(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)
It is also 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, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.
California Evidence Code section 720 further defines the necessary foundational requirement before a witness will be allowed to testify as an expert in a particular area:
(a) A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates. Against the objection of a party, such special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education must be shown before the witness may testify as an expert.
(b) A witness’ special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may be shown by any otherwise admissible evidence, including his own testimony. (Calif. Evid. Code section 720.)
As discussed in greater detail below, there can be no doubt that Dr. Lee is not a qualified expert in plastic surgery or nursing. He has no special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates. Clearly, if Plaintiffs were proposing that Dr. Lee should be permitted to testify regarding the standard of care for plastic surgeons and nurses, and whether this was complied with in the present case, both Defendant Smith and the Court would not allow it. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
(a) When the existence of a preliminary fact is disputed, its existence or nonexistence shall be determined as provided in this article.
(b) The court may hear and determine the question of the admissibility of evidence out of the presence or hearing of the jury; but in a criminal action, the court shall hear and determine the question of the admissibility of a confession or admission of the defendant out of the presence and hearing of the jury if any party so requests.
(c) A ruling on the admissibility of evidence implies whatever finding of fact is prerequisite thereto; a separate or formal finding is unnecessary unless required by statute. (Calif. Evid. Code section 402.)
With respect to preliminary fact determinations not governed by Sections 403 or 404:
(a) When the existence of a preliminary fact is disputed, the court shall indicate which party has the burden of producing evidence and the burden of proof on the issue as implied by the rule of law under which the question arises. The court shall determine the existence or nonexistence of the preliminary fact and shall admit or exclude the proffered evidence as required by the rule of law under which the question arises.
(b) If a preliminary fact is also a fact in issue in the action:
(1) The jury shall not be informed of the court’s determination as to the existence or nonexistence of the preliminary fact.
(2) If the proffered evidence is admitted, the jury shall not be instructed to disregard the evidence if its determination of the fact differs from the court’s determination of the preliminary fact. (Calif. Evid. Code section 405.) (See Part 7 of 9.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.