Court Opinion

ID: 9747568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:21:25.396213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:41.056013
License: Public Domain

DAVIS, J.,
Concurring and Dissenting.—The determinative facts are few. Upon demand a party must provide a list of every expert whose opinion the party expects to introduce at trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034, subd. (a)(1) [undesignated section references will be to this code].) There is no dispute the plaintiff complied with this provision, including her treating doctors on her expert witness list. “If any expert [thus designated] . . . is a party or an employee of a party, or has been retained by a party for the purpose of forming and expressing an opinion,” the party must also provide an expert witness declaration and produce discoverable reports and writings on which the expert relied. (Id., subds. (a)(2), (3), (f)(2) [subsequent undesignated subdivision references are to this statute].) As the plaintiff did not comply with this provision in connection with her treating doctors, the trial court refused to allow them to give their expert opinion on the issue of whether the defendant’s treatment came within the prevailing standard of care. It also denied her motion to submit a tardy declaration. (Subd. (/).)
I concur in the reversal of the judgment, and fully concur with part IV of the discussion in the majority opinion that the trial court prejudicially abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion under subdivision (l) to submit a tardy expert witness declaration subject to ameliorative conditions. In light of this prejudicial error, I would not even reach the issue of whether it was correct at the outset to apply the “hired-gun” provisions of subdivision (a)(2) to the plaintiff’s treating doctors. However, as I shall explain, on the merits of the issue I must respectfully dissent from the conclusion in part II and part III of the discussion in the majority opinion.
I. “Plain” meaning
The initial question is whether the language of subdivision (a)(2) is ambiguous when applied to the particular set of facts presented by this case such that we need to look to any sources external to this subdivision for aid in interpreting it. (Sanford v. Garamendi (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1109, 1117 [284 Cal.Rptr. 897].)
As we reiterated in Brun v. Bailey (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 641, 651-653 [32 Cal.Rptr.2d 624], under the common law a doctor’s testimony regarding a patient’s past treatment (including diagnoses and prognoses) is not an *139“expert opinion” in the ordinary sense of a witness who recounts specialized knowledge, but is instead merely another species of a percipient witness recounting specific facts which happen to be discernible only by means of expertise. In light of the realities of medical practice, I believe it is impossible for a doctor to treat a patient for complications alleged to stem from a previous doctor’s malpractice without considering as part of the diagnosis whether prior treatment complied with the prevailing standard of care. It does not seem plausible that a doctor can address symptoms or complications without determining whether they are the result of a natural pathology, or are instead the result of shoddy medical intervention. Since these conclusions are inextricably entwined with the doctor’s past diagnosis (to which the declaration requirement does not apply [Zellerino v. Brown (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1097, 1116 (1 Cal.Rptr.2d 222)]), we should not artificially parse the treating doctor’s opinion regarding the standard of previous care and subject only that topic of testimony to the dance of the expert witnesses prescribed by section 2034. Thus, the “plain” meaning of section 2034 should not apply to the opinion of a party’s treating doctors regarding past medical treatment.
Even if we do pare a treating doctor’s testimony into different piles of shavings, I do not think we can say the plaintiff’s treating doctors were retained “for the purpose” of offering expert testimony at trial and thus come within subdivision (a)(2). The plaintiff retained them for the purpose of treatment. Only later during the course of this already established relationship did the plaintiff extend the scope of their duties by requesting an opinion on her prior treatment by the defendant. I am not convinced, as is the majority, that adding additional duties without commensurate remuneration can constitute a separate gratis “retainer.”
To conclude that a treating doctor’s opinion on the compliance of previous treatment with the standard of care is not within the plain meaning of the statute does not play havoc with the purposes underlying section 2034. Once a defense medical malpractice attorney learns the names and addresses of the opponent’s subsequent treating doctors (whether through interrogatories or otherwise), a reasonably competent attorney would recognize these are the witnesses with the greatest potential for possessing an opinion on the competence of the prior treatment. (See Kennedy & Martin, Cal. Expert Witness Guide (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 1996) § 10.2, pp. 251-252.) Thus, even if the entire Civil Discovery Act were nonexistent, subsequent treating doctors are a natural focus of litigation strategy; there is no need for a declaration to alert an opponent to the significance of subsequent treating *140doctors as witnesses.1 Unlike the majority opinion, I do not foresee in the ordinary case that opposing counsel will be confronted with a laundry list of subsequent treating doctors which can be winnowed down only after much time and expense. The category of treating doctors contrasts with the spectrum of hired-gun experts available to any party on any subject for the right price, none of whom may be known to the opponent by name, qualifications, or subject. With the hired gun, the declaration requirement alerts an opponent to the proposed subject of testimony so that the opponent can determine if it is worthwhile to pursue further discovery of the hired gun or obtain a more renowned hired gun.
However, the fact the parties and the majority opinion impliedly or implicitly assume that a treating doctor’s opinion on the quality of prior treatment is indeed segregable from the treating doctor’s past diagnosis, and conclude explicitly that requesting an opinion regarding the quality of prior treatment creates a retainer separate from the treatment retainer, demonstrates the futility of attempting to categorize any language as having a “plain” meaning. Since my colleagues find the language ambiguous, and my colleagues are honorable men (cf. Shakespeare, Julius Caesar (Intemat. Press ed. 1926) act III, scene 2, lines 87-77, 91-92, 98-99, 103-104), I follow them in their quest for meaning in sources external to the subdivision itself.
II. Interpretive aids
A. General principles
Absent irreconcilable differences, we should construe statutory language with reference to the scheme of which it is a part so that we may harmonize the whole. (County of Los Angeles v. State of California (1987) 43 Cal.3d 46, 58 [233 Cal.Rptr. 38, 729 P.2d 202]; Rideout Hospital Foundation, Inc. v. County of Yuba (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 214, 219 [10 Cal.Rptr.2d 141].) If possible, we must give significance to every word, phrase, sentence, and part of an act in pursuing legislative intent. (People v. Hicks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 784, 796 [25 Cal.Rptr.2d 469, 863 P.2d 714]; Sanford v. Garamendi, supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at p. 1119.) Courts may adopt an interpretation creating surplusage only where it is unavoidable. (People v. Jones (1988) 46 Cal.3d 585, 601 [250 Cal.Rptr. 635, 758 P.2d 1165].)
From these postulates also flows the extrinsic interpretive principle of in pari materia. (2B Sutherland, Statutory Construction (5th ed. 1992) § 51.01, *141pp. 117-118.) As this principle is explained in DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 778 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 699, 889 P.2d 1019], “When two statutes touch upon a common subject, they are to be construed in reference to each other, so as to ‘harmonize the two in such a way that no part of either becomes surplusage.’ ” (Italics added.)
Before attempting to draw meaning from other statutory provisions, one must first demonstrate their relevance to the provision at issue. I thus turn to a chronicle of the background of the provisions I consider significant.
B. Statutory history
1. Pre-1986: In 1968, the Legislature enacted Government Code section 68092.5, which regulated the payment of expert-witness fees. In pertinent part, the statute provided, “A person who is not a party to the action and who is required to testify before any court. . . , or in the taking of a deposition . . . , solely as to any expert opinion . . . shall receive reasonable compensation.” (Stats. 1968, ch. 1243, § 1, p. 2352, italics added.) This provision remained unchanged through two subsequent revisions. (Stats. 1971, ch. 1126, §1, p. 2140; Stats. 1979, ch. 746, §§ 6, 7, pp. 2593-2594.) As interpreted by Bureau of Medical Economics v. Cossette (1974) 44 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 [118 Cal.Rptr. 242], a doctor providing both expert percipient testimony (i.e., past treatment, diagnoses, and prognoses) and expert opinion could not invoke this statute because the subject of the testimony was not solely expert opinion.
In 1978, the Legislature enacted former sections 2037 to 2037.9 as a comprehensive scheme to regulate the discovery of expert witnesses, which would prevail over other inconsistent discovery statutes. (Tahoe Forest Inn v. Superior Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 509, 512-513 [160 Cal.Rptr. 314].) Former section 2037.3 required a party on request to provide both a list of expected expert witnesses and a brief narrative statement concerning each expert witness’s proposed testimony. (Stats. 1978, ch. 1069, § 1, p. 3286.)2 Former section 2037.7 provided, “Any other provision of law notwithstanding, any party desiring to take the deposition of a person retained as an expert by another party to a case shall pay the expert a reasonable fee . . . .” (Stats. 1978, ch. 1069, § 1, p. 3287.) The Legislature promptly amended this provision in 1980 to add (in pertinent part) that the deposition of the expert had to be “solely for the purpose of obtaining any expert
*142opinion which the deponent holds upon the basis of his or her special knowledge . . . .” (Stats. 1980, ch. 552, § 1, p. 1535, italics added.) As a result, this specific provision governing fees for expert witness depositions contains the same restriction as the general statute governing fees for expert testimony at trials or depositions. (Brun v. Bailey, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 654.)
2. 1986-1995: In 1986, the Legislature both amended Government Code section 68092.5 to replace “solely” with “primarily” (Stats. 1986, ch. 560, § 2, p. 1983) and enacted the Civil Discovery Act, which repealed former sections 2037 to 2037.9. (Stats. 1986, ch. 1336, § 3, p. 4758.) It transferred the substance of former section 2037.3 governing discovery of expert witnesses to subdivision (a)(1) and (2);3 in transferring this subject to the new statute, the Legislature intended to make a “ ‘slight change in existing law’ ” by limiting the need to provide a narrative statement of the proposed expert testimony to the categories identified in subdivision (a)(2). (Hurtado v. Western Medical Center (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1198, 1203 [272 Cal.Rptr. 324] [citing the reporter’s notes to the act]). It also transferred to section 2034 as subdivision (i)(2) the substance of former section 2037.7 governing fees for expert testimony at a deposition. (Brun v. Bailey, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 654.) As originally enacted, this subdivision provided, “A party desiring to depose-any expert, described in [subdivision (a)(2)], except one who is a party or employee of the party ... or any treating physician or other treating health care practitioner who is to be asked to express an opinion, shall pay the reasonable . . . fee . . . . In a worker’s compensation case . . . , a party desiring to depose any expert on another party’s expert witness list shall pay this fee.” (Stats. 1986, ch. 1336, § 2, pp. 4755.)
In 1988, the Legislature amended Government Code section 68092.5. It now tracked the language of section 2034, subdivision (i)(2): “A party requiring testimony before any court . . . from any (i) expert described in [section 2034, subdivision (a)(2)], except one who is a party or an employee of a party, or (2) treating physician or other treating health care practitioner who is asked to express an opinion . . . , shall pay the reasonable ... fee . . . of that expert. . . .” It also added a provision emphasizing that “The deposition of an expert witness is governed by Section 2034 . . . .” (Stats. 1988, ch. 275, § 1, pp. 971, 972.) The final significant tinkering with this statute occurred in 1990. As amended, it provided in pertinent part, “A party requiring testimony before any court . . . , from any expert witness, other than a party or employee of a party, who is either (1) an expert described in *143[section 2034, subdivision (a)(2)], (2) a treating physician ... or other treating health care practitioner who is to be asked to express an opinion during the action . . . , or (3) an architect, professional engineer, or licensed land surveyor who was involved with the original project design or survey for which he or she is asked to express an opinion within his or her expertise . . . , shall pay the reasonable . . . daily fee . . . .” (Stats. 1990, ch. 1392, §§ 4, 6, pp. 6370, 6372.)4
In the same 1990 chapter, the Legislature amended section 2034, subdivision (i)(2) to provide: “A party desiring to depose any expert witness, other than a party or employee of a party, who is either (A) an expert described in [subdivision (a)(2)] except one who is a party or an employee of a party, (B) a treating physician ... or other treating health care practitioner who is to be asked to express an opinion during the deposition, or (C) an architect, professional engineer, or licensed land surveyor, who was involved with the original project design or survey for which he or she is asked to express an opinion within his or her expertise . . . , shall pay the expert’s reasonable ... fee ... .” (Stats. 1990, ch. 1392, §§ 2, 5, pp. 6365-6366, 6371.)
3. 1995 to date: In 1994, we had held in Brun that a chiropractor who testified at a deposition only as an “expert percipient witness” did not express an expert opinion under the common law, and thus was not entitled to expert witness fees under the 1990 version of the statute.5 (27 Cal.App.4th at pp. 645, 654-655.) To abrogate this holding (Kennedy & Martin, Cal. Expert Witness Guide, supra, § 10.38, p. 285), the Legislature promptly amended subdivision (a)(2) in 1995 (subsequent to the present dispute) to “revise this provision to include a treating physician ... or other treating health care practitioner who is asked during the deposition to provide opinion testimony . . . including certain factual testimony.” Thus, the provision presently reads, ”A party desiring to depose an expert witness, other than . . . , who is either (A) an expert described in [subdivision (a)(2)] except . . . , (B) a treating physician ... or other treating health care practitioner who is to be asked during the deposition to express opinion *144testimony, including opinion or factual testimony regarding the past or present diagnosis or prognosis made by the practitioner or the reasons for a particular treatment decision made by the practitioner, but not [translating symbols in medical records], or (C) an architect. . . , shall pay . . . . In a worker’s compensation case . . . , a party desiring to depose any expert on another party’s expert witness list shall pay this fee.” (Stats. 1995, ch. 797, § 1.) However, the Legislature did not relax the same restriction on trial testimony in Government Code section 68092.5.
I have digressed at length on these numerous amendments not because they are all necessarily pertinent to the present dispute but to show that the topics of expert witness disclosure and fees for expert testimony have been the subject of repeated legislative scrutiny over three decades, and to show these topics have generally been considered together. Thus, this closely interwoven history of subdivisions (a)(2) and (i)(2), and Government Code section 68092.5 demonstrates that one must read subdivisions (a)(2) and (i)(2) together, that one must consider Government Code section 68092.5 in pari materia with these provisions, and that one cannot consider the particular language employed by the Legislature to be mere oversight. I turn next to the consequences of these postulates.
C.
As the plaintiff correctly points out, subdivision (i)(2) (and Government Code section 68092.5) draws an express distinction between experts “described in” subdivision (a)(2) and treating doctors (or architects, professional engineers, and licensed land surveyors). All of these specially designated experts have presumably been “retained” (as the majority opinion construes the terms) for the purpose of offering their opinion at trial, and thus all should be experts “described in” subdivision (a)(2). Yet since 1986 the Legislature has separately entitled these categories of witnesses to remuneration for their opinions, and has preserved this distinction despite several revisitations to subdivision (i)(2) and Government Code section 68092.5. If one construes subdivision (a)(2) as including a party’s treating doctors, this renders subdivision (i)(2)(B) (and Government Code section 68092.5, subdivision (a)(2)) superfluous.6 Neither the defendant (nor the majority opinion) identifies why one should treat this resulting superfluity as unavoidable. (People v. Jones, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 601.) As this would be entirely contrary to the respect we are to accord legislative action (Traverso v. People ex rel. Dept, of Transportation (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1209 [54 *145Cal.Rptr.2d 434]), I would therefore interpret subdivision (a)(2) as excluding treating doctors in order to imbue these provisions with significance.
In its disagreement with the plaintiff’s superfluity argument, the majority opinion focuses exclusively on the (post-trial) 1995 amendment of subdivision (i)(2)(B). The majority opinion interprets the legislative response to Brun as an indication Brun’s holding was contrary to the intent underlying subdivision (i)(2)(B). (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 133.) It thus concludes the 1995 amendment reinstated an intended distinction between treating doctors testifying as experts, who are included in subdivision (a)(2) (and thus subdivision (i)(2)(A) and Government Code section 68092.5, subdivision (a)(1)), and treating doctors testifying to expert perceptions, who are the subject of subdivision (i)(2)(B) (and Government Code section 68092.5, subdivision (a)(2)). Read this way, the majority opinion concludes there is a purpose for the distinct category for treating doctors. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 134.) The majority opinion acknowledges even this interpretation does not resolve the “minor redundancy in section 2034(i)(2)” because subdivision (i)(2)(B) expressly states that treating doctors are entitled to fees for expressing “opinion testimony, including [expert perception testimony]” (italics added), and thus a treating doctor offering an expert opinion still comes within both subdivision (i)(2)(A) and (i)(2)(B). (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 134.) However, the majority opinion concludes this redundancy “does not impair in the least the distinct purpose served by [the 1995] amendment,” namely to reiterate the intent to reimburse both retained experts and treating doctors providing expert perception testimony. (Ibid.)
In the first place, I do not think we can infer the 1995 amendment necessarily indicated Brun was “contrary” to previously existing legislative intent. As I have recounted above, a party initially had to pay an expert witness fee whenever deposing another party’s retained expert regardless of the subject of the deposition testimony. From 1980 to 1986, an expert witness, such as a treating doctor, became entitled to fees only for opinion testimony at depositions. The 1986 enactment creating the statutory dichotomy between retained experts and treating doctors eliminated this limitation, entitling an expert witness to fees whenever “asked to express an opinion" at a deposition. In 1994, Brun merely explained the consequence for a treating doctor of using “opinion” in this statute in light of the common law rule for expert perception testimony. The amendment thus can reflect nothing more than the persuasiveness of the medical lobby to return to pre-1980 law, rather than any intent which underlay the 1986 creation of the dichotomy. Moreover, the assertion that the “minor redundancy” existing after the 1995 amendment did not impair the purpose of the amendment ignores the fact the superfluity was not a function of the 1995 amendment. It has existed since *146the 1986 enactment, and the Legislature imported it into the Government Code in 1988. Finally, given the Legislature’s numerous reconsiderations of the fee provisions, I do not believe one can conclude that when the Legislature added language in 1995 it overlooked the introductory clause to subdivision (i)(2)(B) in its haste to abrogate Brun. I would therefore conclude that the 1995 amendment of subdivision (i)(2)(B) is consistent with a legislative interpretation of subdivision (a)(2) that excludes treating doctors giving expert opinions, and simply broadens the entitlement of treating doctors to fees for expert percipient testimony.
III.
For all these reasons, I believe the trial court erred in subjecting the plaintiff’s treating doctors to the requirements of subdivision (a)(2) as a condition of their testimony at trial on the defendant’s compliance with the prevailing standard of care. However, even assuming the trial court labored under this misapprehension, I agree with the majority opinion that the trial court prejudicially erred in denying the plaintiff relief pursuant to subdivision (/). I therefore concur the judgment must be reversed.
A petition for a rehearing was denied February 18, 1997, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Respondent’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied April 16, 1997.

The defendant argues he is entitled to assume a treating doctor will “ordinarily” testify only to matters regarding damages rather than liability. He provides no authority for this assumption.

Under this statute, there was thus no distinction between the expert witness list and the experts subjected to the narrative requirement; the failure to disclose the nature of the proposed opinion of any expert witness barred the witness from testifying to the opinion. (Kennemur v. State of California (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907, 919 [184 Cal.Rptr. 393].)

The pertinent portions of these subdivisions as enacted are the same as their present versions. (Cf. Stats. 1995, ch. 797, § 1; Stats. 1986, ch. 1336, § 2, pp. 4752-4753.)

This language is unchanged in the present version of the statute. (Stats. 1993, ch. 678, §1.)

In 1992, the Legislature amended section 2034, subdivision (i)(2) “to apply only to those experts designated in an exchange of information [§ 2034, subd. (c)]. . . .” (Leg. Counsel’s Dig., Assem. Bill No. 2913, Stats. 1992, ch. 1301.) The amendment also deleted the provision that the treating health care practitioner be asked to express an opinion during the deposition. However, the Legislature promptly abrogated these changes in an urgency measure in March 1993, returning the statute to its 1990 version. (Leg. Counsel’s Dig., Assem. Bill No. 240, Stats. 1993, ch. 3.)

Because the issue is not before us, I do not express any opinion on the interplay of subdivisions (a)(2) and (i)(2)(C) (or Government Code section 68092.5, subdivision (a)(3)).