Sacramento Injury Lawyer Blog

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

DR. LEE SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM EXPRESSING OPINIONS ABOUT THE REASONABLENESS OF PLAINTIFF'S MEDICAL BILLS, BECAUSE THOSE OPINIONS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN PROBATIVE.

The court in its discretion may 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, California Evidence Code § 352.

A trial judge must balance the probative value of the proffered evidence against its prejudicial effect in the context of the case before the court, considering materiality, the strength of the relationship to the issue on which it is offered, and whether it is necessary to prove the proponent's case or merely cumulative to other available and sufficient proof, Burke v. Almaden Vineyards, Inc. (1978) 86 Cal App 3d 768, 150 Cal Rptr 419. Evidence should be excluded as unduly prejudicial, when it is of such nature as to inflame the emotions of the jury, and motivate them to use the information to reward or punish one side, rather than logically evaluate the point upon which it is relevant, Vorse v. Sarasy (1997) 53 Cal App 4th 998, 62 Cal Rptr 2d 164.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Doctor's Opinion At Issue In Sacramento Car Accident Case, Part 5 of 7" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

An expert must base his opinion either on facts personally observed or on hypotheses that find support in the evidence; Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co. (1968) 69 Cal 2d 33, 69 Cal Rptr 561, 442 P2d 641, and not on irrelevant, conjectural, or speculative data, Roscoe Moss Co. v. Jenkins (1942) 55 Cal. App.2d 369, 130 P.2d 477; Hyatt v Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal App 3d 325, 145 Cal Rptr 47.

Thus, in personal injury actions against lawn mower and tire manufacturers experts were not permitted to testify about articles and statistical surveys dealing with other mowers and tire failures, where the proponent of the evidence failed to show any similarity between the other tire failures and mower accidents, none of the material the experts consulted constituted the type of professional technical literature that reasonably may be relied on by an expert in forming an opinion, and the opinions were based on mere speculation, Luque v McLean (1972) 8 Cal 3d 136, 104 Cal Rptr 443, 501 P2d 1163; Stephen v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 134 Cal App 4th 1363, 37 Cal Rptr 3d 9.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Car Accident Victim Challenges Medical Experts, Part 4 of 7" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

THIS COURT MAY HEAR AND DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DR. LEE'S TESTIMONY, OUT OF THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY

(a) When the existence of a preliminary fact is disputed, its existence or nonexistence shall be determined as provided in this article;

(b) The court may hear and determine the question of the admissibility of evidence out of the presence or hearing of the jury;

(c) A ruling on the admissibility of evidence implies whatever finding of fact is prerequisite thereto; a separate or formal finding is unnecessary unless required by statute, California Evidence Code §402.

DR. LEE SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM EXPRESSING OPINIONS ABOUT THE REASONABLENESS OF PLAINTIFF'S MEDICAL BILLS, BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROPER BASIS FOR HIS OPINIONS.

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

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Experts Battle In Sacramento Car Accident Case, Part 3 of 7" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

INTRODUCTION

On March 7, 2011, Plaintiffs Motion in Limine regarding collateral source payments was discussed. It is plaintiffs understanding that the issue was taken under submission, and on March 8, 2011, the court tentatively indicated that the court may entertain a motion post trial to reduce any finding of medical specials, based on amounts paid. However, the amount of medical billings would be admissible at trial.

In this case, when Dr. Lee was deposed on August 28, 2010, he was asked, "Have you reviewed those medical bills relating to Robyn Anderson's treatment in this case?"
Answer: I have reviewed some of them and commented on some.

Question: Okay. In preparation for today's deposition, did you go through and do a line-item-by-line-item commentary on her bills to date?
Answer: No. I did not.

Question: But if I understand you correctly, you haven't been provided by defense counsel with a packet of the billing with the intention of you going through and commenting on that billing; is that correct?
Answer: Right. I have not been provided a packet of just the billing and provided a comment on those specific bills. That's correct.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Suffers Catastrophic Injuries In Car Accident, Part 2 of 7" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff Robyn Anderson’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants' Expert Witness, Stanley Lee, M.D., from Expressing Opinions as to the Reasonableness of Plaintiff's Medical Bills

Plaintiff Robyn Anderson respectfully request that this court hear and determine the question of the admissibility of the following evidence, out of the presence or hearing of the jury, pursuant to California Evidence Code § 402, and issue an order, in limine, prohibiting Defendants' expert witness, Stanley Lee, M.D., from expressing opinions as to the reasonableness of Plaintiffs medical bills.

This motion is made on the grounds that any opinions and conclusions on this subject would lack foundation and be based on mere speculation, California Evidence Code § 803, any probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will necessitate undue consumption of time and create substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury, per California Evidence Code §352.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Automobile Driver Struck And Injured By School Bus, Part 1 of 7" »