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.)
ARGUMENT
DEFENDANTS’ CONTENTION THAT PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT MUST BE EXCLUDED BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE HE RELIED UPON IN FORMING HIS OPINIONS LACKS FOUNDATION IS INCORRECT MISLEADING AND WITHOUT MERIT
Dr. Hill is plaintiff’s standard of care expert and has clearly demonstrated his expertise, and is qualified to express his opinion in the area of chiropractic care. Dr. Hill’s testimony rests upon a review of plaintiff’s medical records from defendants’ facility and chiropractors therein, and an MRI report ordered by the Defendant/Defendant facility, from XYZ Radiology of Sacramento, dated July 28, 2007, of Plaintiff’s right knee. Dr. Hill also had an understanding of plaintiff’s version of how the event occurred as recited to him by Plaintiff’s attorney, co-counsel, Navid White, who read those portions of plaintiff’s deposition wherein she described how the subject event occurred.
Dr. Hill testified in his deposition as to the records he reviewed and relied upon in forming his opinions. Specifically, at his deposition:
1. Dr. Hill had a stack of records in front of him which consisted of the XYZ Radiology report from Sacramento Imaging, and the records from Defendant’s facility, Universal Chiropractic. Dr. Hill reviewed these records in anticipation of his deposition.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
2. Dr. Hill testified to exactly what he was told by Mr. White, in terms of how the incident occurred. California Evidence Code §801(b), provides that an expert’s opinion can be “[b]ased on matter … perceived by … 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 the subject to which his testimony relates ….” In the instant case, “before the hearing” plaintiff’s counsel “made known to” Dr. Hill how plaintiff claims the incident occurred. Second, Dr. Hill read the records from defendants’ facility, in order to form his opinions. In this regard, plaintiff contends that there is nothing improper about the manner in which Dr. Hill arrived at his opinions, and that the material he relied upon was of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion upon the subject to which his testimony relates-to wit, medical records of the treatment at issue in this case, and how plaintiff described the subject treatment occurred. (See Part 4 of 7.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.