did or did not request a 22 copy of the images. 23 MR. YUEN: I'm going to mark this as Exhibit 2. 24 (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2 marked for 25 identification.) Aiken Welch Court Reporters David King-Stephens 4/16/2019 Page 41 1 BY MR. YUEN: 2 Q. Let's break it down -- let me withdraw that 3 question. 4 Actually, let's take a five-minute break real 5 quick. 6 MR. GOODMAN: Sure. 7 (Recess taken from 11:08 a.m. to 11:14 a.m.) 8 BY MR. YUEN: 9 Q. What date was the visit that you saw Mr. 10 Presley-Nelson after he had his MRI in 2008? 11 A. October 27th, 2008. 12 Q. Do you remember how long that visit was with 13 Mr. Presley-Nelson? 14 A. I don't remember. 15 Q. Did his wife show up with him? 16 A. I don't know. 17 Q. Do you remember the conversations or words you 18 may have spoken to him about? 19 MR. GOODMAN: You just want memory or based on 20 what's in the note? 21 BY MR. YUEN: 22 Q. Based on memory first. 23 A. I don't recall. 24 Q. If you look at your notes, would that refresh 25 your recollection as to what you may have told Mr. Aiken Welch Court Reporters David King-Stephens 4/16/2019 Page 42 1 Presley-Nelson? 2 A. We talked about his having seizures or side 3 effects, the result of the MRI scan, and we reviewed the 4 medications he was taking, then discussed my 5 recommendations to make adjustments in the medications 6 and to schedule a follow-up visit in six months. 7 Q. For his MRI scan results, do you have any 8 recollection of any specific words you used or conveyed 9 towards him? 10 A. I don't. 11 Q. Did Mr. Presley-Nelson say anything in response 12 to your telling him the MRI scan results? 13 A. I don't recall. 14 Q. On April 27, 2009, you saw Mr. Presley-Nelson 15 again? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Do you have an estimate of how long typically 18 your appointments with Mr. Presley-Nelson lasted? 19 A. Follow-ups are scheduled for 30 minutes. 20 Q. For Mr. Presley-Nelson, October 27, 2008, did 21 you use the full 30 minutes? 22 MR. GOODMAN: 2009? 23 BY MR. YUEN: 24 Q. I'm going back one more to after he had the MRI 25 and he discussed the results. Aiken Welch Court Reporters David King-Stephens 4/16/2019 Page 1 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 4 --o0o-- 5 GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON and BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON, 6 Plaintiffs, 7 vs. No. CGC-17-557561 8 DAVID KING-STEPHENS, M.D., 9 SUTTER HEALTH, SUTTER WEST BAY HOSPITALS dba CALIFORNIA 10 PACIFIC MEDICAL CENTER, and DOES 1 to 50, 11 Defendants. 12 _____________________________/ 13 14 Videotaped Deposition of 15 GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON 16 Volume 1, Pages 1 to 257 17 Thursday, February 22, 2018 18 Reported by: COLLEEN M. REDAMONTI 19 CCRR, CSR No. 7012 Job No.: 7267CMR 20 21 22 23 24 25 Exhibit D Presley-Nelson vs King-Stephens Deposition of Gary Presley-nelson 2-22-18 Page 2 1 APPEARANCES 2 3 For the Plaintiffs: 4 5 HEATH & YUEN, APC 6 By: STEVEN W. YUEN 7 Attorney at Law 8 268 Bush Street, Suite 3006 9 San Francisco, California 94104 10 (415) 622-7004 11 SYuen@heathandyuen.com 12 13 14 For the Defendant David King-Stephens, M.D.: 15 16 HASSARD BONNINGTON LLP 17 By: KRISTEN A. PICO 18 Attorney at Law 19 275 Battery Street, Suite 1600 20 San Francisco, California 94111 21 (415) 288-9800 22 kap@hassard.com 23 24 25 BayCityReporting www.baycityreporting.com (415-587-2000) Presley-Nelson vs King-Stephens Deposition of Gary Presley-nelson 2-22-18 Page 153 1 doctor by the name of Murali Ranjithan. 2 Have you ever spoken to Dr. Ranjithan to your 3 knowledge? 4 A. Not that I can remember, no. 5 Q. And according to the records, the next time you 6 saw Dr. King-Stephens was on October 27, 2008, about two 7 weeks later. 8 A. Okay. 9 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether your 10 wife was present for that visit? 11 A. Probably, but I can't remember in particular. 12 Q. Okay. Do you recall having any discussion with 13 Dr. King-Stephens about what the October 14, 2008, MRI 14 showed? 15 A. Was that the last MRI I had? 16 Q. The last one before 2015. 17 MS. DeGOIS: That we know of. 18 MS. PICO: That we know of. Good point. 19 THE WITNESS: I remember he said "You'll never 20 need it again." 21 Q. BY MS. PICO: You'll never need an MRI again? 22 A. That's right. It will never grow back. Yeah. 23 He said that because I can remember the "Hallelujah." 24 Q. And you think this was in 2008? 25 A. I think that that -- it was after the MRI, that BayCityReporting www.baycityreporting.com (415-587-2000) Presley-Nelson vs King-Stephens Deposition of Gary Presley-nelson 2-22-18 Page 154 1 last one I had. That's when he told us. I believe 2 that's when he told us. 3 Q. Um, Ms. DeGois just raised a good point. 4 You had this MRI that we've been talking about 5 in 2008, and then the next one that we have any record 6 of is in 2015 at UCSF. 7 A. Right. 8 Q. Do you know whether you had an MRI between 2008 9 and 2015? 10 A. I did not. 11 Q. You're certain of that? 12 A. I'm fairly sure if my memory is right. 13 Q. Okay. So you think this conversation with 14 Dr. King-Stephens to the effect that you would never 15 need an MRI again and that the tumor would never grow 16 back was on October 27, 2008? 17 A. Well, that's because you said that was the last 18 one I had. 19 Q. Right. 20 A. If that was the last one I had, that's -- for 21 him. 22 Q. Okay. You continued to see him after -- 23 A. Yeah. 24 Q. -- 2008? 25 A. Right. BayCityReporting www.baycityreporting.com (415-587-2000) Page 1 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 4 --o0o-- 5 GARY R. PRESLEY-NELSON and BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON, 6 Plaintiffs, 7 vs. No. CGC-17-557561 8 DAVID KING-STEPHENS, M.D., 9 SUTTER HEALTH, SUTTER WEST BAY HOSPITALS dba CALIFORNIA 10 PACIFIC MEDICAL CENTER, and DOES 1 to 50, 11 Defendants. 12 _____________________________/ 13 14 Videotaped Deposition of 15 BEVERLY PRESLEY-NELSON 16 Volume 1, Pages 1 to 200 17 Thursday, April 26, 2018 18 19 Reported by: COLLEEN M. REDAMONTI 20 CCRR, CSR No. 7012 Job No.: 7317CMR 21 22 23 24 25 Exhibit E Presley-Nelson vs King-Stephens Deposition of Beverly Presley-Nelson 4-26-18 Page 2 1 APPEARANCES 2 3 For the Plaintiffs: 4 5 HEATH & YUEN, APC 6 By: STEVEN W. YUEN 7 Attorney at Law 8 268 Bush Street, Suite 3006 9 San Francisco, California 94104 10 (415) 622-7004 11 SYuen@heathandyuen.com 12 13 14 For the Defendant David King-Stephens, M.D.: 15 16 HASSARD BONNINGTON LLP 17 By: KRISTEN A. PICO 18 Attorney at Law 19 275 Battery Street, Suite 1600 20 San Francisco, California 94111 21 (415) 288-9800 22 kap@hassard.com 23 24 25 BayCityReporting www.baycityreporting.com (415-587-2000) Presley-Nelson vs King-Stephens Deposition of Beverly Presley-Nelson 4-26-18 Page 85 1 Q. Do you know if Gary ever provided copies of 2 that 2002 MRI to any healthcare provider? 3 A. I don't -- I don't know. 4 Q. You did not; correct? 5 A. I didn't -- no, I didn't give anybody anything. 6 Q. Did Gary ever discuss the results of the 2002 7 MRI with you? 8 A. As I said earlier, he would come home and say 9 things are fine. 10 Q. Did he relate to you any discussions he had 11 with a healthcare provider related to the 2002 MRI 12 results, other than telling you that everything was 13 fine? 14 A. All I know is that he said things looked okay. 15 Q. Okay. The records also indicate that Gary 16 underwent an MRI in October -- on October 14, 2008. 17 Is that the MRI you're referring to that was in 18 the middle of his time -- 19 A. Yeah, around there. 20 Q. -- with King-Stephens? 21 A. Yeah, I guess. 22 Q. Do you know where that was performed? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Did you accompany him to that MRI? 25 A. I don't believe so. BayCityReporting www.baycityreporting.com (415-587-2000) Presley-Nelson vs King-Stephens Deposition of Beverly Presley-Nelson 4-26-18 Page 86 1 Q. Do you know why it was ordered? 2 A. I don't know any detailed reason why. 3 Q. Did you ever review the radiology report 4 related to the 2008 MRI? 5 A. No. I was just told it was okay. 6 Q. Who told you that? 7 A. I think Gary said it was fine. 8 Q. Anyone else discuss the MRI results with you? 9 A. Not that I recall in particular, but it's 10 possible that Dr. King-Stephens on one visit or another 11 said that it was fine. 12 Q. Are you speculating? 13 A. That could be. 14 Q. Okay. So you actually -- 15 You don't have a memory of Dr. King-Stephens 16 telling you that the 2008 MRI results were fine; 17 correct? 18 A. I largely just remember him saying that things 19 were fine, to just keep working on the symptoms and the 20 triggers. 21 Q. Okay. Do you have a recollection of 22 Dr. King-Stephens ever discussing with you this -- the 23 results of the 2008 MRI in particular? 24 A. I don't recall him in particular mentioning 25 that. BayCityReporting www.baycityreporting.com (415-587-2000) Page 1 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 4 5