The Neurosurgeon Who Talks Faster Than the Record
You are reporting the deposition of a neurosurgeon in a personal-injury case. He speaks quickly and uses "C6-C7 ACDF," "L4-L5 microdiscectomy," "radiculopathy," and "EMG/NCS" without slowing down. At one point he says, "The patient had a positive Spurling's - no, a negative Spurling's," and neither attorney asks him to clarify. Later he refers to "the 6/7 level" without saying cervical or lumbar, and the preceding testimony could support either reading. When you ask him to spell "spondylolisthesis" on the record, defense counsel objects that you are "editing the witness's testimony." The transcript is due in ten days, and the room's audio recorder failed at the start, so you have no backup recording.
1. Counsel objects to your asking the witness to spell a term. What is your position, and how do you get unfamiliar terminology onto the record without improper interruption?
Read the worked answer
The objection is misdirected. Asking for the spelling of a word is not editing testimony; it is the mechanism by which the testimony can be reproduced accurately. Editing would be substituting your own word or silently correcting his.
How to do it well:
- Ask at a natural pause, not over the witness: "Would you spell that for the record?" The question is addressed to the witness but is really for the transcript, and most counsel accept it once stated.
- Do not ask substantive clarifications - what a term means, whether it applies to this patient, which level is meant. Those are counsel's job, and a reporter who asks them is shaping the record. Ask only for orthography.
- Build a working list in your notes as terms recur, and confirm spellings in one batch at a break or at the end of the session, on the record: "For the record, the witness will confirm the spelling of several terms."
- Do not rely on a dictionary guess on a term like "spondylolisthesis." Compare with the medical records or an exhibit if one is marked.
- With no audio backup, the pressure is higher: your notes are the only source. Say so if needed, and ask for a reasonable pace rather than guessing at speed.
2. How do you render "the 6/7 level" when the surrounding testimony does not establish cervical or lumbar, and no one on the record has clarified it?
Read the worked answer
Transcribe exactly what he said; do not resolve the ambiguity for him.
- Write "the 6/7 level." Adding "cervical" or "lumbar" would be you supplying testimony, and a wrong guess would be an error no one could detect from the face of the transcript.
- Escalate it on the record, not in the transcript. At the next break, tell both counsel: "The witness said 'the 6/7 level' without specifying which region; do you want him to clarify on the record?" If they do, the ambiguity is cured by testimony. If they decline, the ambiguity belongs to them.
- Do not insert an interpretive parenthetical. A bracketed editorial gloss like "[cervical]" reads as a reporter's conclusion about medical testimony. Reserve brackets for genuinely mechanical matters - a noted omission, a speaker identification, an unintelligible passage.
- Note it in your job file with the page and line so that you can answer a query at read-and-sign. If the read-and-sign produces a correction, the correction goes on the errata sheet, signed by the witness.
The governing principle: the transcript reports the state of the record, including its gaps. A reporter who fills gaps has stopped being a reporter.
3. The witness self-corrects from "positive Spurling's" to "negative Spurling's," and no one follows up. How do you render the exchange, and do you use [sic]?
Read the worked answer
Render the self-correction as spoken, in the same answer, exactly as it occurred:
The patient had a positive Spurling's - no, a negative Spurling's.
Reasoning:
- Both words stay. The correction is part of the testimony; deleting the first version conceals that the witness changed his answer, which is precisely the kind of thing a later reader may need to see. A reporter who "tidies" this has altered the substance.
- No [sic]. "[Sic]" signals a transcription of an error in the original and invites the reader to treat the speaker as mistaken. Used on a substantive medical answer, it editorializes. It is generally reserved for plainly misspoken or nonstandard wording that must be flagged, and even then sparingly, per your firm's style.
- Punctuation carries the correction. The dash or comma setting off "no, a negative Spurling's" preserves the rhythm of the spoken retraction without adding words.
- If you are unsure of the exact sequence - whether the first version was fully spoken - flag it to counsel on the record rather than reconstructing it. A reporter who invents a plausible sequence has breached the certification they will sign.