Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the pre-trial stage of civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of briefing 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 brain injury case and its proceedings.)
Dr. Brown is a California licensed medical doctor and is board certified in neurology and psychiatry. (This was in error. Dr. Brown testified at his deposition that he is board certified in psychiatry only, notwithstanding, that both he and Dr. Hall are diplomates of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.) Dr. Brown is designated as an expert to counter defendants designation of Mike Hall, M.D. and Rupert Jones, M.D.
Dr. Brown will testify as to his expert opinions regarding the nature, extent and causation of plaintiff’s injuries, his post injury level of mental and physical functioning as well as the nature and cost of plaintiff’s post injury medical and life care needs. Such testimony will include, but is not limited to expert medical opinions as to diagnosis, reasonableness and necessity of treatment, prognosis, future medical care and life care needs and continuing and worsening symptomology. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
In other words, Dr. Brown was clearly designated to express an opinion on a subject to be covered by defense experts Drs. Hall and Jones, as contemplated by section 2034.280.
The rule of law stated in Kennedy v. Modesto City Hospital (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3rd 575, 579 cited by defendants supports plaintiff’s supplemental designation of Dr. Brown: A supplemental expert named under the provision of Section 2034(h) of the Code of Civil Procedure is one to be called as an expert to express an opinion on a subject to be addressed by a named adverse expert.
As the defense is well aware because they have taken the deposition of Dr. Brown, that is exactly the nature of his expert testimony. Dr. Brown’s trial testimony is summarized by his two page note that was produced at his deposition and is submitted here as Exhibit 6 – in short, his diagnosis, the cause of, and his treatment recommendations for plaintiffs injuries.
Defendant simply overemphasizes Dr. Brown’s title as a psychiatrist. Defendants do not offer one single case or statute that holds an expert’s title is dispositive of the nature of his testimony. The rule of law is that the experts testimony is limited to what is disclosed in the designation and at the expert deposition, not his name, specialty or title. See: Kennemur v. State of California (1982) 133 Cal. App. 3rd 907. (See Part 5 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.