 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Paxton v. Stewart12/3/1998
tion shows Harrari definitely had not agreed to give expert testimony on plaintiffs' behalf:
"Q. And when I called you a week before your deposition you made it perfectly clear to me that you did not want to testify as an expert in this case, correct? `
"A. That is correct.
"Q. And that was because you felt uncomfortable about testifying regarding your peers in this community; is that correct?
"A. Yes.
"Q. And, however, you have testified in the past on behalf of both the plaintiff and a defendant, correct?
"A. Yes.
"Q. But when you testify on behalf of a plaintiff it would not be in this community because you feel uncomfortable testifying around your peers; is that correct?
"A. Correct."
In short, the record fails to establish that either Aucoin or Harrari agreed to give expert testimony on plaintiffs' behalf so as to fall within the definition of a "retained" expert under section 2034. Plaintiffs' listing of Paxton's treating physicians in their expert designations did not put defendants on notice that the treating physicians were retained experts; it merely reflected plaintiffs' intention to call the treating physicians at trial in the hope of eliciting favorable expert opinion testimony from them on the issues of liability, causation, and damages. Because plaintiffs did not show Aucoin or Harrari were "retained" experts within the meaning of section 2034, the court correctly limited their expert testimony to opinions based on their personal observations.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P.J.
HALLER, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|