Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth injury 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 medical malpractice action and its proceedings.)
DR. HILL’S PERSONAL OPINIONS ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THIS CASE
Evidence Code, § 350 states:
No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.
Evidence Code, § 351states:
Except as otherwise provided by statute all relevant evidence is admissible. Relevant evidence is that which has “any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence ….” (Evidence Code § 210.) The test of relevancy is whether the evidence tends, logically, naturally, or by reasonable inference to establish a material fact, not whether it conclusively proves it. (People v. Peggese (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 415, 420; People v. Yu (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 358, 376.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The most accepted test of relevancy is: Does the evidence offered render the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidence? (Ruiz v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 462, 468.)
Dr.Hill’s personal opinions as to why he believes he has testified on behalf of plaintiff more often in the last five years is not relevant to any of the issues in this case. Such testimony does not impact any of his opinions regarding the medical issues or evidence, and does not add anything to support his expert testimony on the medical issues. This testimony, Dr.Hill’s personal opinions, does not make the purported “chill” or “shift in attitude” more probable than it would be without such testimony.
DR. HILL’S PERSONAL OPINIONS WOULD RESULT IN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME, WOULD CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL DANGER OF PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANT, AND CAUSE CONFUSION AND POTENTIALLY MISLEAD THE JURY
Evidence Code §352 states:
The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if it probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, but confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury… The personal opinion testimony noted above, if allowed, would consume undue consumption of time, and more importantly, create a substantial danger of undue prejudice to defendant and confuse or mislead the jury.
If such testimony is allowed, defendant would be required, on cross examination to go into the basis for Dr. Hill’s comments regarding the medical societies, groups, and faculties, as well as the his comments regarding the shift in attitude of defense counsel and the meritorious nature of the plaintiffs’ cases. (See Part 5 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.