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.

Q. The question is, the statement the doctor told us what he performed on Ms. Greene. Now, if you were to read his statements about what type of procedure he performed on Ms. Greene, could that help you form an opinion whether or not his procedures could have caused the meniscus tear?

A. It depends how the statements were written and taken … But I’m not versed in chiropractic manipulation. I’m not sure what some of these manipulations are …

Q. When you have a meniscal tear as a result of twisting as opposed to-a twisting mechanism on its own, not accompanied by compression, do you see different changes on the inside of the knee?
A. You can’t tell from the meniscus tear whether it was compression or twisting or whether it was traumatic, for that matter, or how long it’s been there unless you get in there within 48 hours.

Further, Plaintiff has not provided Defendants, Daniel Li, D.C. and XYZ Chiropractice, Inc., any form of notice that Dr. White intends to testify as to causation at trial. (See Part 6 of 6.)

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

Contact Information