The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. 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.
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.)
Like most of Plaintiff’s motions in limine, this motion is completely unsupported by any case law or authority supporting Plaintiff’s position.
Plaintiff has no basis to exclude the photographs of Mr. Long. The disclosure only requires that the parties attach copies of any discoverable reports and writings and there is no indication that photographs would have to be included with this same disclosure (ironically, Plaintiffs ER expert came to his deposition with a detailed report of his findings, a report that was not disclosed at the time expert disclosures were served). See Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210(c). The photographs have already been provided to Counsel. As mentioned above, Plaintiffs accusation that no attorney declaration was included with the disclosure is blatantly untrue. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Plaintiffs accusation that the designation does not adequately describe the general substance of the expected testimony also carries no weight. First, it is important to bear in mind that this is a supplemental disclosure meaning that defendants named these two experts to contest the testimony and opinions put forth by Plaintiffs experts, the Plaintiff is quite familiar with the types of opinions that will be offered.
Second, the amount of context provided by defendants in their supplemental disclosure is no less than what was provided in their initial disclosure, a disclosure that Plaintiff had no issue with: It is difficult to understand why Plaintiff has targeted these two experts for exclusion.
Third, courts have upheld fairly sparse descriptions of the substance of testimony. Even rather general descriptions of the expert’s proposed testimony may be held sufficient. For example: medical care and treatment provided … and diagnosis and prognosis of plaintiffs physical condition. See Sprague v. Equifax, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1040-1041. (See Part 3 of 3.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.