With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". $3,005,556.88 (Exhibit 227). But her opinion relied on Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rates for hemodialysis — the most costly element of future care — which the Court has found to be inappropriate (see Doc. 73), Discussion A. Evidentiary Rulings Re: Deposition Testimony During his case in chief, Mr. Clanton offered portions of deposition testimony from Nurse Jordan, Dr. Albarcha, and Dr. Swirsky, ■ The Government objected to counsel reading these “admissions” into the record. The Court finds Nurse Jordan and Dr. Bassam Albarcha are government actors in the context of this FTCA case and are considered party opponents, whose deposition testimony may be admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2), E.g., Anestis v. United States, 52 F.Supp.3d 854, 859 (E.D. Ky. 2014) (<HOLDING>); Carter v. United States, Case No.

A: holding that physicians statement during the course of treating the plaintiff was admissible under rule 801d2d when offered against the government in ftca medical malpractice case
B: holding that nurses statement made during the course of treating the plaintiff was admissible under rule 801d2d when offered against the government in ftca case
C: holding that statement about deceased veteran made by va intake clerk during an interview with va legal counsel was admissible under rule 801d2d when offered against the government in ftca medical malpractice case
D: holding that anonymous statement was admissible as a statement by a partys agent under rule 801d2d and noting that a district court should be presented with sufficient evidence to conclude that the person who is alleged to have made the damaging statement is in fact a party or an agent of that party
C.