Lawyer/employer who said he “handled sexual harassment cases, representing both plaintiffs and defendants, and had taught seminars on sexual harassment” was sued for sexual discrimination by an employee of law firm. Some evidence related to harassing activity outside the plaintiff’s presence. The trial court excluded the “ME TOO” evidence. The jury found for the defense […]
Goodbye Collateral Source Rule.
The California Supreme Court stated the collateral source rule, as outlined in Helfend v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit District (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1, [465 P.2d 61; 84 Cal.Rptr. 173] has no bearing on amounts that were included in a medical provider’s bill for which a plaintiff never incurred liability because the provider, by prior agreement, […]
Declaration Sufficient To Survive Summary Judgment.
In granting a summary judgment motion in favor of designers and manufacturers of a prosthetic hip device, the trial judge excluded portions of the plaintiff’s expert declaration opposing the motion after sustaining defendants’ objections on various grounds, including lack of expert qualification, lack of an explanation, or reasoning to support the expert opinion, lack of […]
Judge Properly Excluded Expert Testimony After Concluding Claimed Damages Were Speculative.
A dental implant company sued a university for breach of contract involving clinical tests for a new implant the company patented. The implant company sought damages ranging from $200 million to over $1 billion. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court excluded as speculative the proffered testimony of an expert to that effect. The appellate […]
Even Though Expert Had Previously Testified In Asbestos Cases, A Daubert Hearing Was Required.
An expert witness testified in federal court that a plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos for 20 years at a paper mill caused his mesothelioma. The defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude the expert testimony, which the trial court denied because the doctor had previously testified in other asbestos cases. A jury awarded $10,200,000 to […]
No Need To Sacrifice More Trees.
The appellate court reversed grant of summary judgment against a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action. The trial court granted it because plaintiff’s expert declaration did not attach the materials the expert consulted in reaching his opinion, as required by Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 735, [74 Cal.Rptr.3d 715]. But the materials the expert relied […]
Expert Designation Inadequate In Medical Malpractice Case.
This is what the Cailfornia Code of Civil Procedure §2034.210 designation stated: “Plaintiff intends to call various treating health care providers as expert witnesses at trial,” which “are regarded as percipient witnesses not retained experts.” It continued to explain that “because treating physicians and other healthcare providers are not retained expert witnesses . . ., […]
Physician-Patient Privilege Does Not Apply To Nurses.
The court issued an injunction under C.C.P. §527.6 after a nurse reported to the police a neighbor of the petitioner said she made a will and funeral arrangements because she planned to kill her neighbor [petitioner] and then herself. On appeal, the enjoined person argued the only evidence of a credible threat was hearsay protected […]
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 4
- 5
- 6