Sacramento Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice 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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

As noted in Gallo v. Peninsula Hospital (1985) 164 Cal.App.3rd 899, 903, the need for pre-trial discovery as an aide to the preparation of cross-examination and rebuttal is greater with respect to the expert witness than it is in the case of an ordinary fact witness. Full disclosure is required because if not, the result:

"Would introduce 'gamesmanship' into the discovery proceedings; a result in direct conflict with purpose to make a trial less a game of blind man's bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practical extent." (Id. at 904.)

In Bonds v. Roy (1999) 20 Cal.4th 140, the Supreme Court recognized the full pre-trial disclosure of expert opinion as crucial to meaningful trial preparation:

"Indeed, the very purpose of the expert witness discovery statute is to give fair notice of what an expert will say at trial. This allows the parties to ... fully explore the relevant subject area at any such deposition ... the opportunity to depose an expert during trial, particularly if the testimony relates to a central issue, often provides a wholly inadequate opportunity to understand the expert's opinion and to prepare to meet it."

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

Continue reading " Chiropractic Experts Battle In Sacramento Medical Malpractice Suit, Part 3 of 6 " »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice 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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

EXPERT WITNESSES SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING TO ANY OPINIONS NOT EXPRESSED IN THEIR DEPOSITIONS

Code of Civil Procedure § 2034.210 et. seq. provides for the designation of expert witnesses, as well as the discovery of their opinions or conclusions. Section 2034.260 (c)(4) requires that the designated expert be sufficiently familiar with the pending action to submit to a meaningful oral deposition ... including any opinion and its bases, that the expert be expected to give at trial. The expert opinion of a witness who was not designated as an expert shall, upon objection of the party that fully complied with the requirement of § 2034.210 et seq., be excluded from evidence at trial (Code of Civil Procedure § 2034.300.)

The importance of pre-trial discovery of an expert's opinions and conclusions, which the expert intends to express at trial, was discussed in the matter Kennemur v. Slate of California (1982) 133 Cal.App.3rd 907, where the appellate court held that the trial court had properly excluded the testimony of an expert witness who, at his deposition testified that he was not going to express an opinion at trial regarding the issue of causation. The court noted that:

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

Continue reading " Chiropractor Damages Sacramento Woman's Knee, Resulting In Malpractice, Part 2 of 6 " »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice 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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Defendants, Daniel Li, D.C. and XYZ Chiropractic, Inc., hereby move this Court, in limine, for an order precluding plaintiff Anna Greene’s orthopaedic expert Hiram White, M.D. from testifying to any opinions not expressed during his deposition.

Defendants further move for the Court's instructions on the following:

1. An instruction precluding Plaintiff's Counsel and Plaintiff's witnesses from conveying the jury, directly or indirectly, the facts provided in this motion without, first, obtaining permission of the Court outside the presence and hearing of the jury; and

2. An instruction precluding Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Counsel and Plaintiff's witnesses from making any reference to the filing of this motion.

This motion is based upon the attached memorandum of points and authorities, the pleadings and papers already on file in this matter, and on such further oral and documentary evidence that may be presented at the hearing of this motion.

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Woman Harmed By Chiropractor Files Malpractice Suit, Part 1 of 6 " »