Source: http://www.sacramentobirthinjurylawyer.com/2010/11/
Timestamp: 2013-05-21 20:18:25
Document Index: 302217703

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 3', 'art 2', '§801', 'art 1', 'art 6', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 6']

November 2010 :: Sacramento Birth Injury Lawyer Blog
» Posted On: November 27, 2010
Sacramento Family's Persistence Helps Resolve Child's Birth Injury, Part 3 of 3
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, 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 case and its proceedings.)
DR. BLACK SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM GIVING ANY OTHER OPINIONS ON THE SUBJECT OF A PEDIATRIC NEUROLOGIST VERSUS AN ADULT NEUROLOGIST
Although Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to solicit from his own witness differences in education, background, training and/or knowledge of the two specialities, Dr. Black chose not to answer the question. She chose to give no admissible basis for her opinion and no opinion other than lack of credibility. Since she did not testify at her deposition of other bases or other opinions on the subject, she must now be precluded from giving same. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins. An expert must, if asked at deposition, disclose the substance of the facts and the opinions which the expert will testify to at trial. (Kennemur v. State of California (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907, 919.) In Kennemur, the court explained:
[O]nly by such a disclosure will the opposing party have reasonable notice of the specific areas of investigation by the expert, the opinions he has reached, and the reasons supporting the opinions, to the end the opposing party can adequately prepare for cross examination and rebuttal of the expert's testimony. (Whitehill v. United States Lines. Inc. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1201, 1210, citing Kennemur at 919.)
Dr. Black's intentional failure to disclose precludes her from expressing such testimony at trial.
Doctors Question Credibility Of Plaintiff's Expert In Sacramento Birth Injury Case, Part 2 of 3
DR. BLACK'S TESTIMONY AS TO "CREDIBILITY" IS IRRELEVANT AND IMPROPER
There is no foundation for Dr. Black being able to opine that a physician's credibility drops merely because they see patients for lawyers. In fact, she has testified a 100 times as an expert, presumably for lawyers. This credibility comment was made without any proper basis and is surely not a proper subject for expert testimony (Evidence Code section 801 and 802). As such, it should be excluded. Defense counsel can lay no foundation that Dr. Black knows anything about the credibility of Dr. Wong or is an expert on whether pediatric neurologists have more credibility than general neurologists. Evidence Code section 803 states as follows:
The court may, and upon objection shall, exclude testimony in the form of an opinion that is based in whole or in significant part on matter that is not a proper basis for such an opinion. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Evidence Code section §801(a) states:
"If a witness is testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to such an opinion as is: (a) Related to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact; and ...."
Sacramento Neurologist Sued For Causing Birth Injuries, Part 1 of 3
Plaintiffs Emma and Sabrina Smith’s Motion in Limine to Exclude the Opinion of Dr. Black Regarding the Difference Between a Pediatric Neurologist and an Adult Neurologist
Plaintiff Emma Smith, through her Guardian as Litem, Sabrina Smith, brings the following motion in limine and requests that the court order as follows:
1. To exclude any and all comments or opinions of Dr. Black regarding the differences between a pediatric neurologist and an adult neurologist;
2. To exclude any and all comments or opinions that adult neurologists "who see kids only for lawyers, credibility drops"; 3. To order defendant counsel to caution his witness as to the above referenced rulings;
4. To order defense counsel to approach the bench and make an offer of proof prior to soliciting any testimony that could elicit such an opinion or comment.
At the conclusion of the deposition of the defense expert, Dr. Black was asked if she had expressed all of her opinions. Plaintiff’s counsel then questioned his own witness about a separate subject and a new opinion. Specifically, on page 145, Plaintiff’s counsel states that his witness will be testifying regarding whether there is a difference between an adult neurologist and a pediatric neurologist, in terms of their knowledge and ability to review the materials. Continue reading "
Posted On: November 6, 2010
Sacramento Pediatric Neurologist Makes Critical Error With Birth Injury Diagnosis, Part 6 of 6
SUCH COMMENTS AND OPINIONS ARE IRRELEVANT, INADMISSIBLE AND PURELY SPECULATIVE
Evidence Code section 350 states that only relevant evidence is admissible. Speculation in itself is not evidence and evidence which produces only speculative inference is irrelevant. (People v. De la Plane (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 223) Evidence Code section 352 allows the court in its discretion to exclude evidence if its 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 of confusing the issues or of misleading the jury. Testimony which invites improper speculation by the jury is construed to be misleading, confusing, and can be excluded pursuant to Evidence Code section 352. (Cox v. Superior Court (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 670, 675.) In this case, Dr. Hill treated this child for months, from March 2001 through January 2000. She then left the University. It is purely speculation that had Emma sought out Dr. Hill again that she would have made a diagnosis she ruled out earlier.
During the time frame that Dr. Hill treated Emma she was only part-time at Universal Hospital, working two days a week in the clinic. She started at Universal Hospital in May 2000 and left in February 2000. It is also pure speculation that had she seen the original pediatric neurologist, Dr. Trauner, Dr. Lee or Dr. Skoglund who were available during this entire course of time, that any of them would have made this diagnosis. There is no duty to return to a physician who is wrong.
November 27, 2010 7:45 AM
Sacramento Family's Persistence Helps Resolve Child's Birth Injury, Part 3 of 3 It is worth noting that situations similar to those described...
November 20, 2010 7:38 AM
Doctors Question Credibility Of Plaintiff's Expert In Sacramento Birth Injury Case, Part 2 of 3 It is worth noting that situations similar to those described...
November 13, 2010 7:29 AM
Sacramento Neurologist Sued For Causing Birth Injuries, Part 1 of 3 It is worth noting that situations similar to those described...
November 6, 2010 7:15 AM
Sacramento Pediatric Neurologist Makes Critical Error With Birth Injury Diagnosis, Part 6 of 6 It is worth noting that situations similar to those described...