Jennings v. Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc.

On January 8, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of California reaffirmed the proposition that a trial court has the obligation and authority to exclude medical expert testimony that lacks foundation under California Evidence Code section 801. Jennings v. Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc. (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1108.
In Jennings, the patient underwent abdominal surgery. During the procedure, a retractor was left inside of his body. He needed two more surgeries to correct the mistake and later developed an infection. At trial, the defendants moved to strike the testimony of Plaintiff’s sole medical causation expert based on lack of foundation since the opinion was based on factual assumptions that lacked evidentiary support and was too speculative to satisfy the “more probable than not” causation standard. The Court stated that qualified medical experts may, with a proper foundation, testify on matters involving causation when the causal issue is sufficiently beyond the realm of common experience that the expert's opinion will assist the trier of fact to assess the issue of causation. However, even when a witness qualifies as an expert, he or she does not possess a carte blanche to express any opinion within the area of expertise. For example, an expert's opinion based on assumptions of fact without evidentiary support, or on speculative or conjectural factors, has no evidentiary value and may be excluded from evidence. Similarly, when an expert's opinion is purely conclusory because it is unaccompanied by a reasoned explanation connecting the factual predicates to the ultimate conclusion, that opinion has no evidentiary value because an expert opinion is worth no more than the reasons upon which it rests.

Should you need a copy of the full opinion please contact us at our newly updated website, www.sollp.com.