## United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit

### Nos. 00-2553, 00-2554, 00-2555

> #### EVELYN HEINRICH, on behalf of her husband, GEORGE HEINRICH, and
> HENRY M. SIENKEWICZ, on behalf of his mother, EILEEN ROSE SIENKEWICZ JR.,

> Plaintiffs, Appellants, Cross-Appellees,

> ROSEMARY GUALTIERI, on behalf of her father, JOSEPH MAYNE, and
> WALTER CARL VAN DYKE, Representative of the Estate of WALTER CARMEN VAN DYKE,

> Plaintiffs, Appellants,

> v.

> ELIZABETH DUTTON SWEET and FREDERICK H. GREIN JR.,
> Representatives of the Estate of WILLIAM H. SWEET, M.D., and
> MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL,

> Defendants, Appellees, Cross-Appellants,

> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

> Defendant, Appellee,

> ESTATE OF LEE EDWARD FARR, ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES, INC., and
> MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,

> Defendants.

> ERRATA SHEET

> The opinion of the court, issued August 27, 2002, should be amended as follows:

> Page 12, lines 19-20: Delete the remainder of the sentence after "summary judgment" and insert "against the plaintiffs' claims brought under the doctrine of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)." Retain the call for footnote 3 at the end of the paragraph.

> Page 32, line 12: After the call for footnote 10, insert "it did not state the standard of care or that Sweet had violated the standard of care,".

> Page 32, footnote 10: Footnote 10 should be changed to read as follows:

> In fact, the totality of the pertinent testimony leading up to the Grodin testimony quoted in the text was as follows:

> Q: [D]id you reach a conclusion as to whether or not those boron injection experiments had a favorable risk/benefit ratio at the time they were conducted in the period 1960 to 1962?

> ...

> Opposing Counsel: Same objection.

> The Court: Noted but overruled. He may answer.

> A: That insofar as there was no therapeutic benefit to the boron injection in these terminally ill patients and there was some toxic potential for the boron compound that the risk outweighed the benefits.

> Q: All right. And did you do a similar risk/benefit analysis with regard to the BNCT experiments?

> A: Yes, I did.

> Q: And what conclusion did you reach to a reasonable degree of medical certainty with regard to the BNCT experiments?

> Opposing Counsel: Objection.

> The Court: Overruled.

> Among the other problems with his testimony is that Dr. Grodin's opinion about the boron injection was tied to the 1960-61 time period when the BNCT trials were conducted at MIT, but not his opinion about the BNCT experiments.

> > All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
> > FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, and for the general purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research and / or educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use this material for purposes other than provided by law. You must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html,