Sacramento Man’s Car Accident Back Surgery Subject Of Experts’ Opinions, Part 5 of 5

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.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this automobile accident case and its proceedings.)

Similarly, in Bonds v. Roy (1999) 20 Cal.4th 140, the Supreme Court held that when a plaintiff fails to disclose that he intends to seek an opinion from a treating physician, the trial court may preclude that physician from testifying at trial on a subject whose general substance was not previously described in an expert witness declaration, reasoning that the whole purpose of supplying the information set forth in an expert witness declaration is to avoid surprise and gamesmanship at trial. This concept can be applied to the facts of this case. As there has been no testimony or documents supporting a causal link between the subject accident and this fusion surgery, any testimony at trial supporting a causal link would be a surprise to the defense, and should be disallowed to be introduced.

Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to find a doctor or expert that will support a nexus between the surgery and this accident, and as that nexus has not yet been found, plaintiff should be foreclosed from attempting to claim this surgery in damages at trial based upon the probative value of this evidence being substantially outweighed by the danger of an undue consumption of time, danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, and of misleading the jury, per C.C.P. § 352. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 352, Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceuticals, (1985) 163 Cal.App. 3d 396, and the Supreme Court’s holding in Bonds v. Roy (1999) 20 Cal.4th 140, defendants Donna Lee and Veronica Lee request the court to order that plaintiff, plaintiff’s witnesses, and his counsel are precluded from attempting to solicit, in any form or manner, any evidence from lay witnesses, non-retained treating physicians Paul White, P.A., Dr. John Brown, M.D., Dr. Devin Smith, or retained experts Sydney Chu, Dr. Andrew Greene, or Dr. Sean Finklestein, as to the causation of his claimed injuries specific to plaintiff Henry Johnson’s February 2009 L5-S1 fusion surgery at Memorial Medical Center.


For the foregoing reasons, defendants request that plaintiff be prohibited from introducing any testimony or evidence at trial on the issue of causation of plaintiff’s February 2009 fusion surgery.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information