Sacramento Brain Injury Lawyer Blog

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the pre-trial stage of civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury case and its proceedings.)

DEFENDANTS CLAIM OF PREJUDICE IS COMPLETELY WITHOUT MERIT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAS SUBMITTED TO DEFENSE MENTAL EXAMINATIONS AND DR. BROWN HAS BEEN DEPOSED BY THE DEFENSE

Code of Civil Procedure § 2034.300 governs the exclusion of expert testimony in order to avoid any prejudice to an adverse party. The court may only exclude an expert from testifying if the party designating him "unreasonably" fails to (a) List that witness as an expert ; (b) submit an expert declaration; (c) produce reports and writings; or (d) make the expert available for deposition. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff has clearly and undeniably complied with all of these requirements in naming Dr. Brown in a supplemental designation. As the defense medical reports show, Plaintiff has in fact submitted to two defense mental examinations - one by defense expert Mike Hall, M.D., and two days of intense mental testing by defense expert Robert Lee, Ph.D. Defendants concede that they have conducted a thorough deposition of Dr. Brown. Nowhere do the defendants specify what prejudice they would suffer by Dr. Brown's testimony and their complaint of prejudice is simply made of whole cloth. Even if defendants could elucidate some prejudicial effect, any potential for prejudice is easily avoided by defendants' companion Kennemur motion in limine to limit any expert's testimony to what was disclosed in plaintiffs designation and deposition.

Continue reading "Brain-Injured Sacramento Man Subject To Expert Testing, Part 5 of 5" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the pre-trial stage of civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury case and its proceedings.)

Dr. Brown is a California licensed medical doctor and is board certified in neurology and psychiatry. (This was in error. Dr. Brown testified at his deposition that he is board certified in psychiatry only, notwithstanding, that both he and Dr. Hall are diplomates of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.) Dr. Brown is designated as an expert to counter defendants designation of Mike Hall, M.D. and Rupert Jones, M.D.

Dr. Brown will testify as to his expert opinions regarding the nature, extent and causation of plaintiff's injuries, his post injury level of mental and physical functioning as well as the nature and cost of plaintiff's post injury medical and life care needs. Such testimony will include, but is not limited to expert medical opinions as to diagnosis, reasonableness and necessity of treatment, prognosis, future medical care and life care needs and continuing and worsening symptomology. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In other words, Dr. Brown was clearly designated to express an opinion on a subject to be covered by defense experts Drs. Hall and Jones, as contemplated by section 2034.280.

Continue reading "Large Wrench Falls On Sacramento Man Causing Brain Injury, Part 4 of 5" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the pre-trial stage of civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury case and its proceedings.)

PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGNATION OF PAUL BROWN, M.D., IS PROPER BECAUSE IT IS TIMELY AND REASONABLY RELATED TO THE SUBJECTS TO BE COVERED BY DEFENSE MEDICAL EXPERTS HALL, M.D. AND JONES, M.D.

Defendants do not dispute that plaintiff's supplemental designation of Dr. Brown was timely served. Defendants complaint that plaintiff had retained Dr. Brown prior to the date of the scheduled exchange of expert information is unavailing. California pre-trial procedural law recognizes that a party may retain a consulting expert and not have to designate him at all, if the party does not intend the expert to testify at trial. When the party decides to call the expert, he must comply with the pre-trial discovery procedures of the code. Code of Civil Procedure § 2034.230(a) (refers to "Expert trial witnesses"); Kennemur v. State of California (1982) 133 Cal. App. 3rd 907, 916. Plaintiff has clearly complied with the procedural requirements of the code. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Injured Sacramento Man Battles Experts Over His Brain Injury, Part 3 of 5" »