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.