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, or Sutter.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this wrongful death case and its proceedings.)
OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 14 – TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN DRS. GAMBLE AND LEE
Plaintiff seeks to exclude from evidence any mention of conversations between Dr. Lee and Dr. Gamble or the fact that they work together. Defendant disagrees that such evidence should be excluded based on a recent discovery that Plaintiffs expert, Dr. Alan Gamble, approached Defendants’ expert, Dr. Michael Lee, specifically about this case. Plaintiff is merely attempting to cover up the fact that her expert made a crucial error in judgment by approaching defense counsel’s expert for his learned advice and opinion on the facts of this case. That plaintiffs expert elected this tactical course to consult a third party as part of the formulation of his opinion effectively waives any expectation of work product privilege and is both admissible and subject to discovery. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Well over a month before the time for expert witness disclosure and designation in this matter, plaintiffs expert, Dr. Gamble, admittedly of his own volition, informally approached defense expert, Dr. Lee to discuss his review of a case in which he had been retained as an expert. At the time, neither doctor was aware the other was consulting on this case. Following a brief description of the facts in the case by Dr. Gamble, the defense’s expert, Dr. Lee recognized the facts as being similar to this instant litigation matter in which he had been retained by defense counsel for review, and immediately terminated the conversation.
At no time prior to the expert designation did the plaintiffs expert or the plaintiff’s counsel himself alert defense counsel about the fact that the plaintiffs expert sought out Dr. Lee’s opinion regarding the facts of the case. There was absolutely no concern expressed by plaintiff’s counsel about the propriety of this conversation in the 30 days prior to expert designation.
Nevertheless, as soon as expert information has been exchanged pursuant to the statutory guidelines for disclosure of expert witnesses, plaintiff’s counsel suddenly decided to come forth with information regarding this conversation and simultaneously request that defense counsel withdraw Dr. Lee as an expert at this late time. Opposing counsel further indicated his intent to file a motion in limine to bar Dr. Lee from testifying based on this earlier conversation. This demand for withdrawal of Dr. Lee as the defense expert has been made without any legal basis whatsoever. Moreover, Mr. Pasquali has made no offer to withdraw his own expert or otherwise find a new one. Instead, plaintiff’s counsel stated that he would allow the defense to resort to another emergency room physician. (See Part 2 of 2.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.