Sacramento Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice action and its proceedings.)

In Kennemur, the plaintiffs expert was deposed on three separate occasions over a six-day period by the defendant. The witness was specifically asked whether he was going to testify on accident reconstruction. The witness specifically stated that he was not and would leave that to a different expert. The witness said that he was limiting his testimony to the stability of the automobile involved in the accident. [Id. at 912]. At the second session of this witness' deposition, he was again asked a similar question and gave a similar answer. In the third session of his deposition, he was asked if he had done any further investigation as to the accident reconstruction and he specifically stated that he had not.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The issue before the Kennemur court was not whether this witness (Mitchell) could testify to areas into which opposing counsel had failed to delve, but rather, whether he could testify on accident reconstruction issues about which he was specifically asked and had stated he had no opinion.

The Court stated:
"The decisive fact in the present case is the appellant's failure to disclose Mitchell's expected testimony ... either at Mitchell's deposition or as required by Section 2037.3. This failure deprived respondent to prepare for Mitchell's cross-examination."

Continue reading " Family Of Sacramento Child File Malpractice Action For Birth Injuries, Part 2 of 4 " »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice action and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff Mark Smith, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Alana Smith, hereby opposes Defendant Katherine Steinberg, M.D., et al.'s, Motion in Limine No. 6, to limit the testimony of Plaintiff's expert witnesses to those opinions and conclusions testified to at their depositions and to exclude testimony based on materials not provided to or reviewed by them prior to their depositions, as follows:

Kennemur is Not Controlling

By this motion, Defendants are asking this Court to preclude Plaintiff's experts from saying anything that they have not already said in their depositions. This is clearly contrary to the law, and would create a possible loophole in the expert discovery statute.
In the extreme, a Defendant would simply have to ask very few questions in deposition, and thereby effectively prevent the expert from testifying about anything other than what he or she was asked.

This is particularly true in instances where a Defendant insists on asking overly broad, catch-all questions such as, do you have any other opinions not yet expressed, rather than simply deposing the expert about the specific areas about which an expert could reasonably have an opinion in this case.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Sacramento Infant's Birth Injury Leads To Malpractice Suit, Part 1 of 4 " »