The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the pre-trial stage of civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury case and its proceedings.)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Summary of Facts:
In this case, Plaintiff Wayne Smith is seeking personal injury damages for head injuries he suffered on December 14, 2006, when a 10″ Crescent wrench fell approximately 12 to 15 feet from scaffolding above and struck him on the head while he was attending a Christmas play produced by the co-defendants at their Sacramento church. Medical evidence shows that plaintiff has a traumatic brain injury. However, defendants dispute that plaintiffs brain injury was caused by the wrench striking him on the head and claim that all or a substantial portion of plaintiffs brain injury was pre-existing. Thus, the central issue of this case is the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries caused by the incident. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Subject of Defense Medical Expert Opinions:
The parties exchanged their designations of experts pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2034.210 et seq. (All subsequent references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.) The defendants jointly designated as medical experts Mike Hall, M.D. and Rupert Jones, M.D.. As to each of these defense experts, Section 2034.260(c) requires a declaration of counsel that contains: (1) a brief narrative statement of the qualifications of each expert ; and (2) A brief narrative statement of the general substance of the testimony the expert is expected to give.
To comply with the first requirement as to the qualifications of their experts, the defendants expert declarations simply refer to each doctor’s resume attached as an exhibit. In particular, Dr. Hall’s resume reveals that he is a member of the American Board of Paychiatry and Neurology.
For the second requirement as to the general substance of the testimony the expert is expected to give, the defense expert declarations state in pertinent part as to Dr. Hall:
Dr. Hall is expected to testify as to his examination of plaintiff Wayne Smith and his record review and will be testifying as to any alleged injuries, the nature and extent of the alleged injuries and the manner in which they occurred, the reasonableness and necessity of the charges, any relationship of the alleged injuries and treatment to the subject accident, any pre-existing conditions, any alleged residual condition and alleged disability as a result of the subject accident.
Dr. Hall is expected to testify in regard to opinions, conclusions and findings relative to his January 25, 2010 examination of plaintiff… It is expected that Dr. Hall will testify generally as to any alleged injuries and causation of any claimed injuries by plaintiff from a medical and physician’s perspective …
For Dr. Jones, the declaration is virtually identical to Hall’s, except that it states his testimony will be from a medical and neurosurgeon’s perspective. (See Part 3 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.