Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
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, 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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)
As noted in Gallo v. Peninsula Hospital (1985) 164 Cal.App.3rd 899, 903, the need for pre-trial discovery as an aide to the preparation of cross-examination and rebuttal is greater with respect to the expert witness than it is in the case of an ordinary fact witness. Full disclosure is required because if not, the result:
“Would introduce ‘gamesmanship’ into the discovery proceedings; a result in direct conflict with purpose to make a trial less a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practical extent.” (Id. at 904.)
In Bonds v. Roy (1999) 20 Cal.4th 140, the Supreme Court recognized the full pre-trial disclosure of expert opinion as crucial to meaningful trial preparation:
“Indeed, the very purpose of the expert witness discovery statute is to give fair notice of what an expert will say at trial. This allows the parties to … fully explore the relevant subject area at any such deposition … the opportunity to depose an expert during trial, particularly if the testimony relates to a central issue, often provides a wholly inadequate opportunity to understand the expert’s opinion and to prepare to meet it.”
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The need for pre-trial discovery is greater with respect to expert witnesses than it is for ordinary fact witnesses because the other parties must prepare to cope with witnesses possessed of specialized knowledge in some scientific or technical field. They must gear up to cross-examine them effectively, and they must marshall the evidence to rebut their opinions. (Id. at 146-147.)
Specifically, in the Bonds matter, the expert witness declaration indicated that defendant’s expert would testify only on the issue of damages. At the expert’s deposition, the expert specifically confirmed he did not expect to be giving any testimony or any opinions concerning the standard of care issues that might be involved in the case. At trial, however, defense counsel sought to expand the scope of the expert’s testimony to include the applicable standard of care. The trial court denied this request explaining that the very purpose of the expert witness discovery statute is to give fair notice of what an expert will say at trial. This allows parties to assess whether to take the expert’s deposition, to fully explore the relevant subject area at such deposition, and to select an expert who can respond with a competing opinion on the subject area. The court continued that when an expert is permitted to testily at trial on a wholly undisclosed subject area, the opposing party similarly lacks a fair opportunity to prepare for cross-examination or rebuttal. (Id. at page 147.) (See Part 4 of 6.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.