more of an impact of cushion or you won't notice? >> possibly both. you may not notice the amount of blood because it could be getting mixed up with the hair itself. and i guess it would depend on the thickness of your hair to depend on the amount of cushion that would be -- >> i have no further questions at this time. thank you. >> thank you. mr. o'mara. >> yes, thank you. if i might. >> i will need a little assistance. recruit you for a moment.

>> thank you very much, your honor. actually, it will be a few minutes before i need this. so -- thank you. good afternoon, ma'am. >> hi. >> i'm going to focus again he was a patient of yours for a while before the event where he came to you on february 27th, correct? >> correct. >> but just to start with the last question first, he did not have any back pain caused by

back injury before this event, correct? >> no. >> the back injury was actually internal concern that showed itself as a back pain? >> correct. we believed it was likely relate to the the constipation. >> when he came to you on the 27th, that was the first time he had ever complained of back pain? >> yes, this was unrelated. >> okay. let's focus then on that night. >> okay. >> the day -- make sure i do this right so give me a moment. this, yes, thank you very much, your honor. is this close to how he presented to you that day? >> from what i recall, similar. >> yes. >> yes? >> yes.

>> okay. this was just -- this was taken the night before. >> okay. >> maybe 12 hours or so before you saw him. >> okay. >> was that pretty similar to the way he presented to you? >> fairly similar. it's a different picture when you're seeing it on a picture rather than up close but yes. >> certainly and i apologize for that. sorry i bounced back and forth a little bit. may a approach the witness with the exhibits? >> you probably have not seen this picture before, have you? >> i have not. >> if this person presented himself you know that to be george zimmerman. >> yes. >> if this person had presented himself to you, looking like this. >> uh-huh. >> what would you have done for him? >> if he had come to our office looking like that, we would have cleaned the wounds so we could better evaluate what the type of injuries that are. and then go about the same process that we went through. and then order the testing based off of that. >> and if you look at this photograph as compared to the one we just identified.

>> yes. >> i would like to focus your attention to the nose area. >> okay. >> would you -- >> objection as to relevance and also she didn't see him like that. so i object as to speculation at this point. >> my response, your honor. >> let me hear the rest of the question. >> would you agree that the swelling that you saw in that picture has gone down from the way it is here? >> it looks like that it's decreased slightly. >> is that normal? let's say that there's a -- let's say there's a four-hour difference, five-hour difference between this picture and that picture. is that a normal sort of receding of swelling? >> it depends on what he's using to help keep the swelling down. maybe if he was using anti--en inflammatories or icing the area, yes, the swelling could be less. >> would you expect an injury of this information to look like that five hours later? is that normal?

>> yes, it could. >> once it's cleaned up. >> correct. >> okay. >> but would you agree that in this picture, that the nose is in fact more swollen than it is in that picture? >> it does appear to be, yes. >> why is that? what happens to the body that it heals itself like that? >> the body naturally tries to take care of itself if it can, and the body responds to trauma in a certain way and that is why the body produces swelling. and then as the body is recovering, that's how the swelling resolves. again, it also depends on the certain extrennious things you're using like anti-inflammatories or ice to the area. >> so while this may look as though it is now a bone protrusion to the right side of the nose, it's not actually a bone protruding out there, is it? >> it's unlikely in the sense that it's resolved and looks like that picture later. >> yet, the body swells up at point of injury, does it not?

>> it does, it can, yes. >> is that in response to the drama of the hit, correct? >> it can, yes. >> and it does that by swelling? and the swell canning, if you would, just sort of tell us why the body swells or how the body swells up in the area of trauma pa. >> the body itself is reacting to the impact of something that's happened. so certain blood can rush to the area or more fluid underneath the skin can rush to the area. and that's what produces the effect of the swelling. >> includingly ymph and white blood cells? >> they can potentially. that's the purpose of the system to help with foreign bodies and things like that. >> particularly when we know there's bleeding happening, is that correct? >> uh-huh. >> bleeding sort of indicates broken blood vessels? >> it can, blood vessels or capillaries. >> and would you agree that there was bleeding inside the,

is it nares? >> likely there was bleeding inside the nares if you see it coming down the front of the face, yes. >> where does that blood go if you're just standing up like i am and my nose is bleeding? >> normally gravity will pull it down. >> how about if i'm laying on my back? >> what will happen is you can swallow some of that back down your throat. >> actually, it can go into the sinuses, as well, can't it? >> it can. >> and as it goes back down the sinuses it goes into the back of your throat? >> it can. correct. >> and you actually can be swallowing your own blood, correct. >> you can. that may give you the taste in your mouth. correct. >> this swelling that we've just spoken about is the body's initial reaction to trauma, correct? >> it is. >> and it only can last maybe just a few hours, correct? >> it depends on the level of the trauma and the patient, but

yes. does that diminish the fact that the body was in fact traumatized as we see in this picture? >> meaning does it make it any less plausible that the body was attacked? >> sure, yeah. >> no. >> it's a natural reaction for the body to begin its healing process, immediately, correct? >> correct. >> of course, this face was cleaned up after the blood was all removed and can you see both -- can barely still see the cut just at the top of the bridge there, correct? >> correct. >> would you acknowledge that there was in fact a larger laceration or cut on nose here? >> there appears to be but it appears to have blood surrounding the area, as well. >> once you clean it up, it looks a little bit better? >> correct. >> have you seen this picture before? >> i have not. >> okay.

>> would the scalp bleed in a fashion like this interest those two lacerations? >> it can. the scalp again is very vascular meaning there are plenty of blood vessels on the surface that could cause bleeding like that. >> bleed down the back that way? >> again, gravity would start to pull that down. >> okay. i want to show you some other pictures of mr. zimmerman that night. now, can you see that photograph? >> i can. >> okay. do you note additional areas of swelling on this picture that you may not have noticed on your physical evaluation? >> i'm sorry, your honor. that is state's exhibit 57.

let me point you, did you see anything in this area of swelling? >> there is, as well swelling there that i can see, yes. >> would that also possibly have evolved itself in the few, in, the 12 hours between this picture and when you saw him? >> it could have, yes. >> do you see an area up here that seems to be misshapen? >> in the photograph, yes, i see that. >> would that also be an area of swelling? >> it's normally an area of swelling. we call those scalp hematomas where blood can pool under the skin. >> tell me how that occurs. how does a scalp hematoma occur. >> a hematoma can occur through trauma na so some sort of trauma to the head that resulted in fluid there or fluid there. >> if i was to smash my head against something, let's say i hit this part, the trauma would cause blood or maybe lymph system fluid to flood that area. >> caller: yes. >> similar to the nose, it would

go there, do its job and then sort of recede? >> correct. >> and that's what causes swell as we know it? >> caller: correct. >> and that's what caused it here? maybe? >> caller: it do, yes. >>en an that's what caused it up here. >> caller: it could, yes. >> you see these, right? >> caller: yes. >>en an those lacerations you identified? >> caller: those were the two, correct. >> okay. >> what is account potential outcome from head trauma like that? >> it again depends on the if is cal exam of the parent and you base a lot of that off the physical exam of the patient but any sort of head trauma can result in al internal injury meaning bleeding into the brain, skull fractures. >> and an internal hematoma is that dural hematoma? >> it depends on the blood is actually. you can have agdural or epidural sub hematoma. >> that may be not have the external notice, correct?

you can have an internal hematoma, sub dural hematoma na, epidural hematoma bleeding on beneath the scalp that will resolve itself? >> an epidural or sub dural hematoma would be below the skull. >> right. >> that's the difference between a hematoma which is bob the skull between the skin. >> right. >> hematoma outside the skull. >> correct. >> resolves itself sort of between the skull and the skin. >> correct. >> and then sub dural epidural is you actually have gone below the skull and you just in that dura which is what cushions the brain? >> correct. >> and you can have injuries like this could can certainly cause an epidural or a sub dural hematoma, correct? >> not necessarily the lacerations themselves but if there was head trauma, completely. >> i'm sorry. so if i just went up to this head and cut it with a razor blade or a scalpel, that would not you would imagine cause a sub dural or epidural hematoma?

>> no. >> but if i took that same skull and let's say smashed on concrete, sufficient enough to cause that interior. >> uh-huh. >> so smash might be a term of art, but getting that injury by having your head hit against cement, could that cause a sub dural epidural hematoma? >> that could depending how hard the impact was. >> and that would in fact, be an injury below the skull in the area where the brain is? >> correct. >> which is one of the reasons why you do what you do in your evaluation to make sure that he can still focus his eyes and still speak because your concern at that point with any head trauma there may be some brain injury. >> correct. >> and your charged then at that point then is to rule out that possibility, though you would agree that possibility exists whenever you have an injury like this. >> it can, yes.

>> close-up of the same thing. you see the swelling again up on then area and right in here? >> correct. >>. >> tell me, can you see that injury up there or that curbs up there. >> i can see what maybe appears to be an abrasion of the scalp. >> is that -- what would you call that? is that punctate bruising or. >> it can be or it depends on what the surface was that maybe caused the injury and it could be an abrasion which is basically just a thinner layer of the skin coming off. >> what are punctate injuries? just explain that. >> punctate injuries would be

injuries to the blood vessels themselves causing bleeding or small sort of capillary bursts like that. >> would that occur if you had your head hit against something as irregular but flat as concrete? >> it could. >> is that a way to the get those little mini bruising middle bruisings all over the place? >> if was hit on concrete or anything like that, the rough surface of that could have caused tattoo. >> okay. consistent with it being hit on concrete, isn't it? >> it can be consistent with that, whether or not that is what it was struck on it, i'm sure that can happen on multiother surfaces, as well, be but it could be consistent. >> if mr. zimmerman would have come to you and say he had that injury and that it occurred because his head was hit on concrete, would it be consistent? >> objection as to speculation though. >> i think she's already testified to that. >> i'll move on then, your

hono honor. >> did you notice any injury right there? >> i don't recall that injury. >> can you tell us what that looks like to you? >> it looks like it may be be a scratch of the skin or an abrasion of the skin, as well. >> okay. >> now let's look up here at that injury there. what is that? can you identify what that is? >> it looks like there may be some mild swelling there. >> another bruise. >> it's hard to tell if there's an actual bruise or discoloration of the skin, but it does appear there's some swelling. >> i'm sorry. would we just characterize that in lehman's term, that's a bump on the head. >> correct. >> how would that come? how would you get something like that? >> again, it can come from hitting your head on any sort of surface potentially or being struck by something. >> can you also see the same

type of punctate injury right honored around here? >> i can see that. >> as far as up as here. can you see that? >> it appears to be. >> and as down low as here. >> correct. >> as to what you testified before, sort of of the same? >> it appears to be, yes. >> i'm sorry, your honor. i'm not identifying the exhibits. that's number 66 that the witness is testifying concerning. >> and do you see this area right there of swelling? from this ridge here down to this ridge? can you see that? >> it's hard to tell in this picture from a side view. >> okay. >> can you see this injury here and can you identify what that is? >> objection as to leading. in terms of testifying mr. o'mara testifying injuries there without this witness saying that there is. >> sustained as to the word "injury." >> okay. >> rephrase your question. >> i will.

can you see anything in this area that i'm circling? >> there appears to be an abrasion there. >> okay. and gin, an abrasion consistent with that head being hit on concrete? >> it can be consistent with that, yes. >>. >> and that was 68, your honor, if i didn't identify it. now looking at state's exhibit 69, let me ask you to pay attention to this area right here. is that the abrasion that you were identified earlier? >> it appears to be the same. >> and just to the -- going back, can you see ta as an area of swelling, as well? >> it does appear to be swelling. unfortunately, some of that you have to take into account on a physical exam of how that area feels during the time. so it's its difficult to get in a picture. have you certain head shapes, as well. >> okay. and again, with this may well have resolved itself in the 12

hours or so the time when the picture was taken and when you saw him? >> it could potentially have, yes. >> and do you see similar -- what do you see up in this area on the what would be above his left eye? can you see that? >> it's slightly shaded but possibly another abrasion up there, as well. >> and can we see then the lacerations in the area around the lacerations on this side? >> i can see those, yes. >> can you see, is that the area that we talked about before with the miss shapen skull? >> it appears to be. >> at the top. >> now, let's look at this side to orient state's exhibit 70 and his right side of his skull, correct? >> okay. >> what do you see -- what is here? >> again, it looks like it could be some swelling with the abrasions that we noted before. >> and how about this area up

here, additional. >> an additional abrasions. >> would that abrasion itself come from its own strike upon something? >> that would be hard to determine. >> and how about the one up here? >> again, it would be difficult to determine if it was from its own. >> and the one over here. >> same thing. >> so we get now a better view of the misshapen area on the back of his skull from this perspective. >> there appears to be possible swelling there or the misshape of his skull itself. >> i think and this is state's exhibit 71. you've testified to these areas and also this bruising up here, correct? >> correct.

>> it i might exhibit 74, this is a close-up of the area of the laceration. can you better describe for me what you see here as far as additional areas of swelling around the lacerations? >> there appears to be swelling around the lacerations which would be consistent with a trauma that elicited the laceration itself. >> meaning that whatever caused the laceration was also the same time the sort of compression injury that we talked about earlier? where. >> and that could cause the swelling, correct. >> consistent all of it with being hit on concrete, is it not? >> it could be consistent, yes. >> if it the the complaint was that is that head was hit on concrete, would you consider that consistent with the injuries that you see? >> i would. >> thank you very much, your

honor. for the lights, thank you. >> now, let's spend just a minute on the report itself. mr. de la rionda had already gone over it so i'm just going to hit some height points on it, if i might. >> okay. >> his vital signs, blood pressure, 130/80. >> correct. >> a concern for a 28-year-old? >> slightly high on the systolic side but from what i remember in the past, he's never had a problem with high blood pressure before. >> but not a good high blood pressure, right? like to see it lower. >> ideally we like to see it 120 or less but i wouldn't be concerned at 130. >> pulse at 109. >> that is high. ideally we see this around 70 to 8. >> evidencing what to you? >> that an increased pulse rate can be related to stress or to

trauma. it can also be related to multiple other things. something to do with your heart, you know, causing some sort of cardiac condition. >> nonetheless, again, not in top shape. huh? >> it's not where we would like it to be. >> and how about the bmi? >> the bmi is 31.48. and again. >> meaning that he is clinically obese. >> correct, based on bmi classification. >> and again, not healthy. >> ideally that's not the healthy range. normally between 19 to the 25 or 26. >> not athletic. >> it doesn't necessarily mean someone's not athletic with a bmi of 31. it's not idyllic what the standards of health for bmi would be. >> and you've gone through the actual injuries that you identified. we talked for a moment about the si injury. >> correct. >> is that that injury

consistent with falling on your back or i guess in the buttocks area did you say? >> it can be, yes. >> when you've got that type of si pain, si is. >> sacroiliac correct. >> and that's basically at the base of your spine? >> it's not necessarily right at the base of your spine. your spine comes down straight. it would be where each side of the buttocks were directly in the center of that. so have you one on each side. >> how does an injury like that occur? >> an si joint injury can occur through trauma or through a fall. sometimes people have si joint from an improper stretching technique oral through some sort of athletic type of performance. >> he had reported to you that he was hit in the nose, correct? >> correct. >> by his attacker. >> correct. >> was that consistent with the picture i showed you here of his nose or nasal injuries? is that consistent with getting punched in the nose. >> that would be consistent.

>> and is the si injury that he talked to you about consistent with being thrown on the ground with on your back? >> it would be consistent. >> the only way to really identify whether or not a nose is "broken" is with an x-ray, correct? >> that would be the definitive way to decide if there was a nasal fracture. >> it would be easier for you to be conclusive in the determination of broken nose if you saw a complete septal debiation, correct. >> clinically, if there was more of a septal deviation, there could be a more definitive answer to that. >> if the nose is pointed toward one way or the other, pretty obvious there's a break. >> correct. >> but short of that, you would need to have an x-ray in order to get that accomplished? >> correct. >> and that was the reason why you hadal referred 0 him to an ent.

>> correct. >> to document what you could not document in your office? >> correct. >> you don't do nose or nas i il --. ? >> we do not. >> did he tell you he wasn't going to go to the ent because of the high deductible on his insurance policy. >> i don't recall there being a discussion on the cost or deductible. >> do you remember what he told you what it would cost for that type of evaluation? >> i don't recall that. >> is that something you would have noted or just a conversation with him. >> it wouldn't change my opinion of where to send him or to not send him. >> and you were firm in your opinion of a couple of things. one that he needed to see an ent for the nose injury. >> correct. >> even though it was reduced to the better than the cleaned up picture we looked at, right? >> correct. >> because that went from this picture to that the picture in four hours. >> uh-huh. >> and you had another 12 hours of the swelling to go down.

>> correct. >> but even still, you wanted an ent consult. >> yes, because there can be residual effects of a nasal fracture if it's not taken care of. >> and you also suggested based upon the conversation that you had with him that he should get a psychological consult, correct? >> correct. >> why is that? >> he was already seeing a psychologist. and in mile professional opinion, if someone is to go through the sort of ordeal that he went through the night before of what he's telling me, then i would recommend that anybody go see a psychologist. >> did he come across to you as though he was trying to make sirn that you would document his injuries consistent with being attacked? >> i don't recall that. >> okay. was he just reporting the symptoms as they seemed to exist? >> yes. >> he wasn't from your perspective, he wasn't trying to use you as some shill to come up with an excuse or a reason or a medical reason for his injuries, was? >> he >> it did not appear that way. >> was, in fact, all of his

complaints documented bill your evaluation? >> they were. >> and those injuries actually did exist, correct? >> they did. >> and in addition to the psychological concern that you had in your professional opinion, that existed, as well, didn't it? >> it did, and that would have xied for anybody who came in with what he was concerned about or what had taken place that night. >> particularly his documented or supported by the injuries that he show or exhibited to you? >> supported by that. >> what we didn't know the in the cleaned up picture, you know the one i'm talking about when i say that? >> uh-huh, yes. >> we didn't know the any black eyes on that picture, did you? >> i didn't notice them from the picture, no. >> so tell me as the body begins to heal itself, we know that it

rushes to the area of trauma as you said, right? >> correct. >> then it sort of recedes. >> correct. >> well, what's the timeline on those eyes to go black? >> sometimes the black eyes can become more apparent at a later date. that's not necessarily an initial event that happens. most of the time swelling comes to the area, then the, as well swelling may recede and something like the black eyes can occur after that. >> because the black eyes are actually residual blood that has escaped the capillaries and just sort of pools in the soft pocks understand the eyes? >> correct. >> so you don't expect to see a black eye a moment or ten minutes or an hour even after a punch in the nose, do you? >> not necessarily that quickly. >> but it was -- is it consistent that if had he gotten punched in the nose at let's say 7:16 the night before, that when you saw him 11:00 a.m. in the morning. >> uh-huh. >> that his eyed would be blackened? >> they could be, yeah.

it was consistent with what i saw on my physical exam. >> and they were in fact two black eyes, correct? >> they were. >>. >> i mentioned a moment ago was he trying to sort of somehow make up or document significant injuries, and i think you said he wasn't? >> not from the impression that i had. >> on the other side, was he trying to even minimize his injuries and get it behind him? did you get any of that feel with him telling you he wasn't going to an ent and he just wanted a note to get back to work? >> i don't recall that per se him having that certain effect. >> okay.

>> and plaintiff de la rionda asked you about the bandage. obviously you were taking that off. did that seem to be an appropriate bandaging to do for that injury? >> that was fine given that the skin edges were well approximated and the scalp l lacerations were not that deep. if you're referring to anything like a butterfly stitch, it wasn't necessary at the time. >> you didn't look at that bandage like when we're kids or something and just have a little kid and a 4 inch by 4 inch bandage. you didn't look at that and wonder why would someone put a bandage on that size of two injuries that have size, did you? >> no. >> did it seem appropriate that it would be bandaged? >> yeah, it was appropriate to keep them covered. >> particularly if it was a nursing students to was looking at that injury, would it make sense as a nursing student to cover an open wound?

>> yes. >> objection, speculation. >> sustained. >> i'll rephrase it. >> thank you. >> if you saw those wounds on the back of the head, you know the ones we're talking about? >> uh-huh. >> if you saw those wounds, would you clean them off and put bandages on them. >> i would likely have them cleaned and if the patient desired, i would put a bandage over them. it doesn't have to be bandaged but there would be no problem with doinging that to keep certain debris out of the area. >> and we talked a bit about what happens when you fall down and olympian de la reon da used himself as a model and i might use myself as a model that i may not get as injured because i have hair than someone who doesn't have hair. is that? >> i don't know if that would necessarily be true. i guess it would depend on the thickness of your hair. >> okay. >> but i don't think that you would be nel less injured based on having hair or not.

>> it would be more apparent with somebody who back then didn't have hair to cover the injuries. but the injuries are what they are, correct? >> they are what they are, correct. >> and certainly whoever may have inflicted those injuries knew how much hair was on the body that they were inflicting the injuries upon, correct? >> objection, speculation. >> sustained. >> did you ask mr. zimmerman if he had cut his hair in the past 14 hours? >> i had not asked that questio question. >> may i have a moment, your honor?

>> thank you very much for your time, your honor. thank you, ma'am. >> thank you. >> any redetect. >> you mentioned something that i was curious about talking about the shape of the head. >> yes. >> i guess we all think the head is perfectly shaped. our skull. is that always true. >> not necessarily always true. >> tell me about that if you could. >> everybody' head shape is different. obviously most people you don't notice because they have hair on their head. so it depends on what that may look like. everybody can having certain abnornlts of the skull. >> people may have a bump there pre-existing and it may not be caused by trauma. >> it could be, correct. >> you were shown a lot of photographs. can you pull those up again? sorry. >> it's still there. >> just go back? you were shown a lot of photographs. i'm going to go through them real quickly. you're not saying that those were all stuff that occurred the

day before or the night before, all of that, are you? >> it would be hard to determine that based off just a photo. most of that would be based off physical exam, as well. >> thank you. i think i'm through with the photographs, your honor. >> and my point is, you actually saw them as a live person. in other words, you actually looked at his head, right? >> correct. >> you looked at his head and he had less their but you looked, i'm assuming you didn't just kind of glance. you actually looked at his head. >> correct. >> to examine? and all you saw on your examination was two lacerations, correct? >> that was all i know theed. >> i'm saying you didn't document any other stuff that we've been talking about all this trauma, you didn't notice that at all? >> at the time, that wasn't documented, i don't recall if there was some swelling but i didn't potentially possibly put in my note. >> at this time, do you recall or at that time, do you recall did you notate any other swelling other than the lacerations? >> those were the only two things that i know theed. >> okay. so far and by the way, you

mentioned if it could, let's speculate and say that those were all trauma caused hematomas or whatever. those were apparently cleaned up by the time they saw you, by the time he saw you the next day? >> the swelling was minimized, yes. >> that took, maybe an aspirin or two or tylenol or two or it just did it naturally? >> depends. the body will help react naturally and depends on what sort of exogenous things he may be using >> you're not saying that is severe trauma anyway? >> i don't know if i would say it's not severe or not. i mean, he does have two scalp lacerations and i'm basing that off what his complaints are when he comes in. >> his history, in other words. >> exactly. >> but you only note two lacerations in the whole thing? >> those are the only two things i documented yesterday. >> you documented also his nose. the back of his head, his skull, you only noticed two lacerations? >> knows were the things i was

looking for the most because those were the things we discussed personally. >> okay. >>en an when you did the whole exam in terms of nausea or i'm sorry, about dizziness, being able to be whether he's conscious or not, you ruled all of those out. no trauma to the med head, correct. >> i'm ruling those out based on what he's telling me and he based on my physical exam to make sure all of that seems appropriate. >> and so you ruled all that out? >> it seemed like he was neurologically intact, yes. >> okay. so he didn't have any brain injury is what i'm going to? >> there doesn't mean that you can't have a brain injury meaning a concussion pr a trauma but it did not appear to be anything that would require imaging because he wasn't complaining of those specific symptoms. >> and you also did not notice any? or you didn't -- >> sorry. >> can you rephrase the question? >> no. he gave you a history in terms of -- he wasn't complaining of trauma to his head, correct? >> he did complain of trauma to

his head meaning he had the lacerations. >> i apologize. other than that. >> and again, the story that he told me of his head being struck against the ground so he did complain of head trauma, but from what i'm looking at based on my physical exam and doing his neurological testing, everything appeared to be intact. because of that, i didn't order the additional testing >> because if you had noted something, you would have ordered additional testing? >> at the time, exactly. i also mentioned that what are the signs to look for? should something like that occur. and if that were to occur, then additional testing would be ordered. >> and you never required any, is that correct? >> i was never notified of anything as a change. >> okay. >> so did any of the injuries require anything for treatment other than minor cleaning, et cetera? >> for the most part, they required cleaning to the area. and then again, we don't know the definitive diagnosis of the nasal fracture which may have required additional treatment. >> you recommended he go to an

ent. >> from what i recall, yes, he was not going to going. >> mr. o'mara asked you about he possibly said he didn't have insurance. you don't recall him ever saying that, do you? >> i don't recall ta discussion. >> and i think you notated already but you did note in your records as to -- i'm sorry, february 27th, that he came in because he needed a note for work, is that correct? >> correct. >> he didn't come into your office and say, i've got all these head injuries. i can't think. i can't walk. i can't function. he didn't come in complaining about that, did he? >> the major concern that was taken by the medical assistant was that he needed of what happened and then that he needed the return for work, yes. >> you mentioned also that in terms of psychological that you suggested but that he was also already seeing a psychologist,

is that correct? >> he was already established with a psychologist, yes. >> okay. >> i'm sorry, your honor. may i have a moment. >> yes, you may. >> going back to august 19th, 2011, i don't know if i removed that document. that was the first time you would have had contact with him. >> correct. >> mr. zimmerman talked about his exercise routine that he was taking mixed martial arts classes, right? >> correct. >> auction, your honor. that would be outside the scope of cross-examination. this is redirect. >> sustained. >> your honor, i'll be glad to approach the bench regarding something that i want to show her. >> that was brought up in cross-examination. so it's outside the scope. >> yes, your honor. may we approach the bench on another matter. >> yes, you may.

>> good evening. i'm joy reid in for chris math newspapers we've been listening to testimony from fis's assistant lind zee foal gate gate in the george zimmerman trial. joining us is seem ma ire, joseph hanes and kendall coffey. seemma, i want to talk about what we've been hearing. lind zeal follow gate who examined george zimmerman the day after the shooting seems to be -- she's called by the prosecution but she is definitely not going all the way in the prosecution's direction but she did testify when she saw george zimmerman, she only saul two small lacerations. what's the significance of that for the prosecution? >> for the prosecution, they're trying to point out which i think was successful on redirect that there was no neurological

injury, that she did not order additional tests. and when she told mr. zimmerman if you see these signs then you go need to get additional tests, that wasn't done either. bernie did a great job of rehabilitating her. >> joseph, the significance of george zimmerman not going to the hospital on the night of the shooting. he did sign a waiver. but he did go the next day. is that at all significant for prosecution or defense. >> i think it's significant for the prosecution because the prosecution is trying to establish. >> i'm going to ask you to hold on a second. we're going back into court now. >> you talked about doing it three days a week and three hours a day. is that correct? >> correct.

>>. >> and family, ma'am, what kind of symptoms would you expect from a gunshot wound to the heart? what kind of symptoms. >> object, your honor. that would be actually outside his direct and outside my cross. >> sustained. >> thank you. i have no other questions. >> a couple. >> may i see the last page you referenced to her? i have mine. >> actually, what mr. zimmerman said to you not that he had done mma three times a week. what he said was aerobics. >> that is written on the sheet but i go in more detail with the patient when they're back in the office. >> when you talked about doing this type, we're talking about aerobic exercise, are we not. >> when i would ask him what type of exercise, then mixed martial arts would the have been mentioned. >> and medically speaking, would

you agree that whatever he did to stop the attack allowed him to survive it if? >> it could have potentially. it will depends on the amount of trauma he was sustaining at the time. >> so stopping the attack is what allowed him to survive it, would you agree? >> it could have, yes. >> would you agree that's pure speculation on your part? >> i wasn't there at the time of the event. so i don't know the the exact trauma that took place. >> thank you very much. >> okay. may miss folgate be excused? >> he why, your honor. >> you are excused. ladies and gentlemen, we're going to recess for the evening and for the weekend. while we're in recess till monday morning at 9:00 a.m., i want to advise you again that you're not to discuss the case amongst yourselves nor with anybody else. you're not to read or listen to any radio, television or newspaper reports about the case. you're not to use any type of an

electronic device. >> we are back on "hardball." i'm joy reid. i want to go back to joseph hayes davis to let you finish your answer about george zimmerman waiting till the day after the event to see the doctor. >> that's significant for the prosecution. thank you again. because they're trying to establish that the injuries that mr. zimmerman may have received in the altercation actually were not significant enough for him to use lethal deadly force tore dispel the matter that was happening with the late trayvon martin. so that's what i believe is what the prosecution is trying to do. >> and kendall coffey, i want to go to you. you are also a former prosecutor. how significant is it that the injuries that were sustained by george zimmerman, do they have to be significant? could it be the injuries healed the next day? at least from the point of view of miss folgate, the injuries

didn't appear severe at that point. >> first of all, a defense, a self-defense is attempting to assert that there was reasonable fear of either death or serious bodily injury. some cuts on the back of the head may not rise to that threshold, but there's also the matter of george zimmerman's version that he gave to police of what happened that night. he said his head was being slammed against the concrete, against the sidewalk. and so far, that's not adding up. and indeed, the evidence about the injuries to the back of his head don't seem consistent with the extreme kind of injury that one might expect if in fact trayvon martin had been slamming his head against the sidewalk. other witnesses haven't backed up zimmerman's account on ta so far. the injuries don't seem to tell that story. if zimmerman was lying how he was being injured that, could play very, very importantly in terms of how the injury views wrort whether or not he commit aid crime that night. >> seema, there was something

that happened at the end and you and i looked at one another and said wait a minute. this is something i didn't remember from the earlier evidence. this was the testimony that will mr. zimmerman, that george zimmerman told lind zee folgate who saw him in the notes she made about seeing him, that he had done mixed martial arts. his defense attorney says that's exercise. now we're seeing mixed martial arts introduced on the other side of the case. before it was about martin, whether or not he was punching mr. zimmerman mixed martial arts style. now we see it on the other side. >> listen, football and wrestling, those are aerobic exercises too. this is definitely going to hurt, but i just want to also get to the point of the injuries because the last guest said something really interesting. that's those injuries and that testimony was more favorable for the prosecution. however, mr. o'mara did something brilliant and that is this. he will let the physicians assistant amplify on the

underlying injuries. meaning not just what was seen but was underneath the body. and there ever, made the injuries seem much more serious than they appear. another thing that mr. o'mara did was he asked the physician's assistant to go through the treatment she would have given. so that gets to illustrate to the injury how grave the injuries must have been at the moment of time. and the third thing he did, which is a great defense move, is that he turned the physician's assistant into a defense witness on the prosecution's case. >> talk about that a little bit. the other thing in addition that mark o'mara did was he repeatedly showed the bloody photographs. he took every opportunity to hold up those photographs of the injuries to george zimmerman's nose and to the back of his head to show those to the jury to drive home the point of injuries. do you think that was effective? >> absolutely. let me just say, mr. o'mara is an outstanding attorney.

he is, you know, arguably one of the deans of the criminal bar. here in our area. along with many other ladies and gentleman here in the central florida area. he's effectively throughout this trial turned a lot of the state's witnesses into defense witnesses arguably. and he's methodically done it. he's done it without being overly aggressive. over overly objectionable to folks. i'd like to remind everyone that these jurors have been sequestered. at the end of the day, what you and i and my esteemed counsels, my esteemed colleagues appear with us on this show might be discussing on this program, the fact of the matter is, neither any of us are sequestered jurors nor are we psychiatrists or psychologists in terms of understanding what these jurors may or may not see while

evaluating this evidence of this trial. >> okay. seema, joseph and kendall stay with us. we'll be back with much more on today's testimony as the trial of george zimmerman. [ agent smith ] i've found software that intrigues me. it appears it's an agent of good. ♪ [ agent smith ] ge software connects patients to nurses to the right machines while dramatically reducing waiting time. [ telephone ringing ] now a waiting room is just a room. [ static warbles ] [ telephone ringing ] now a waiting room is just a room. i save time, money,st, and i avoid frustration. you'll find reviews on home repair to healthcare, written by people just like you. find out why more than two million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust.

we're headed the same way, right? yeah. ♪ [ panting ] uh... after you. ♪ [ sighs ] [ male announcer ] it's all in how you get there. the srx, from cadillac. awarded best interior design of any luxury brand. lease this 2013 cadillac srx for around $399 per month, with premium care maintenance included. [ children laughing ] ♪ ...is the smell of salt in the air. ♪ it's the sound a seashell makes. [ seagulls calling ] away...is a place that's beyond your imagination, yet well within your means.

find your away. for a dealer and the rv that's right for you, visit gorving.com. to help protect your eye health as you age... would you take it? well, there is. [ male announcer ] it's called ocuvite. a vitamin dedicated to your eyes, from bausch + lomb. as you age, eyes can lose vital nutrients. ocuvite helps replenish key eye nutrients. ocuvite is uniquely formulated to help protect your eye health. now that's a pill worth taking. [ male announcer ] ocuvite. help protect your eye health. and now there's ocuvite eye + multi. an eye vitamin and multivitamin in one. [ roars ] ♪ ♪ [ roars ] ♪ [ roars ] ♪

[ male announcer ] universal studios summer of survival. ♪ welcome back to "hardball." i'm joy reid in for chris matthews. we've been watching the trial of george zimmerman. he is on trial for second-degree murder in the death of trayvon martin. we've been watching really interesting testimony from the woman who treated george zimmerman the day after the

shooting, on february 27th, 2012, the day after he shot trayvon martin. and we are still joined by kendall coffey, joseph haynes davis, and seema, my homegirl who is hanging out with me in the studio. seema, i want to go back to you, because i do think that the prosecution has been effective in the sense that they have minimized the injuries to george zimmerman despite those photos. but as you said, what the defense has countered with is essentially a witness who wasn't really strongly making the point that the prosecution wanted. >> right, but bernie did a great job though, because after o'mara finished his initial cross, and i thought oh my god, these injuries so sound so much worse than they are, then bernie took it right back and what the strongest point that mr. de la rionda, i should show respect, made was if there were signs of serious injury, george zimmerman would have come back. insurance or not, you and i both know there are plenty of hospitals across this country, like the point that you were making earlier.

if he had been so gravely injured, which is another point that mr. de la rionda made, he would have sought medical treatment immediately. >> and kendall, i wanted to bring that point back to you. you did make that point earlier. in self-defense cases where you are attempting to prove that you were fighting for your life and you had to use deadly force in order to survive, it is important that you also display that in court, that you're able to prove near death injuries, or can you in the case of george zimmerman say, well, the injuries may not have been near death, but they were severe enough that in his own mind he might have thought he was in grave danger? >> well, i think if you're getting beat up, and you have a reasonable belief that you're at risk of serious bodily injury, that's good enough. you don't have to let somebody beat you to the point of near death. but, again, what seems to have happened with zimmerman is coming up -- i won't say coming up. asserting that his head was being pound against the sidewalk, do witnesses sometimes, even if they're

getting beat up, think they have to add details to make it seem like they were on the verge of death? and if your head is being slammed against a sidewalk, against concrete, don't you go to the hospital that night? aren't you really worried that you suffered some kind of serious injury? instead, he doesn't do that. he comes in the next day. he's got lacerations. obviously not fractures. and i agree that this witness didn't give the prosecution everything they want, but the prosecutor managed to nail it down. all she could document were some lacerations on the back of the head. so when the jury is finished sorting this out, i think they're likely to reach a conclusion that, yeah, zimmerman was definitely getting hurt. he's got some injuries. but might maybe he was just exaggerating a bit the severity. and if they go down the path of thinking george zimmerman wasn't being truthful, some things could happen for the prosecution. >> and joseph, i'm going to give you the last word, because speaking of witnesses who were called by the prosecution, but weren't necessarily giving the prosecution the story they wanted, earlier in the day, john

good, who was a neighbor who lived in the complex also testified. and he in a sense didn't give the defense what they wanted. he testified that he saw trayvon martin on top. that's good for the defense. but he also testified that he didn't see george zimmerman's head being slammed into the ground. he testify head saw what looked like punches being thrown. so does that end up also helping the prosecution, even though he is testifying that he thought trayvon martin was on top? >> yeah, it just might. but i think another point that we are also missing here is that when you are in a position of mr. zimmerman in the sense that you are seeing something allegedly suspicious, and you were acting in the capacity with which he was acting, allegedly, as a neighborhood watch, i guess it's established at this point, i should say, you know, you make the call. and you stay in the car. so when you get out of the car and you start, you know, literally running after someone, pursuing them, trying to talk on the telephone, i'm not so

certain that that, a, is part of the scope of what you're supposed to be doing. but, b, if you are chasing after someone who is supposed to be there and then that someone gets nervous, et cetera, and says to himself why is this guy chasing me, and therefore i need to defend myself, then you're in this position. so my thought is when you're trying to assert a self-defense -- a self-defense defense, if you will, here in this state, and you are a lawful concealed weapons holder, i don't know how many concealed is weapons holders actually engage someone as it sounds like mr. zimmerman did, and then claim self-defense after you shoot a bullet through his chest. >> wow. okay. i want to come back one more time on that, seema. again, at the end of the day, george zimmerman has to prove self-defense. but what joseph just said is that even after the injuries, we're still going have to deal with how the confrontation

started. it always comes back to that. >> what joseph is saying is exactly what we're all thinking is why did he get out of the car. the problem is this, joy. that whole entire incident is broken up, and it's very nuanced, because the first part is george zimmerman getting out of the car. then we have to look at the second part and what occurred at that point. so it's very nuanced. we can't establish self-defense until the moment of confrontation. >> all right, seema, kendall coffey, joseph haynes davis, thank you all for being with me today. and thank you for joining me on "hardball." we'll be back in another hour for another live edition of "hardball" and "politicsnation" with the reverend al sharpton. it starts right now. thank, joy, and thanks to you for tuning in. tonight's lead, the end of the first week of testimony in the george zimmerman murder trial. today a neighborhood resident testified he saw trayvon martin

on top of george zimmerman only moments before he heard the fatal gunshot. but he wasn't 100% sure if punches were being thrown or who was yelling for help. another eyewitness described mr. zimmerman as, quote, calm and coherent just moments after the altercation. and a physician's assistant testified george zimmerman did not need sutures, and that he was taking mma classes several times a week. but it was the testimony of neighbor john good that began this 15th day of the trial. the jury heard the 911 call he made the night of trayvon martin's death. >> can you hear somebody yelling for help? >> um, i'm pretty sure the guy is out here. >> okay, we have several people calling in also. anything else that you heard?