Posted On: September 21, 2011

Insurance Company Fights Sacramento Woman In Medical Malpractice Suit, Part 6 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.)

When this case is presented at trial, Defendants will have prepared their defense in reliance on the representations of Dr. White, that he has expressed every opinion to which he might testify at the time of trial. As such, Defendants are acting in reliance of Dr. White's representations throughout his deposition. Defendants have relied on his testimony that on the date of, and prior to his deposition, he had not formed an opinion as to the causation of Plaintiff's injuries.

Further, he testified he could not form an opinion as he was not versed in chiropractic manipulations, thus expressing that he was not qualified to form an opinion as to causation. Lastly, Defendants relied on Dr. White testimony that not only did he not form an opinion as to causation, but that an opinion as to causation could not be established unless he internally inspected the meniscus within 48 hours. It would therefore be tremendously prejudicial, and would cause Defendants irreparable harm, if Dr. White was permitted to testify at trial to opinions not previously disclosed during their depositions. Moreover, to allow the same would run contrary to the Discovery Act in eliminating the element of surprise at the time of trial, especially in light of the fact that Defendants were not provided any notice to the contrary. Plaintiff failed to provide Defendants notice during Dr. White's deposition, or after, pursuant to Easterby.

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

Continue reading " Insurance Company Fights Sacramento Woman In Medical Malpractice Suit, Part 6 of 6 " »

Posted On: September 14, 2011

Sacramento Chiropractic Patient Fights Discovery Battle In Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, Part 5 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.)

"The overarching principle in Kennemur, Jones, and Bonds is clear: a party's expert may not offer testimony at trial that exceeds the scope of his deposition testimony if the opposing party has no notice or expectation that the expert will offer the new testimony, or if notice of the new testimony comes at a time when deposing the expert is unreasonably difficult." (Easterby v. Clark, (2009) 171 Cal. App. 4th 772, 780)

In Easterby, the plaintiff's doctor testified, at his deposition, that he would not be testifying as to causation; however, later, upon learning additional facts, changed his mind and said he would testify as to the causation of plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff's counsel wrote and delivered a letter to defense counsel to this affect. Despite this notice, defense counsel opted not to re-depose plaintiff's doctor and successfully motioned to have his testimony excluded at trial. The Appellate Court concluded that the Trial Court erred by striking the plaintiff's doctor's testimony because defense counsel had notice that the plaintiff's doctor would be testifying as to causation.

In the case at bar, Hiram White, M.D., consistently testified throughout his deposition on February 19, 2010, that he had not formed an opinion as to the causation of Plaintiff's alleged injuries.

Q. Did you ever form an opinion as to whether or not what she [Plaintiff] described to you was the cause of any of her injuries that you either saw on that MRI or found at the time of surgery? A. No.

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Chiropractic Patient Fights Discovery Battle In Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, Part 5 of 6 " »

Posted On: September 6, 2011

Sacramento Woman Hires 'Standard Of Care' Expert in Malpractice Case, Part 4 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.)

The policy of full disclosure of expert opinion at pre-trial deposition was confirmed by the Second District Court of Appeal in the case Jones v. Moore (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 557. In the Jones matter, the plaintiff's expert was asked whether he believed the defendant's conduct fell below the standard of care in areas other than the negotiation of the underlying divorce settlement. The expert stated that he was not prepared to testify to that issue at this time. When asked if he anticipated arriving at any other opinions, the expert testified "no, but if I do, you will be notified well in advance, so as to be able to properly exercise your discovery rights." (Id. at 563.)

At trial, the expert in the Jones matter testified that the defendant's conduct fell below the standard care when he failed to properly secure the source of the plaintiff's marital support income, a task unrelated to his negotiations of the underlying settlement and judgment. The court excluded this opinion holding under the circumstances, exclusion of testimony going beyond the opinions he expressed during his deposition was justified. When an expert deponent testifies as to specific opinions and affirmatively states those are the only opinions he tends to offer at trial, it would be grossly unfair and prejudicial to permit the expert to offer additional opinions at trial.

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Woman Hires 'Standard Of Care' Expert in Malpractice Case, Part 4 of 6 " »