Legal News and Appellate Tips

Each week, TVA appellate attorney Tim Kowal reviews several recent decisions out of the appellate courts in California, and elsewhere, and reports about the ones that might help you get an edge in your cases and appeals.

If you would like to receive weekly updates of the articles posted here, click here to sign up for the newsletter.

Tag: Experts

Excluding Expert's Rebuttal Opinion Can Be Grounds to Reverse Jury Verdict

CEB has my article, “Excluding Expert's Rebuttal Opinion Can Be Grounds to Reverse Jury Verdict,” about Kline v. Zimmer, Inc. (May 26, 2022, B302544) ___ Cal.App.5th ___. Here is the link: https://bit.ly/3bqglfY

The case involved a trial error in which the judge excluded the defendant’s expert to rebut the plaintiff’s expert on causation. The trial court excluded the expert because the expert’s confidence in the opinion did not exceed 50% likelihood.

The Court of Appeal reversed. A defendant’s expert doesn’t have to prove 51% likelihood. The 51% threshold is the plaintiff’s burden of proof, not the defendant’s. And where the excluded rebuttal opinion was the only rebuttal opinion, the exclusion leads to a “one-sided presentation of evidence.” This was a structural error, requiring automatic reversal.

Read More
Exclusion of Expert Opinion Held Structural Error on Appeal Requiring Automatic Reversal

In one of the many lawsuits by hip-replacement patients against the maker of the Durom Cup, Kline v. Zimmer, Inc. (D2d8 may 26, 2022) ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___ 2022 WL 1679539 held the trial court committed structural error when it improperly excluded Zimmer’s expert to rebut the plaintiff’s expert. This is surprising because, normally, trial court rulings on evidence are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and errors are only reversed if the appellant shows they affected the result. But the exclusion of a rebuttal expert here resulted in automatic reversal.

Basically, the plaintiff offered an expert to opine that the Durom Cup was the cause of the pain and suffering. Zimmer’s expert was going to opine about other possible causes, even if they were less than 51% likely to be the cause. The trial court excluded it because medical expert opinion has to be 51% likely.

The Court of Appeal reversed. A defendant’s expert doesn’t have to prove 51% likelihood. The 51% threshold is the plaintiff’s burden of proof, not the defendant’s.

And where the excluded rebuttal opinion was the only rebuttal opinion, the exclusion leads to a “one-sided presentation of evidence.” This was a structural error, requiring automatic reversal.

The Upshot: This is the second reversal after a trial, which means the parties will have to try this case a third time. The trial judge, the Hon. Daniel J. Buckley, is a former personal-injury defense attorney. This suggests that, despite the care and experience devoted to this trial, trial procedure governing experts is both extraordinarily important and extraordinarily variable. To the extent expert issues can be crystallized in motions in limine, trial counsel should consider taking up a writ petition.

Read More
How the Medical “Standard of Care” Has Killed Two Presidents

Doctors who do not conform their practice to the “standard of care” risk disciplinary action from the state medical board. But not only is the development of the “standard of care” opaque and mysterious, it is often quite wrong. Appellate attorney Tim Kowal and health care litigator Rick Jaffe, Esq. discuss two presidents who died because of the “standard of care”: George Washington from bloodletting, and James Garfield from sepsis.

Read More
Ruling Excluding Expert Testimony on MSJ Reversed on Appeal

There are two noteworthy things about the published opinion in Strobel v. Johnson & Johnson (D1d4 Sept. 21, 2021) 2021 WL 4272711 no. A159609. First, it suggests how litigants might have avoided the dreaded Sanchez rule that prevents experts from offering "case-specific hearsay" in their opinions. Second, it suggests some evidentiary rulings may be reviewed under the appellant-friendly de novo standard of review, rather than the deferential abuse of discretion standard.

Get a weekly digest of these articles delivered to your inbox by subscribing here: https://lnkd.in/g23bc4Y.

Read More
Exclusion of Expert Data Affirmed on Appeal; But Exlusion of Expert Opinion Based on That Data Reversed

When it comes to expert evidence, the trial court may properly exclude evidence that was not actually prepared by the expert. The normal rules of evidence authentication still apply, even where experts are concerned. But when an expert wants to offer opinions based on the same unauthenticated and unadmitted evidence, excluding that opinion may be an abuse of discretion.

That is the holding of the published opinion in Zuniga v. Alexandria Care Center, LLC (D2d7 Aug. 13, 2021) 2021 WL 3579021 no. B297023. In an employee's PAGA claim, the employee-plaintiff retained two experts. One expert was retained to convert the employer's time records into an Excel spreadsheet. The second expert was retained to opine on the spreadsheet. It was an abuse of discretion to exclude the second expert's opinion merely because it was based on the first expert's excluded report.

And trial counsel may have acted shrewdly in resting her case after the devastating ruling without offering other evidence, as it made it very easy to establish the ruling prejudiced her case.

Get a weekly digest of these articles delivered to your inbox by subscribing here: https://lnkd.in/g23bc4Y.

Read More
Hearsay Evidence Through Expert Witness Held Improper; Judgment Reversed

One important case that counsel preparing for a trial need to keep ready to hand is People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez), which prohibits parties from offering otherwise hearsay evidence through their experts.

That is what the plaintiff tried to do in the catastrophic injury case of Townsend v. Olivo (D4d2 Jun. 15, 2021) no. E073183 (non-pub.). The plaintiff suffered injuries that would lead to amputation of his leg. His expert witness testified to the $1.1 million in future medical costs. But the expert admitted he had no knowledge relating to these future procedures and prosthetic devices. He had spoken with others about the costs, however, and so testified about that.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal held this was error. The expert’s testimony about future medical expenses was inadmissible hearsay. The foundational facts were outside of the expert’s personal knowledge, and no other witness supplied them, so no hearsay exception applies.

Read More
Wesson Oil Class Settlement Reversed: 9th Cir. Holds Trial Court Abused Discretion in Assuming Post-Cert. Settlement Was Not Collusive

Class actions only very loosely resemble the practice of law as most attorneys know it. Yes, they involve plaintiffs suing defendants in court before a judge. But most of the class members don't even know they're in the case, and wouldn't know their attorney if he showed up at their doorstep delivering a settlement check (in this case, a check for about $0.15). Things are much different for their attorneys, however, as was the case in Briseño v. Henderson, --- F.3d ---- (9th Cir. June 1, 2021), who proposed to pocket millions from what the Ninth Circuit held to be a collusive settlement agreement in a false advertising case over cooking oil.

The new clarification Briseño provides is that the rule requiring close scrutiny of class settlements applies both pre-class certification and post-class certification.

An ancillary lesson from Briseño is, experts will say anything.

And the much less important but more entertaining lesson from Briseño is: Judge Lee really loves puns (such as: the attorneys suing Wesson here were "hoping to strike oil"); and pop-culture references to Star Wars and the Hamilton musical.

Read More
Justice Wiley Urges Bar to Consider Independent Experts

In a first-of-its-kind case, California's Court of Appeal has authorized a "Wi-Fi Sickeness" case to proceed. Although such cases have been rejected in ADA cases in federal courts, the California court in Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School District (D2d8 Feb. 18, 2021) No. B294240 noted the broad "physical disability" protections of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and California's liberal pleading standard made the difference here.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Wiley says he sees how we practitioners are using expert witnesses, and he doesn't like it. He urges the bar instead to consider using court-appointed experts.

If I may be permitted to disagree, I think this is not the right case for that. In a cause of action for accounting, by all means. But in a case involving still-emerging science, fact-finders need to be presented with what the parties think are the most compelling hypotheses.

Read More

Tags

Podcast (85)
Videos (73)
Appealability and Appealable Orders (27)
Abuse of Discretion (23)
Legal Writing (21)
Notices of Appeal (18)
Statements of Decision (17)
Waiver and Forfeiture (16)
Unpublished Opinions (16)
Stays on Appeal (16)
Splits of Authority (15)
Mischief (15)
Attorney Fees (14)
Arbitration (14)
Dismissals (14)
Anti-SLAPP (13)
Dissents (12)
Briefing (12)
Family Law (11)
Record on Appeal (11)
New Trial Motions (11)
Mootness (10)
Timeliness (10)
Sanctions (9)
Appellate Sanctions (9)
Civility (9)
Judgment Enforcement (9)
Oral Argument (9)
California Supreme Court (9)
Preliminary Injunctions (9)
Evidentiary Objections (9)
Collateral Orders (9)
Federal Courts (9)
Motions for Reconsideration (8)
Exclusion of Evidence (8)
Timely and Untimely Appeals (8)
Jurisdiction (8)
Implied Findings (8)
Appealability (8)
Dismissed Appeals (8)
Experts (8)
Trial Strategy (8)
CCP 998 Offers (7)
Summary Judgments and Summary Adjudications (7)
Respondent Arguments (7)
Ninth Circuit (7)
Writ Petitions (7)
Trial Procedure (7)
Probate Appeals (7)
Disqualification (6)
Appellate Bonds (6)
Admission of Improper Evidence (6)
Standards of Review (6)
Appellate Practice (6)
Discovery (6)
Substantial Evidence (6)
Stipulated Judgments (6)
Settlements (6)
Posttrial Motions (5)
Default Judgments (5)
Ethical Duty of Candor (5)
Standing (5)
Finding Compelled as a Matter of Law (Failure of Proof) Standard of Review (5)
Notices of Entry (4)
Depublished Opinions (4)
Motions to Vacate and Set Aside Judgments (4)
Excessive Damages (4)
Trust and Probate (4)
Appeals Treated as Writs (4)
Motions in Limine (4)
Disentitlement Doctrine (4)
Frivolous Motions (3)
Juror Peremptory Challenges (3)
Petitions for Review (3)
Jury Waivers (3)
Summary Judgments (3)
Expert Opinions (3)
Motions to Dismiss (3)
Summary Judgment (3)
Appealable Orders (3)
Mediation (3)
Stays (3)
Demurrers (3)
Motions to Vacate (3)
Amicus Briefs (3)
Trial Irregularities and Structural Errors (3)
Right to Jury Trial (3)
Judicial Admissions (2)
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (2)
Trial by Reference and Pro Tem Judges (2)
Law and Motion (2)
Contempt (2)
Attorney Client Privilege (2)
Forfeiture and Waiver (2)
PAGA Actions (2)
Remote Arguments (2)
Litigation Tips (2)
Recovery of Costs (2)
Standards of Evidence (2)
Personal Jurisdiction (2)
ADA and Unruh Accessibility Actions (2)
Tentative Rulings (2)
Landlord Tenant (2)
Judicial Bias (2)
Prejudicial Error (2)
Appeals Dismissed (2)
Invited Error (2)
Waiver (2)
Untimeliness (2)
Legal Practice (2)
Finality and Final Orders (2)
Pretrial Procedure (2)
Federal Appeals (2)
Alter Ego (2)
Post Reversal Issues (2)
Pretrial Issues (2)
Class Actions (2)
Comments (2)
Medical Rights (2)
Premature Appeals (2)
Legal Tech (2)
Civil Theft (1)
Treble Damages (1)
Frivolous Appeals (1)
Post-Appellate Issues (1)
Referral Fees (1)
PAGA Attorney Fees (1)
Issue Selection on Appeal (1)
Attorney Feese (1)
Employment Law (1)
Common Interest Doctrine (1)
Premises Liability (1)
Juror Misconduct (1)
Product Liability (1)
Clear and Convincing (1)
Clerks Service of File Stamped Judgment (1)
Designating the Record (1)
Trade Restraints (1)
Civil Code 3334 (1)
Benefits Obtained Trespass Damages (1)
Trespass (1)
Property Rights (1)
Inherent Authority (1)
Support Awards (1)
Forfeiture (1)
PostJudgment Litigation (1)
Unsupported Arguments (1)
Petitions for Rehearing (1)
Judicial Notice (1)
Post Reversal (1)
Moot Appeals (1)
Appellate Briefing (1)
Pleadings (1)
Attorney Fees - CCP 1021.5 (1)
Judicial Estoppel (1)
Harmless Error (1)
Record Designation (1)
Typeface (1)
Typography (1)
Jury Instructions (1)
Precedent (1)
New Arguments (1)
Third Parties and Nonparties (1)
Ninth CircuitAbuse of Discretion (1)
Out-of-State Litigant (1)
Family Court (1)
Split Decisions (1)
Inconsistent Verdicts (1)
Punitive Damages (1)
Dicta (1)
Petitionf ro Review (1)
DismissalsAppealability and Appealable Orders (1)
Motions to Quash (1)
Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings (1)
Consenting to Judgments (1)
Law of the Case (1)
Record (1)
Bankruptcy (1)
Local Rules (1)
Evidentiary Presumptions (1)
New Trial (1)
Exhaustion of Remedies (1)
Waived and Forfeiture (1)
Per Se Errors (1)
Review as Writ Petition (1)
Incorrect Decisions (1)
Attorney Misconduct (1)
Restraining Orders (1)
Summary Reversal (1)
Judicial Misconduct (1)
Stipulated Reversals (1)
Constitutional Litigation (1)
Constitutional Law (1)
Mistrials (1)
Administrative Law (1)
Podcasts (1)
Writs of Mandamus (CCP 1085) (1)
Nonsuit (1)
Closing Argument (1)
Stare Decisis (1)
Settled Statements (1)
Nonsuits JNOVs and 631.8 Judgments (1)
Retainer Agreements (0)
Professional Ethics (0)
Appellate (0)
Notice of Appeal (0)
Landlore Tenant (0)
Split of Authority (0)
No categories Legal Writing (0)
crossmenuchevron-down