It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth injury 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 medical malpractice action and its proceedings.)
DR. HILL’S PERSONAL OPINIONS WOULD RESULT IN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME, WOULD CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL DANGER OF PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANT, AND CAUSE CONFUSION AND POTENTIALLY MISLEAD THE JURY (cont. below)
Since there are numerous other reasons, many unknown to Dr. Hill, why defense attorneys have not sought his expertise in the recent past a significant amount of time would be required on cross examination to establish Dr. Hill’s opinions have no factual basis and are not based upon personal knowledge. Additionally, cross examination of Dr. Hill regarding medical societies, medical groups, and faculties that allegedly prohibit their members from testifying on behalf of plaintiffs would consume an inordinate amount of time.
More importantly, allowing testimony about the defense attorneys “shift in attitude,” the alleged prohibition by the medical groups, faculties, and societies, or the meritorious nature of plaintiff cases, would create the very real danger of prejudice to the defendant in this matter. Dr.Hill’s testimony infers not only that he has not been retained by the defense bar because the defense doesn’t like his opinions, but also that if a non-supportive opinion is obtained from him the defense bar will simply find someone else. These opinions have no foundation and are highly prejudicial to the defense.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Dr.Hill’s testimony regarding the medical societies, faculties, and medical groups, infers the medical community has conspired in an effort to make prosecution of medical malpractice cases more difficult for a plaintiff, and that he is the knight in shining armor helping the plaintiff when no one else will. Moreover, his testimony that he believes the plaintiff cases are more meritorious and better prepared by plaintiff attorneys would be highly prejudicial to the defense in that the jury may believe that is the case in this matter.
Again, any such testimony is nothing more than Dr.Hill’s personal opinion unsupported by any factual basis. Allowing such testimony would by highly prejudicial to the defense. This is especially true when at the time of the second session of his deposition on May 11,2009, Dr.Hill declined to provide the names of any medical schools faculties, medical groups, or medical societies that prohibit their members from testifying on behalf of plaintiffs.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendant Universal Partners, Inc. respectfully requests that the court limit the testimony of plaintiff’s expert Robert Hill, M.D. and to preclude him from providing any testimony regarding his personal opinions as to why he has testified on behalf of plaintiffs more often in the last five years, and specifically preclude him from providing the above noted testimony or any similar testimony regarding these issues.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.