Deceased Veteran’s Family Seeks Relief After Medical Negligence, Part 2 of 3

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. 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.

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, or Sutter.

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


Plaintiff inexplicably seeks to preclude Defendants from introducing any testimony from their rebuttal experts, emergency room nurse Sarah Black and security expert William Long. Plaintiff also seeks to exclude photographs taken by Mr. Long of the Sacramento Medical Center Emergency Room. Plaintiff argues that (a) no attorney declaration was provided with Defendants’ supplemental disclosure; (b) that should have designated an ER Nurse and security expert in their initial disclosure; and (c) that defendants do not describe the General substance of the expected testimony in their expert disclosure. Plaintiff cites to no authority for any of these contentions.

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


The parties exchanged their supplemental expert witness lists on August 23, 2009. Defendants’ supplemental expert disclosure was indeed accompanied by an attorney declaration, contrary to what Plaintiff asserts. The declaration also included information about each expert’s qualifications, what area the expert is to testify about, the experts’ fees and an assertion that the expert has agreed to testify at trial and is sufficiently familiar with the action to provide a meaningful oral deposition. See Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.260. The supplemental disclosure followed the same general format of Defendants’ initial disclosure, a document that Plaintiff did not object to.

Plaintiffs motion makes the misrepresentation that Ms. Black’s deposition dates were not provided. In fact, at the time of the pre-trial conference in this matter (which occurred on September 17), the date for Ms. Black’s deposition had already been finalized for September 29 (a date that was changed to accommodate for oral argument on the motions in limine). Medical Center has already, very promptly, provided Ms. Black’s new dates. Defendants have now provided several dates for Mr. Long’s deposition. In complaining about the lack of a deposition date for Mr. Long, Plaintiff conveniently leaves out the fact that, after the initial expert disclosure, Plaintiff provided dates for several experts (including his psychiatric expert) well after the defense provided dates for all their experts initially disclosed.

Although Plaintiff complains about Defendant not retaining and disclosing an emergency room nurse and security expert prior to the date of the initial disclosure, Plaintiff herself has disclosed new experts through her supplemental expert disclosure, making it hard for Plaintiff to argue that Defendants should have been clairvoyants in predicting what experts plaintiff would retain. (See Part 2 of 3.)

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

Contact Information