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 policy of full disclosure of expert opinion at pre-trial deposition was confirmed by the Second District Court of Appeal in the case Jones v. Moore (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 557. In the Jones matter, the plaintiff’s expert was asked whether he believed the defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of care in areas other than the negotiation of the underlying divorce settlement. The expert stated that he was not prepared to testify to that issue at this time. When asked if he anticipated arriving at any other opinions, the expert testified “no, but if I do, you will be notified well in advance, so as to be able to properly exercise your discovery rights.” (Id. at 563.)
At trial, the expert in the Jones matter testified that the defendant’s conduct fell below the standard care when he failed to properly secure the source of the plaintiff’s marital support income, a task unrelated to his negotiations of the underlying settlement and judgment. The court excluded this opinion holding under the circumstances, exclusion of testimony going beyond the opinions he expressed during his deposition was justified. When an expert deponent testifies as to specific opinions and affirmatively states those are the only opinions he tends to offer at trial, it would be grossly unfair and prejudicial to permit the expert to offer additional opinions at trial.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The Appellate Court reasoned that the expert was in effect not made available for deposition as to further opinions he offered at trial, he promised to notify the defendant if he later formulated such opinions but did not do so. (Id. at 565.) (See Part 5 of 6.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.