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.)
Plaintiff also takes issue with the fact that Defendants’ did not disclose a nursing expert and security expert in their initial disclosure, claiming Defendants should have known that such experts would be disclosed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff ignores the purpose behind expert disclosures and also expects Defendants to read minds by knowing precisely what types of experts Plaintiff would disclose. Plaintiff herself disclosed an additional expert through her expert disclosure (a vocational rehabilitation expert). Defendants too can make the argument that Plaintiff knew that Mr. Hill’s vocational prospects were a key issue in this litigation, yet Plaintiff failed to disclose anyone initially. Finally, contrary to Plaintiffs assertions, it was not obvious that either expert would be retained by Plaintiff. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Additionally, plaintiffs argument relies in part on the filing of a summary judgment and the evidence produced in opposition. However, plaintiff failed to mention that the opposition included only a single declaration from Dr. Gamble, an ER physician, to opine on nursing standard of care and security issues, in addition to physician issues.
Plaintiffs designation of a nursing witness (Myrna Smith) to presumably offer duplicitous opinions concerning the nursing standard of care could not have been predicted from the summary judgment motion. To the extent plaintiff seeks to ague that this designation is not cumulative evidence and somehow will provide a nursing perspective, defendant is entitled to designate a rebuttal expert on the same grounds. The same is true of Mr. Long’s designation.
The harsh result Plaintiff seeks of excluding critical expert testimony simply because the experts were disclosed through a supplemental expert disclosure is unwarranted and Plaintiff should not be allowed to prevail on her motion.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.