Filed 12/16/13 Hedren v. Allen CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

TIPPI HEDREN,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH D. ALLEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D061186

 (Super. Ct. No. 37-2009-00095599-

 CU-NP-CTL)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, William S. 

Dato, Judge. Affirmed.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Roy G. Weatherup, Bartley L. Becker and 

Allison A. Arabian for the Defendant and Appellant. 

Greene, Broillet & Wheeler and Bruce A. Broillet, Geoffrey S. Wells and Alan 

Van Gelder; Esner, Chang & Boyer and Stuart B. Esner, Andrew N. Chang and Holly N. 

Boyer for the Plaintiff and Respondent. 
2

In this legal malpractice action, defendant Joseph D. Allen, who represented 

plaintiff Tippi Hedren in the underlying personal injury action, appeals from a judgment 

on a jury verdict in favor of Hedren. The judgment awards Hedren damages that the jury 

found she would have recovered in the underlying action but for Allen's negligence in 

dismissing the action without obtaining a stipulation from the defendants to toll the 

statute of limitations. In the underlying action, Hedren alleged that as a result of the 

negligence of the owners of a sound stage where she was rehearsing and filming a scene 

for a motion picture, a gallon of water fell on her head and caused the return of a chronic 

headache condition that had been successfully treated.

Allen contends that (1) the court erred in refusing to give jury instructions on 

superseding causation and contributory negligence; (2) Hedren's medical expert provided 

no reasoned basis for his opinion that the subject accident caused Hedren's headaches to 

return; (3) the court erred in admitting speculative expert testimony concerning lost future 

earnings and earning capacity; (4) because there was no competent evidence of lost future 

earnings or earning capacity, the court erred in instructing the jury that it could award 

such damages; and (5) the jury's total award of damages is excessive as a matter of law. 

Allen contends that each of the court's errors standing alone requires reversal of the 

judgment and remand for a new trial. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Hedren's Career

Hedren was born in Minnesota in 1930. She moved to the Los Angeles area with 

her parents when she was 17 and finished high school there. After studying arts at 
3

Pasadena City College for one year, she moved to New York and pursued a successful 

modeling career. When television became prevalent, she appeared in numerous 

television commercials. In 1961, Alfred Hitchcock discovered her in a television 

commercial and cast her in a starring role in his movie The Birds. Because she had no 

previous acting training, Hitchcock became her drama coach as well as her director. She 

received a Golden Globe award for the most promising actress of 1961 for her role in The 

Birds. After The Birds, Hitchcock cast Hedren in the leading role in the movie Marnie. 

Hedren continued to have a successful acting career and has appeared in numerous 

feature films and television shows over the years.

After working on two films in Africa and 1969 and 1970, Hedren became 

interested in wildlife preservation and founded Shambala, a preserve in Southern 

California for big cats born in captivity. In 1983 she founded a nonprofit organization 

named the Roar Foundation to accept donations for Shambala. Hedren served as 

Shambala's president and worked to raise money for Shambala through the Roar 

Foundation while continuing to pursue her acting career.

Hedren's History of Headaches

Hedren began experiencing severe and persistent severe headaches in the mid1990's. In 2000, she sought treatment for them from Dr. Thomas Hopkins, an orthopedic 

surgeon, who referred her to Dr. Lancelot Alexander, a neurologist. Dr. Alexander 

prescribed medication for tension headache disorder, but Hedren's headaches continued 

to progress.
4

Hedren's medical expert at trial was Dr. Nicholas Fuller, an anesthesiologist who 

specializes in spinal pain management. Dr. Fuller testified that after Hedren saw Dr. 

Alexander, she "continued to follow up with Dr. Hopkins." According to Dr. Fuller, at 

some unspecified time Hedren went back to Dr. Alexander, who then concluded she 

suffered from cervicogenic headaches. After Dr. Alexander prescribed "multiple 

medication trials" that failed, he sent Hedren back to Dr. Hopkins, who at that point 

considered treating her headaches with surgery.

In 2005, Dr. Hopkins referred Hedren to Dr. Fuller, who noted in a written report 

to Dr. Hopkins that Hedren's headache condition had been successfully treated with 

"bilateral C4-C5 and C5-C6 foraminal [nerve root block] injections approximately three 

years ago." Dr. Fuller presumably was referring to injections that his colleague Dr. 

Randy Rosen performed in 2002 with Dr. Fuller serving as anesthesiologist. In his report 

dated May 13, 2005, Dr. Fuller diagnosed Hedren's headaches as cervicogenic and 

indicated that repeat nerve root block injections had been performed that day.

After Hedren went through multiple spinal interventions and medication trials that 

were unsuccessful in treating her headaches, Dr. Hopkins decided the potential benefits 

of spinal surgery outweighed the risks. On April 10, 2006, he performed spinal fusion 

surgery on Hedren. The surgery involved immobilizing her C4 through C7 neck 

vertebrae by attaching a titanium plate to them with screws, causing the vertebrae to fuse 

over time. Hedren testified that the surgery resulted in immediate relief from her 

headache pain and was a miracle to her. She was free of headaches at a follow-up visit in 
5

May 2006, and a CT scan was scheduled for August to ensure that her spine was fusing 

properly. Dr. Hopkins advised her not to work for two or three months after the surgery.

The Accident and Ensuing Injury

Shortly after her surgery, Hedren accepted a role in the television show Fashion 

House. Dr. Hopkins approved her taking the role because it was not an action picture and 

she would be playing a woman who was dying of cancer and used a walker. On June 22, 

2006, Hedren was rehearsing and filming a scene for Fashion House at Stu Segal Studios 

in San Diego. She was wearing a nightgown and slippers and was using a walker for the 

scene. She noticed that water was dripping from the ceiling onto a carpeted area and that 

the carpet was soaked. As she was rehearsing the scene approximately ten feet away 

from the wet carpet, about a gallon of water fell from the ceiling onto her head. The 

water was traveling at a speed of about 25 miles per hour when it struck Hedren, who 

testified that it "felt like part of the ceiling had dropped on my head." She had to hold 

onto her walker to maintain her balance and avoid falling. She described the experience 

as a "terrible shock." The water that fell on her had accumulated on a plastic tarp under 

the sound stage's plywood roof, possibly because a bird's nest was blocking a 

condensation tube in the air conditioning system.

Immediately after the accident, Hedren wanted to continue working. However, at 

the insistence of her coworkers and the advice of a doctor on the set, she went to a nearby 

hospital for an x-ray. After being x-rayed at the hospital, Hedren returned to work. That 

night her headache returned. She worked over thirteen hours the following day, which 

was a Friday, and continued to suffer a headache that day and throughout the weekend. 
6

On June 26, 2006, she underwent a CT scan that Dr. Hopkins prescribed to determine 

whether there was a problem with the spinal fusion he had performed. The scan showed 

the fusion was good and the fusion site was not the source of Hedren's headache pain. 

Dr. Hopkins told Hedren that he could not perform additional surgery on her to address 

her headaches.

Hedren tried various treatments for her chronic headache pain after the accident, 

including chiropractic, acupuncture, physical therapy, medications, botox injections, and 

nerve block injections. She testified at trial, however, that she had continuously suffered 

headaches since the accident in June 2006.

The Underlying Lawsuit

In October of 2006, Hedren retained Allen to file a personal injury lawsuit against 

the owner and lessee of the sound stage where the accident occurred based on their 

alleged negligence in failing to properly maintain the roof.1 Allen filed the complaint on 

behalf of Hedren in March of 2007. Shortly before the trial readiness conference in the 

case, Allen dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice without first obtaining an agreement 

from the defendants to toll the statute of limitations. When Allen refiled the action about 

 

1 Hedren and Allen stipulated that Corrigan Limited Partnership owned the sound 

stage property and Stu Segall Productions leased the property. Kirkwood Productions 

(Kirkwood) was the company that employed Hedren and rented the soundstage from Stu 

Segall Productions to film scenes for Fashion House. Allen's opening brief on appeal 

and Hedren's opening statement at trial reflect that Kirkwood Productions was named as a 

defendant in the underlying action. Although it is not clear from the record, Allen's 

opening brief and Hedren's opening statement at trial indicate that Allen dismissed 

Kirkwood from the underlying action before he voluntarily dismissed the entire 

complaint without prejudice with the intent of refiling it.
7

a month later, the defendants filed a demurrer to the new complaint on the ground it was 

barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave 

to amend and dismissed the action in October 2009.

The Present Malpractice Lawsuit

Hedren filed the present malpractice action against Allen in August 2009, seeking 

to recover against Allen "the damages that she reasonably could have expected to have 

recovered in the underlying lawsuit . . . , including but not limited to general damages for 

pain, suffering, emotional distress, medical expenses past and future, lost earnings, lost 

earnings capacity, past and future." At trial Allen conceded he was negligent in 

dismissing the underlying action without a tolling agreement. Consequently, the trial 

essentially involved trying the underlying case to determine what Hedren reasonably 

could have expected to recover but for Allen's negligence.2 The jury returned a verdict 

awarding Hedren total damages in the amount of $1,483,708, consisting of $213,400 for 

past lost earnings; $170,000 for future medical expenses; $440,308 for future lost 

earnings and lost earning capacity; $300,000 for past noneconomic loss, including 

physical pain and mental suffering; and $360,000 for future noneconomic loss, including 

 

2 " '[A] client claiming that his [her] attorney was negligent in connection with 

litigation has the burden of proving that damages resulted, this burden involving, usually, 

the difficult task of demonstrating that, but for the negligence complained of, the client 

would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the action in question.' 

[Citation.] 'Thus the issue of liability includes not only a showing the attorney was 

negligent but also a showing his [or her] negligence caused damage.' " (Sukoff v. Lemkin

(1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 740, 744.) Essentially, the plaintiff must try or retry the 

underlying action in the malpractice trial. (Ibid.)
8

physical pain and mental suffering. The court entered judgment on the verdict and 

denied Allen's subsequent motion for new trial.

DISCUSSION

I. Refusal to Instruct on Superseding Causation

Allen contends the court committed reversible error by rejecting his proposed 

special instruction on superseding causation. The proposed special instruction, entitled 

"Independent Intervening Act," stated: "Where after a defendant's alleged wrongful act 

or omission there occurs an independent intervening act or event which is not 

foreseeable, or is otherwise extraordinary or not reasonably likely to occur, the alleged 

act or omission of the defendant is not the legal cause of plaintiff's alleged damage." The 

court rejected the proposed instruction on the ground there was no evidentiary basis for 

an "intervening cause" instruction.

"A party is entitled upon request to correct, nonargumentative instructions on 

every theory of the case advanced by him which is supported by substantial evidence. 

The trial court may not force the litigant to rely on abstract generalities, but must instruct 

in specific terms that relate the party's theory to the particular case." (Soule v. General 

Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572.) In considering whether the trial court erred in 

refusing a instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

applicability of the instruction because a party is entitled to a requested instruction if the

evidence could establish the elements of the theory it presents. (Chanda v. Federal Home 

Loans Corporation (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 746, 755.) However, instructional error in a 

civil case is not ground for reversal unless it seems reasonably probable that the error 
9

prejudicially affected the verdict. (Soule, at p. 580; Chanda, at p. 755.) In determining 

whether instructional error was prejudicial, a reviewing court evaluates "(1) the state of 

the evidence, (2) the effect of other instructions, (3) the effect of counsel's arguments, and 

(4) any indications by the jury itself that it was misled." (Soule, at pp. 580-581, fn. 

omitted.)

"[T]he defense of 'superseding cause[]' . . . absolves a tortfeasor, even though his 

conduct was a substantial contributing factor [to the plaintiff's injury], when an 

independent event intervenes in the chain of causation, producing harm of a kind and 

degree so far beyond the risk the original tortfeasor should have foreseen that the law 

deems it unfair to hold him responsible." (Soule, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 573, fn. 9.) 

"[T]he fact that an intervening act of a third person is done in a negligent manner does 

not make it a superseding cause if a reasonable [person] . . . would not regard it as highly 

extraordinary that the third person so acted or the act is a normal response to a situation 

created by the defendant's conduct and the manner in which the intervening act is done is 

not extraordinarily negligent." (Stewart v. Cox (1961) 55 Cal.2d 857, 864.) In other 

words, for third party negligence to constitute a superseding cause of an injury, the third 

party's negligence must be "so highly extraordinary as to be unforeseeable." (Torres v. 

Xomox Corp. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1, 18-19.)3

 

3 CACI No. 432 entitled, "Affirmative Defense—Causation: Third-Party Conduct as 

Superseding Cause" articulates the legal requirements of that defense as follows: 

"[Defendant] claims that [he] is not responsible for [plaintiff]'s harm because of the later 

misconduct of [a third party]. To avoid legal responsibility for the harm, [defendant] 

must prove all of the following: [¶] 1. That [the third party]'s conduct occurred after the 
10

Allen contends the superseding cause of Hedren's injury that absolved the 

underlying defendants of liability was the negligence of Hedren's employer Kirkwood in 

failing to do anything about the water dripping onto the sound stage on a day with no rain 

and directing Hedren and other employees to work as usual. Allen argues that a 

reasonable person could find Kirkwood's conduct was highly unusual or extraordinary. 

We disagree. Water dripping onto a floor from a ceiling or roof would not ordinarily 

cause a reasonable person who does not own or control the premises to expect that a large 

deluge of water falling from the ceiling is imminent or even likely to occur. A person 

might reasonably surmise from such dripping that the roof or an air conditioning unit is 

leaking, but there is no evidence in the record of any circumstance that should have put 

the employees of Kirkwood on notice that a large amount of water had accumulated 

above the plastic tarp covering the roof and was likely to suddenly burst through the tarp 

above and fall onto the stage below. Accordingly, Kirkwood's continuing to rehearse and 

film scenes on the sound stage despite the dripping water did not constitute conduct that 

was so highly extraordinary as to be unforeseeable. Using the language of CACI No. 

432, we conclude a reasonable person would not consider Kirkwood's continuing to use 

the sound stage despite the dripping water as a highly unusual or an extraordinary 

response to the situation. The trial court reasonably refused to instruct the jury on 

 

conduct of [defendant]; [¶] 2. That a reasonable person would consider [the third party]'s 

conduct as a highly unusual or an extraordinary response to the situation; [¶] 3. That 

[defendant] did not know and had no reason to expect that [the third party] would act in a 

[negligent/wrongful] manner; and [¶] 4. That the kind of harm resulting from [the third 

party]'s conduct was different from the kind of harm that could have been reasonably 

expected from [the defendant]'s conduct."
11

superseding causation on the ground there was no evidentiary basis for such an 

instruction.

II. Refusal to Instruct on Comparative Fault

Allen contends the court prejudicially erred by refusing to instruct the jury with 

the following modified version of CACI No. 405 regarding comparative fault: "Joseph 

Allen claims that Tippi Hedren's own negligence contributed to her harm. To succeed on 

this claim, Joseph Allen must prove both of the following: [¶] 1. That Tippi Hedren was 

negligent; and [¶] 2. That Tippi Hedren's negligence was a substantial factor in causing 

her harm. [¶] If Joseph Allen proves the above, Tippi Hedren's damages are reduced by 

your determination of the percentage of Tippi Hedren's responsibility. I will calculate the 

actual reduction." The court refused this instruction on the ground there was insufficient 

evidence to warrant it.

Allen contends the comparative fault instruction was warranted because there was 

evidence that Hedren was standing on the rug where the ceiling was leaking just before 

the accidentand that she performed two "stage falls" on the day of the accident even 

though Dr. Hopkins had instructed her not to fall. Allen further argues the comparative 

fault instruction was warranted because there was evidence that Hedren did not see Dr. 

Hopkins until 55 days after the accident; she fell on her elbows and shoulders in 2010; 

and she continued campaigning for Shambala at "a hectic pace" even though Dr. Hopkins 

told her to slow down after her spinal fusion surgery.

We conclude the court correctly decided there was insufficient evidence to warrant 

an instruction on comparative fault. The portions of the reporter's transcript that Allen 
12

cites as evidence that Hedren was standing on the rug where the ceiling was leaking 

before the accident does not establish that she was standing on that spot at the time of the 

accident. In any event, the evidence does not establish that the water that fell onto 

Hedren broke through the plastic tarp covering the ceiling at the same place from which 

the water was dripping before the accident. Hedren's accident reconstruction expert 

testified that the location where the water was dripping onto the stage may not have been 

the same location where Hedren was struck by the falling water. Even if there were 

sufficient evidence to support a finding that Hedren was standing beneath the dripping 

water at the time of the accident, it would not warrant a comparative fault instruction 

because a reasonable person exercising due care would not reasonably foresee that 

standing under a ceiling leak is likely to result in being struck by a sudden release of a 

gallon of water from the ceiling.

The fact that Hedren executed two "stage falls" on the day of the accident is not 

evidence of contributory negligence because the stage falls were not actual falls and there 

was no evidence that they caused any injury to Hedren.4 (Williams v. Wraxall (1995) 33 

Cal.App.4th 120, 132 [causation requires proof that the conduct in question was a 

substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff's harm].) Nor is there any evidence that 

 

4 Hedren testified that a stage fall or "actor's fall" is performed in way that "you do 

not hurt yourself." She explained: "It's how an actor prepares to do an action, that even 

though it could be harmful, the way that you fall, you do not hurt yourself. And they had 

a pad down there for me that was about that thick that I would eventually land on. But 

how you do it is you fall and I braced my hand on the table, I braced my hand on the 

bottom of the chair and they rolled over. I am not interested in getting hurt in any way. 

I'm not a stunt woman, but they showed me how to do it and it was very successful."
13

Hedren's waiting 55 days to see Dr. Hopkins contributed to her injury. Dr. Hopkins 

ordered a CT scan of her cervical region a few days after the accident, and he reviewed 

the scan and reported the results to Hedren. There was no evidence that Hedren's actually 

seeing Dr. Hopkins sooner than she did after the accident would have lessened her injury. 

Likewise, there was no evidence that Hedren's fall on her elbows and shoulders in 2010, 

approximately four years after the accident, contributed to the chronic headache 

condition that had been ongoing since the accident.

Finally, the evidence of Hedren's travel and activities following the accident did 

not warrant a comparative fault instruction. Allen's assertion that Hedren campaigned for 

Shambala at a "hectic pace" after the accident despite Dr. Hopkins's advising her to "slow 

down" is more argumentative than evidentiary. The evidence does not show that Dr. 

Hopkins told Hedren to "slow down" in a follow up visit from her April 2006 spinal 

fusion surgery, as Allen suggests in his opening brief. The medical record that Allen 

cites as supporting that suggestion contains the following statement by Dr. Hopkins in a 

report dated September 14, 2006: "We have stressed that she needs to stay off planes and 

in town for a minimum of three months post-injection in hopes of decrease in her 

symptom complex and precluding surgical intervention." (Italics added.) Thus, Dr. 

Hopkins advised Hedren, in so many words, to "slow down" after future injections she 

would undergo in the hope of avoiding additional surgery.5 The evidence that Allen cites 

 

5 Dr. Fuller testified that Dr. Hopkins referred Hedren to him in August 2006 and he

(Dr. Fuller) performed cervical facet injections on her in September or October 2006.
14

as showing Hedren ignored that advice includes her testimony about a trip she took to 

Africa in the summer of 2006, before Dr. Hopkins advised her to stay off airplanes, and 

her testimony that she traveled to Chicago in October 2006 for an autograph convention 

and attended autograph sessions in England, New Jersey, Florida, Chicago, and Oregon 

in 2010 – three to four years after Dr. Hopkins advised her to stay off planes and in town 

for a minimum of three months post injection. To the extent Hedren's October 2006 

flight was contrary to Dr. Hopkins's advice, it did not warrant a comparative fault 

instruction because there was no evidence that it contributed to her injury.

Thus, the court did not err in deciding there was insufficient evidence to warrant 

an instruction on comparative fault. Even if we were to conclude there was sufficient 

evidence to warrant the comparative fault instruction, we would find the court's refusal of 

the instruction was harmless error because it is not reasonably probable that the jury 

would have found that Hedren was negligent on the day of the accident, or that any of her 

post-accident conduct that Allen cites as supporting the instruction was a substantial 

factor in causing the harm she suffered.

III. Expert Testimony On Causation

At trial, Hedren's medical expert, Dr. Fuller, testified that the subject accident 

caused the return of Hedren's chronic headache condition.6 Allen contends that Dr. 

 

6 Hedren's counsel asked Dr. Fuller if he was "able to form an opinion as to whether 

the incident of June 22, 2006 with the water on the set was, to a reasonable medical 

certainty, the cause of [Hedren's] headaches coming back?" He answered: "I do believe 

there's a direct causation regarding the water that fell on [Hedren] recreating her 

cervicogenic headache."
15

Fuller offered no foundation for that opinion and, therefore, Hedren failed to prove to a 

reasonable medical probability that the subject accident caused the damages she 

claimed.7

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury 

verdict, we construe the evidence as favorably as possible in support of the verdict. 

(Ogulin v. Jeffries (1953) 121 Cal.App.2d 211, Kasperian v. County of Los Angeles 

(1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 242, 259.) "The law is well settled that in a personal injury action 

causation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent 

expert testimony. Mere possibility alone is insufficient to establish a prima facie case." 

(Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 396, 402.) "There can be 

many possible 'causes,' indeed, an infinite number of circumstances which can produce 

an injury or disease. A possible cause only becomes 'probable' when, in the absence of 

other reasonable causal explanations, it becomes more likely than not that the injury was 

a result of its action." (Id. at p. 403, italics added.)

Allen cites the rule that " '[w]here an expert bases his conclusion upon 

assumptions which are not supported by the record, upon matters which are not 

reasonably relied upon by other experts, or upon factors which are speculative, remote or 

conjectural, then his conclusion has no evidentiary value. [Citations.] In those 

 

7 Allen does not contend on appeal that the insufficiency of Dr. Fuller's testimony to 

prove causation in the underlying action requires judgment in his favor, and he did not 

move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Rather, he contends that because Dr. 

Fuller's causation opinion lacks foundation, there is no substantial evidence to support the 

jury's large award of noneconomic damages.
16

circumstances the expert's opinion cannot rise to the dignity of substantial evidence.' " 

(Borger v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1122 (Borger), 

quoting Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Zuckerman (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1135

(Zuckerman.)

Borger and Zuckerman support the proposition that to have evidentiary value, an 

expert's opinion must be based on matters that are reasonably relied upon by an expert in 

forming an opinion on the subject in question, are not precluded by law from 

consideration, and do not otherwise constitute an improper basis for an opinion. (Evid.

Code, §§ 801-803.) They do support the proposition that an expert must in every case 

provide a detailed explanation for an opinion. To the contrary, "[w]here an expert 

witness, such as a medical witness, bases his scientific opinion on his observation, such 

as an attending or treating physician observing his patient, he need not state the reasons 

for his opinion—the facts upon which they are based—to render his opinion competent 

and probative evidence." (Lumbermen's v. Mut. Cas. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1946) 29 

Cal.2d 492, 500 (Lumbermen's); People v. Mendibles (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1277, 1293

[an expert medical witness is qualified to give an opinion of the cause of a particular 

injury on the basis of the expert's deduction from the appearance of the injury itself]; 

Hart v. Olson (1945) 68 Cal.App.2d 657, 664 [when a medical expert's opinion is based 

on what the expert has observed it is not necessary that the expert state the facts on which 

he or she based the opinion].) When a treating physician renders an expert opinion, "it 

may be assumed [he or she] made observations and acquired sufficient facts as a basis for 

[the opinion]." (Lumbermen's, supra, 29 Cal.2d at p. 501.)
17

Here, Hedren's medical expert Dr. Fuller was one of her treating physicians before 

and after the accident. As such, he observed her condition in 2005 before her fusion 

surgery. In August 2006, Dr. Hopkins referred Hedren to Dr. Fuller for cervical facet 

injections "in an attempt to diagnose and treat [her] persistent headache[,]" and Dr. Fuller 

performed the injections in September or October of 2006, after the subject accident but 

before Hedren filed the underlying action. In 2008, Dr. Fuller participated as the 

anesthesiologist for a diagnostic surgery performed on Hedren known as a discogram.8 

Because Dr. Fuller rendered an expert opinion about a medical problem he had been 

involved in treating, it may be assumed that he made observations and acquired sufficient 

facts as a basis for his opinion. (Lumbermen's, supra, 29 Cal.2d at p. 501.)

Dr. Fuller explained to the jury that a "pain generator" for a headache is "the 

structure that is eliciting the patient's pain" and that problems in the neck can generate a 

headache because the "fifth cranial nerve provides facial sensation, [and] it also has some 

of its motor neurons in the upper cervical spine." Based in part on his treatment and 

observation of Hedren in August 2006, he testified that the pain generator or source of 

her headache pain was her upper cervical region, and that cause of the pain was "related 

to the water falling upon her." Given Dr. Fuller's testimony as an expert witness and 

 

8 Dr. Fuller explained that a discogram is a diagnostic surgery "where you insert a 

needle as close as possible interpreting the pain signals. Once you pressurize those discs, 

a normal, healthy disc will be painless. Very similar to a jelly donut, all the jelly will 

stay inside the donut. A cracked disc you'll see the contrast agent go through one of the 

cracks where the jelly would leak out. And more likely and more often than not that's 

associated with severe pain which, unfortunately, Tippi had to endure. She recorded 

predominant pain."
18

treating physician who had observed Hedren's condition before and after the accident, 

and the evidence that a gallon of water traveling at a speed of 25 miles per hour fell onto 

Hedren and felt to her "like part of the ceiling had dropped on [her] head," the jury could 

reasonably find that the trauma of the water striking Hedren caused pain to be generated 

from the neck vertebrae above her surgically fused vertebrae and resulted in the 

recurrence of her chronic headaches. 

When a treating physician renders an expert opinion about a medical condition 

based on his or her observation of the patient and does not expressly articulate the facts 

upon which the opinion is based, it is appropriate to look to cross-examination to inform 

the jury of any weakness in the foundation for the expert's opinion. (Lumbermen's,

supra, 29 Cal.2d at pp. 500-501.) Although Allen's counsel extensively cross-examined 

Dr. Fuller, he never asked Dr. Fuller to explain the basis for his opinion that the waterfalling accident caused Hedren's current chronic headache condition. As the 

Lumbermen's court stated regarding an expert opinion's report on the cause of an injury in 

the context of proceedings before the Industrial Accident Commission (predecessor to the 

Workers Compensation Appeals Board),9 "[t]he failure of the report to state the reason 

for the expert opinion does not strip it of probative value to the point where it is not 

substantial evidence supporting the decision of the commission. It goes to the weight of 

such evidence, a matter within the exclusive province of the commission as the arbiter of 

 

9 See Sampson v. Parking Service 2000 Com, Inc. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 212, 225.
19

fact. Petitioners had the right to cross-examine the witnesses if they saw fit." 

(Lumbermen's, at p. 500.)

Similarly, Dr. Fuller's failure to explain (because he was never asked to explain) 

the physical mechanism by which the water-falling accident caused the return of Hedren's 

headaches does not completely strip his causation opinion of probative value to the point 

that it is not substantial evidence supporting the jury's causation finding. Bearing in mind 

that we must we construe the evidence as favorably as possible in support of the verdict, 

we conclude that Dr. Fuller's causation opinion, viewed in context of the entire record, 

sufficiently supports the jury's determination that the subject accident caused the return of 

Hedren's chronic headache condition.

IV. Expert Testimony on Future Lost Earnings and Earning Capacity

Allen contends the court erred in admitting speculative expert testimony 

concerning lost future earnings and earning capacity. He further contends that because 

there was no competent evidence of lost future earnings or earning capacity, the court 

erred in instructing the jury that it could award such damages.

At trial, Hedren's talent agent Carlyne Grager testified as an expert witness about 

Hedren's damages for future lost earnings. Grager testified that her talent agency 

specializes in obtaining work for "legends"—i.e., senior citizen actors "who are names, 

who have been stars"—and that the market for such actors in Hollywood had grown 

substantially in the last few years and would continue for the next ten years. She has 

clients who work into their 90's, including Carol Channing. Grager testified that there is 

demand for Hedren in Hollywood and that "it's daily we're getting inquiries for her 
20

services." Hedren's publicist referred Hedren to Grager because Grager was "strong on 

marketing," and it was "crucial to [Hedren's] career to be able to work within the next 10 

to 15 years, that immediately she get an agent who understands and recognizes the need 

to build up her fan base, regenerate her audiences, [and] make people aware that she was 

a viable dynamic entity with all of the functions and skill set to be able to play upcoming 

roles."

In 2011, the year the trial was held, Hedren played a role in a feature film starring 

Jessie Eisenberg and Jason Ritter and completed a film entitled Jane Mansfield's Car

produced by Billy Bob Thornton and starring Dennis Quade, Kevin Bacon, and John Hurt 

who played the husband of Hedren's character. At the time of trial, there were three or 

four films in preproduction in which Hedren had been offered starring roles. She had 

also been offered a part in a television series produced by and starring Betty White. 

Grager testified that Hedren's headache condition would cause Hedren to lose a minimum 

of 30 days of television acting work per year that would pay a minimum of $2,500 and up 

to $10,000 to $20,000 per day.

Based on Grager's testimony, Hedren's economist expert Peter Formuzis, testified 

regarding the amount of Hedren's past and future economic losses. In calculating 

Hedren's annual lost income, Formuzis used the reduced figure of $2,000 per day as the 

amount Hedren would be paid for television work and assumed Hedren would continue 

to work eight and a half more years until she reached the age of 90. Multiplying daily 

pay of $2,000 times 30 days of lost television work per year and subtracting a ten percent 

agent fee from the resulting figure of $60,000, Formuzis testified that Hedren's past lost 
21

earnings were $275,850 and her future lost earnings, reduced to present value, were 

$440,308.

Allen contends the court should have excluded Formuzis's testimony as 

speculative because it was based entirely on Grager's opinions that plaintiff would have 

been working 30 more days per year in television but for her injury10 and will work until 

she reaches the age of 90. Allen complains that Grager has no expertise in medicine or 

disability, and that there was no basis for using television work as a basis for determining 

damages because Hedren is primarily a film actress. Thus, Allen's essential complaint 

concerning Hedren's lost earnings damages goes to Grager's testimony rather than 

Formuzis's. Allen objected to Formuzis's testimony by way of a motion in limine,and 

objected to Grager's opinion about Hedren's lost earnings during her direct examination at 

trial on the grounds it was speculative and lacked foundation. The court overruled those 

objections.

We review any ruling by the trial court on the admissibility of evidence for abuse 

of discretion. (Saxena v. Goffney (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 316, 332.) A trial court abuses 

its discretion only when its ruling exceeds the bounds of reason, all circumstances being 

considered. (Ibid.)

We find no abuse of discretion in the court's admission of Grager's opinion 

testimony upon which Formuzis based his calculations of Hedren's lost earnings. 

Grager's overall testimony established that she was qualified as an expert. She testified 

 

10 Allen also attributes this opinion to Hedren's counsel.
22

that she was a theatrical talent agent and agency owner who specialized in representing 

very young and senior actors, and was "the only agency in the Hollywood market that 

[has] that particular clientele." In addition to Hedren, she represented Rip Taylor, Carol 

Channing, and other senior citizen actors. She testified: "[I]t is my forte to know the 

roles that are available for the senior market and generally over the years, those 

roles . . . are pretty substantial, but more so in the last two to three years in Hollywood.

. . . I have really tailored my agency in that direction to be able to focus and concentrate 

on all the extra work that is coming in these days, more so based on the . . . senior age 

category and name recognition of star talents." Her ensuing testimony revealed her 

extensive knowledge of the Hollywood film and television industry and market for senior 

actors, and showed that she was qualified to render an opinion as to Hedren's earning 

potential as an actress over the eight and one-half-year-period following the trial.

Regarding Allen's objection to Grager's opinions as being speculative and lacking 

foundation, we note that "[o]nce it is established that a witness has adequate credentials 

to qualify as an expert, questions as to the degree of his or her expertise go to weight not 

admissibility." (Howard Entertainment, Inc. v. Kudrow (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1102, 

1120-1121.) "Any flaws in an expert's opinion may be exposed through the adversary's 

own evidence or in cross-examination. Those imperfections do not make the expert's 

sources so unreliable or speculative as to lead to rejection. So long as foundational 

reliability is met, the strength of an expert's assumptions affects the weight rather than the

admissibility of the opinion." (Id. at p. 1121.) Based on her experience expertise in 

obtaining work for Hollywood "legends" like Hedren, Grager was qualified to render an 
23

opinion as to the amount of work she could likely obtain for Hedren in the coming 

decade, and how much work Hedren would likely be forced to forego as a result of her 

headache condition. Any flaw in Grager's opinion, such as the inherent uncertainty of 

obtaining future work that most people in the entertainment industry face, goes to the 

weight of her testimony rather than its admissibility.

Because we find no abuse of discretion in admission of Grager's opinion 

testimony, we conclude it was well within the court's discretion to admit Formuzis's 

expert testimony regarding the dollar amount of Hedren's lost future earnings and earning 

capacity, based on Grager's testimony. Accordingly, the court did not err in instructing 

the jury that it could award such damages.11

V. Total Award of Damages

Allen contends the jury's total award of damages in the amount of $1,483,708.00 is 

excessive as a matter of law. He reiterates that the evidence supporting the award of 

damages for lost earnings and lost earning capacity was speculative, and contends the 

award of $170,000 for future medical expenses was also speculative because it represents 

the cost of bilateral rhizotomy treatments, which Dr. Fuller testified would have to be 

repeated every year even though Hedren had not yet undergone that treatment.12 Finally, 

 

11 The special verdict form did not distinguish between future lost earnings and 

earning capacity; it directed the jury to determine the amount of future "[l]ost 

earnings/earning capacity" as a single item of damages. 

12 A rhizotomy is a heat treatment for pain involving use of a radio frequency needle 

to clip small branch nerves to prevent them from transmitting pain signals. Dr. Fuller 

answered affirmatively when Hedren's counsel's asked, "And basically in very layman's 
24

he contends the jury's award of $660,000 for pain and suffering exceeds the bounds of 

reason.13

"Civil Code section 3283 states in part that '[d]amages may be awarded . . . for 

detriment . . . certain to result in the future.' Courts have interpreted this to mean that a

plaintiff may recover if the detriment is 'reasonably certain' to occur. [Citations.] It is for 

the jury to determine the probabilities as to whether future detriment is reasonably certain 

to occur in any particular case." (Garcia v. Duro Dyne Corp. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 92, 

97.) "There is no requirement that a plaintiff prove with certainty the extent of the harm 

he [or she] has suffered as a result of the defendant's conduct. [Citation.] Although ' "[i]t 

is desirable . . . that there be definiteness of proof of the amount of damage as far as is 

reasonably possible [,] [i]t is even more desirable . . . that an injured person not be 

deprived of substantial compensation merely because he [or she] cannot prove with 

complete certainty the extent of harm he [or she] has suffered." ' " (Id. at pp. 98-99.)

"The power of an appellate court to review the trier of fact's determination of 

damages is severely circumscribed. An appellate court may interfere with that 

determination only where the sum awarded is so disproportionate to the evidence as to 

 

terms you're sort of burning away the nerves so that . . . the message doesn't jump 

anymore?"

13 In his opening brief, Allen inadvertently reversed the jury's awards of economic 

and noneconomic damages, erroneously referring to the award of economic damages as 

being $660,000 and the award of noneconomic damages as being $800,000. As noted, 

the jury awarded noneconomic damages in the total amount of $660,000, consisting of 

$300,000 for past noneconomic loss, including physical pain and mental suffering, and 

$360,000 for future noneconomic loss, including physical pain and mental suffering. The 

jury's total award of past and future economic losses was $823,708.
25

suggest that the verdict was the result of passion, prejudice or corruption [citations] or 

where the award is so out of proportion to the evidence that it shocks the conscience of 

the appellate court." (Uva v. Evans (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 356, 363-364.)

Allen relies on Scognamillo v. Herrick (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1139, in arguing 

that the evidence Hedren will have to undergo two rhizotomy treatments annually to treat 

her chronic headaches is too speculative to support the jury's award of future medical 

expenses. In Scognamillo, the trial court in a default judgment awarded the plaintiff 

damages for a second back surgery that possibly would be unnecessary, depending on the 

result of a first surgery. The Scognamillo court concluded the testimony regarding the 

necessity of the second surgery "could hardly have been couched in more speculative 

terms" because that testimony indicated "one surgery might sufficiently alleviate 

plaintiff's problems, or that a second surgery might be deemed to not be worth the risk." 

(Id. at p. 1151.) The Scognamillo court concluded "the trial court did not have before it 

sufficient evidence, based on a reasonable medical probability, to [award medical 

expenses related to a second surgery]." (Ibid.)

Scognamillo is inapposite. Here, there was substantial evidence that Hedren 

would continue to suffer from chronic cervicogenic headaches and that rhizotomies 

would provide relief from the pain she was suffering. The jury was entitled to believe 

Hedren's testimony that her headaches had continued from the time of the accident in 

June 2006 to the present. Dr. Fuller testified that Hedren underwent nerve-block 

injections that established that she was a candidate for rhizotomies, and that a rhizotomy 

can provide long lasting relief from upper cervical pain. He recommended Hedren 
26

undergo that treatment, stating: "[W]e anticipate getting [Hedren] excellent relief with 

the rhizotomy . . . ." He explained, however, that a rhizotomy would have to be repeated 

at 12-month intervals at a cost of about $20,000 each year because the clipped branch 

nerves regenerate over time. Based on Hedren's and Dr. Fuller's testimony, the jury could 

reasonably find that Hedren's severe chronic headache condition was reasonably certain 

to continue and that Hedren would have to undergo rhizotomy treatments to obtain relief.

In considering whether the noneconomic damages awarded to Hedren are 

excessive, we are mindful that " 'a reviewing court must give considerable deference in 

matters relating to damages to the jury in the first instance and to the trial court 

secondarily.' " (Pool v. City of Oakland (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1051, 1067. The trial court's 

denial of a motion for new trial on the ground of excessive damages is entitled to 

deference on appeal because the trial judge was present at the trial and was necessarily 

more familiar with the evidence. (Ibid.)

In denying Allen's motion for new trial on the ground of excessive damages, the 

trial court correctly stated that "with regard to non-economic damages including pain and 

suffering, what is reasonable and proper compensation 'is a matter on which there 

legitimately may be a wide difference of opinion.' " (Citing Roedder v. Rowley (1946) 28 

Cal.2d 820, 823.) The court concluded the jury's award did not fall "outside this 

necessarily broad range[,]" noting there was "testimony that . . . Hedren suffers frequent 

and debilitating headaches which may continue indefinitely." According due deference 

to jury's award and the trial court's assessment of the award in ruling on the motion for 

new trial, and considering the substantial evidence in the record that as a result of the 
27

subject accident Hedren has suffered daily from severe headaches that limit her ability to 

take acting work and will require her to undergo invasive rhizotomy treatments to obtain 

relief from the pain, we cannot say the award of noneconomic damages is so 

disproportionate to the evidence that it shocks the conscience and suggests passion or 

prejudice on the part of the jury.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

O'ROURKE, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

NARES, J.