Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth injury 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 medical malpractice action and its proceedings.)
In Kennemur, the plaintiffs expert was deposed on three separate occasions over a six-day period by the defendant. The witness was specifically asked whether he was going to testify on accident reconstruction. The witness specifically stated that he was not and would leave that to a different expert. The witness said that he was limiting his testimony to the stability of the automobile involved in the accident. [Id. at 912]. At the second session of this witness’ deposition, he was again asked a similar question and gave a similar answer. In the third session of his deposition, he was asked if he had done any further investigation as to the accident reconstruction and he specifically stated that he had not.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The issue before the Kennemur court was not whether this witness (Mitchell) could testify to areas into which opposing counsel had failed to delve, but rather, whether he could testify on accident reconstruction issues about which he was specifically asked and had stated he had no opinion.
The Court stated:
“The decisive fact in the present case is the appellant’s failure to disclose Mitchell’s expected testimony … either at Mitchell’s deposition or as required by Section 2037.3. This failure deprived respondent to prepare for Mitchell’s cross-examination.”
The Court went on to say that respondent was entitled to rely on Mitchell’s disclaimer [regarding the scope of his testimony] until such time as appellants disclosed that Mitchell had conducted further investigation and had reached additional opinions in a new area of inquiry. [Id. at 919].
In the present case, the Defendants are not citing any particular problem with the expert testimony (indeed, as of the time Defendants filed this very Motion, some of the experts in this matter had not yet even had their depositions taken), yet Defendants are asking the Court to impose a very broad order not mandated by either C.C.P. §2034.010 or case law. (See Part 3 of 4.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.