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.)
DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL BECAUSE HE DID NOT READ DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION LACKS MERIT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE IS MOOT
Dr. Hill did not have the opportunity to read defendant, Dr. Li’s deposition, because it was taken three days prior to Dr. Hill’s deposition and was not available for him to review. Plaintiff asserts that the fact that Dr. Hill did not review defendant’s deposition is of no consequence because defendant claims that 5 plaintiff’s allegations, in terms of how the adjustment occurred and the fact that she did not give consent for the adjustment, never occurred. If defendants believe that it is an important point that Dr. Hill did not read defendant’s deposition then they are welcome to cross-examine him on it at the time of trial. But this does not serve as a basis to exclude him as an expert.
DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM TESTIFY AT TRIAL BECAUSE HE WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH THE DEPOSITIONS OF THE SUBSEQUENT TREATERS ALSO LACKS MERIT
Following her treatment with defendants on May 25, 2007, plaintiff underwent arthroscopic surgery by a Dr. Gray for a meniscal tear.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Dr. Hill testified that he had not seen records from subsequent treaters because he will not be commenting on the orthopedic care provided to plaintiff to treat the injuries she allegedly sustained 20 from the subject visit with defendant. Dr. Gray himself will be expressing opinions regarding causation in this case as plaintiff’s subsequent treater.
CONCLUSION
In any medical malpractice case it would be very advantages if the adversary’s standard of care expert was excluded from testifying. On occasion, such exclusion is warranted. However, plaintiff submits to the court, that on this occasion, the issues defendants take with plaintiff’s expert are more appropriate for cross-examination, then as a basis for exclusion. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny defendants’ Motion In Limine No. 5, and allow Dr. Hill to testify at the tine of trial.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.