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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)
In Jones, the plaintiff sued her former attorney for legal malpractice after her ex-husband stopped paying marital support. At the plaintiff’s expert’s deposition, the expert testified that he believed the defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of care when he negotiated the underlying divorce settlement and judgment. When asked whether he believed the defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of care in other areas of his representation, the expert testified Not that I’m prepared to testify to at this time. Jones, at 563. When asked whether he anticipated arriving at any other opinions, the expert testified, No, but if I do, you will be notified well in advance, so as to be able to properly exercise your discovery rights. Id.
At trial, the expert testified that the defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of care when he failed to properly secure the source of plaintiff’s marital support income, a task unrelated to his negotiation of the underlying settlement and judgment. The trial court excluded the pinion, holding that it “would be grossly unfair and prejudicial to permit the expert to offer additional pinions at trial” after he had made affirmative representations that he would not do so at deposition. Id. at 564-565.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The instant matter is distinguishable from the cases discussed above and is analogous to the case of Easterby v. Clark (2009) 171 Cal.App.th 772 [90 Cal.Rtpr.3d 81]. In Easterby, the plaintiffs brought an action against a dental group for dental malpractice, general negligence, and loss of consortium. Judgment was entered in favor of defendants at trial. Plaintiffs appealed claiming that the trial court committed reversible error in excluding its expert’s testimony on causation. (See Part 3 of 4.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.