Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 birth and brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)
David Greene was seen and evaluated by a speech therapist, Hadley Smith, Ph.D. On two separate occasions, specifically October 29, 2002, and approximately ten months later. Additionally, plaintiff was seen and evaluated at ABC Pediatric by registered physical therapist, Cynthia Lee, P.T., P.C.S. Also on two separate occasions, specifically September 20, 2002 and about ten months later. Two videotapes were produced in conjunction with the ABC Pediatric therapy evaluations.
A number of David Greene’s medical experts recommended these tests be done in order to further provide them with additional information in which to base their expert opinion. This was done. True and correct copies of each and every report by Hadley Smith, Ph.D. and Cynthia Lee, P.T. are attached hereto as Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively.
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS, STEFAN HALL, M.D., HANK WHITE, PH.D., AND SALLY JACKSON MAY PROPERLY RELY UPON AND TESTIFY REGARDING THE TEST RESULTS AND VIDEOTAPES DONE BY HADLEY SMITH, PH.D. AND CYNTHIA LEE, P.T.
Evidence Code §801 states:
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
If a witness is testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to such an opinion as is: (b) based on matter (including his special knowledge, skill, experience, training and education) perceived by or personally known to the witness or made known to him at or before the hearing whether or not admissible, that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion upon this, and he’ll have no residual difficulty due to any injuries sustained in the accident. Id. at 738.
The court stated clearly:
There was no error in this. Such a report stands on a parity with a patient’s history of an accident and ensuing injuries given to his position. It is admissible not as independent proof of the facts but as a part of the information upon which the physician based his diagnosis and treatment, if any. Id. at 738. (See Part 3 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.