Day 42 of the A.J. trial: Testimony of an addiction and human resources expert

At the beginning of today’s session, in the absence of the jury, the tedious debate between the lawyers about a printout presented in court yesterday by the company’s attorney was continued.

Yesterday in court, it was argued that if the company had conducted a financial background check on Murray, it would have found that he was not qualified to be hired, and therefore Murray would have been fired. The company’s attorney, Jessica Bena, presented a printout claiming that the law prohibits financial background checks of individuals. Today, Panish raised his voice in court and said that Bena’s claim misled everyone—including the judge.

“They say it’s a law, an official regulation, but it isn’t. It’s just a way of working in some cases. If the court is misled about this, the jury will be misled too.”

Panish also pointed out that the company’s senior attorney, Sean Trill, who had testified earlier in court, had not said anything about an order banning financial investigations, and the company had not previously claimed anything about it.

The judge said the company’s attorney could ask the witness about it, but this printout would not be accepted as evidence in court. The judge then asked the lawyers to put their heads together and write a statement for her to read to the jury.

After that, the jury members entered the courtroom and the judge read the statement to them. The judge said that the prohibition on investigating people’s financial history is not a law! She stated that the printout presented by the company’s attorney would not be accepted as evidence. The jurors nodded to show they understood.

Then the testimony of Jane Searight, the human resources expert, was continued.

Bena asked Searight whether she was familiar with the printout presented. She said yes, because it outlines the procedure, since an employer shouldn’t discriminate against employees.

Bena asked whether studies show a connection between debt and murder or incorrect medical prescriptions. Searight said she didn’t know.

Bena pointed out that before Michael Jackson, Murray had never harmed any of his patients. Searight said she only investigated Murray’s financial history. Her review showed that his bank loan repayments had been delayed by 180 days, and his Las Vegas home had been put up for sale by the bank—meaning inability to pay debts and lack of qualification for hiring.

Bena said Dr. Murray owed his duty not to the company, but to Michael Jackson. Searight explained that Murray’s duty was to care for Michael during the tour held by the company. Bena noted that Murray had a multi-year relationship with Michael, and Searight said that didn’t make a difference.

Searight also said that if someone has worked for years and some time has passed since the last time they were hired, the employer needs to conduct new checks to hire them again.

Bena asked: given that Murray had served Michael for several years, did he need to have his background checked again to use him for the tour? Searight said she couldn’t comment without evaluating the conditions that existed at the time.

Bena pointed out that according to an estimate in 2010, financial background checks were done for a small percentage of job hires. Searight said employers have discretion to conduct checks, but their performance shouldn’t create discrimination among employees. Searight believes the company should check the background of its independent contractors the same way it checks its employees.

After Bena, Panish began questioning Ms. Searight.

Panish first went back to the printout mentioned and said that Jessica Bena had presented it to the jury incorrectly. Bena objected, and the judge—considering the statement she had read to the jury at the beginning of the session—asked Panish why he was repeating it. Panish explained that he wanted the issue to be clarified for the jury, and the judge said it wasn’t necessary.

Panish asked Searight what aspects companies check when evaluating applicants’ financial and credit history. Searight explained that financial pressure can negatively affect people’s behavior and judgment. She added that many government agencies check small financial details because they consider inability to pay debts a risky factor.

Panish then asked whether, after reviewing the case file somewhere, she had seen that the company’s reason for not checking Dr. Murray’s financial history was concern about creating discrimination against this doctor. Searight said she found no such discussion in any of the documents.

Panish referred to the 2010 estimate presented by Bena and asked whether one could decide on the necessity or non-necessity of financial background checks for people working in healthcare based on that research. The witness said the 2010 research isn’t reliable for that purpose.

Searight specifically said: “I believe AEG had hired Dr. Murray.” The company’s attorney objected, and the judge accepted the objection and reminded again that the jury decides this issue.

Searight said that regarding Murray’s request for a $5 million salary, it had raised a question in her mind: why would a doctor ask for such a high salary? She called this a warning sign. Randy Phillips, the company’s CEO, had previously testified that Murray’s high request was due to his medical skills.

Panish asked Searight: if she were an AEG employee, would she recommend hiring Murray? Searight answered that she definitely wouldn’t. And if they insisted, she would suggest a comprehensive investigation into his financial and medical background.

Panish: “Was the company’s performance wrong because it didn’t check Dr. Murray’s background?”

Searight: “Yes.”

Then it was time for testimony from Dr. Sidney Skolnow, an expert in prescription drug addiction. He took the stand for the Jacksons and was questioned by Michael Kaskoff, the Jacksons’ attorney.

Skolnow has worked in this profession since 1970, but has served as a consultant since 2001. The last time he testified in court was fifteen years ago. He has worked for the NFL (National Football League). In his field, he has authored forty chapters. He has also worked in the music industry, including collaborating with the Rolling Stones. He said that his monitoring approach to drug use has become a common pattern in professional baseball leagues.

Dr. Skolnow said drug dependence is the result of taking certain medications.

“You take them continuously and then stop suddenly, and you develop withdrawal symptoms, which are the opposite effect of the drug. If you continue taking it, your tolerance increases. That means you need a higher dose for the drug to work.”

Skolnow explained that if a patient takes medication under controlled use and under a doctor’s supervision, they can have a normal life, although dependence can still happen even under medical supervision.

He said addiction is a chronic disease: the patient continues taking the drug out of an uncontrollable craving despite seeing the negative effects. The first reason for addiction is family history and genetics.

Dr. Skolnow said drug dependence is different from drug addiction. People who are dependent need the medication. The goal of addicts is to reach a good feeling. To know whether someone is dependent or addicted, you must examine their behavior during the time they take the medication.

He described one of his patients: a woman who became dependent on painkillers due to headaches and asked her doctors to prescribe more pills for her. Dr. Skolnow asked the woman to write down, in a table, the times when she got headaches. Skolnow then found that his patient got headaches every day around 4 p.m., except on weekends. Skolnow said the woman didn’t take her lunch at work. He concluded that lunch was the enemy of her headaches. The woman didn’t believe it at first, but after taking all three meals, she improved.

Source: eMJey.com / AP & CNN