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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
THIS COURT MAY HEAR AND DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DR. LEE’S TESTIMONY, OUT OF THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY
(a) When the existence of a preliminary fact is disputed, its existence or nonexistence shall be determined as provided in this article;
(b) The court may hear and determine the question of the admissibility of evidence out of the presence or hearing of the jury;
(c) A ruling on the admissibility of evidence implies whatever finding of fact is prerequisite thereto; a separate or formal finding is unnecessary unless required by statute, California Evidence Code §402.
DR. LEE SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM EXPRESSING OPINIONS ABOUT THE REASONABLENESS OF PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL BILLS, BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROPER BASIS FOR HIS OPINIONS.
If a witness is testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to such an opinion as is:
(a) Related to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact; and
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
(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 the subject to which his testimony relates, unless an expert is precluded by law from using such matter as a basis for his opinion, California Evidence Code § 801.
The court may, and upon objection shall, exclude testimony in the form of an opinion that Is based in whole or in significant part on matter that is not a proper basis for such an opinion. In such case, the witness may, if there remains a proper basis for his opinion, then state his opinion after excluding from consideration the matter determined to be improper, California Evidence Code § 803. 18
The essential questions which must be favorably answered to qualify a witness as an expert on a particular subject, are whether he has the capacity to understand and report, and whether he has access and exposure to relevant data on the subject matter on which his opinion is sought, Naples Restaurant. Inc. v Coberly Ford (1968) 259 Cal App 2d 881, 66 Cal Rptr 835. (See Part 4 of 7.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.