- 56 -
previously testified before this Court, the Court on each
occasion found him to be reliable, relevant, and helpful on the
areas that were the subject of his expertise. See id. at 85-86;
Booth v. Commissioner, supra at 573. We find him likewise
helpful in these cases.
B. Fact Witnesses
At trial, petitioners called five witnesses to testify as to
the facts of these cases; respondent called three such witnesses.
Petitioners’ fact witnesses were Drs. DeAngelis and Domingo and
Messrs. Mamorsky, Bursey, and Teplitzky. Respondent’s fact
witnesses were Dr. Borrero, Mr. Mamorsky, and Ms. McDermott.19
On the basis of our perception of the witnesses and our review of
the record as a whole, we do not find much of the testimony of
the fact witnesses to be helpful as to the critical facts
underlying the issues at hand. See generally Neonatology
19 For completeness, we note that respondent also called Mr.
Carpenter to testify at an evidentiary hearing held immediately
before trial. Petitioners had moved the Court approximately 1
month before trial to issue an order generally disqualifying Mr.
DeWeese from testifying as an expert witness in this proceeding
and had attached to their motion an affidavit of Mr. Carpenter
setting forth serious allegations questioning the objectivity of
Mr. DeWeese. In respondent’s response to that motion (as
supplemented by petitioners to address in part a question by the
Court as to why petitioners had not filed their motion earlier),
respondent raised serious issues of truthfulness on the part of
Mr. Carpenter and requested in part that the Court hold an
evidentiary hearing so that respondent could question Mr.
Carpenter as to his actions connected with this proceeding and
the subject matter thereof. The Court granted respondent’s
request. The Court ultimately denied petitioners’ motion as
supplemented.
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008