Zubillaga v. Allstate Indemnity Co.

Summary judgment for insurer on bad faith claim is reversed due to a triable issue as to whether insurer’s dispute about the claim amount was genuine since the insurer had not updated its medical expert’s opinion based on new evidence of the extent of the insured’s injuries.  Allstate was not entitled to summary judgment on…

Wendell v. GlaxoSmithKline

Plaintiff’s experts on the issue of whether defendant’s drug had caused a rare blood cancer should not have been excluded under Daubert, since the experts were highly qualified doctors who based their opinions on their experience with this and similar diseases, medical literature, and similar proper material.  In this case, plaintiff’s decedent contracted a rare…

Haniff v. Superior Court

A California state court cannot compel a party to undergo a vocational rehabilitation examination by the opposing party’s expert. California’s Discovery Act does not authorize a court to compel a plaintiff to undergo a vocational rehabilitation examination by the defendant’s vocational expert even when the plaintiff claims lost wages saying he is unable to work…

Sanchez v. Kern Emergency Medical Transportation Corp.

It was not an abuse of discretion to exclude portions of plaintiff’s expert declaration which asserted (without any factual basis) that plaintiff’s injury was exacerbated by a short delay in transporting him to hospital.  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding key portions of the plaintiff’s expert’s declaration in this case, and…

Borrayo v. Avery

In a medical malpractice action, a foreign doctor may testify as an expert on the standard of care since that standard is no longer governed by practice in the locality where the defendant doctor practiced.  A doctor licensed to practice medicine in Mexico who had plenty of experience with the type of surgery at issue…