Legal Question in Medical Malpractice in California
I'm the plaintiff in a malpractice case in California. The case is somewhat unique in the sense that the defendant had admitted in writing that he was negligent (before the complaint was filed). The defendant also did not deny a single claim in my complaint in his answer. His answer only contains affirmative defenses (procedural claims, claims to limit the amount of damages and claims of contributory negligence). He cannot deny any of my claims in the complaint due to the documented evidence and his own admission of negligence in writing. It should be obvious for any reasonable person that the defendant was negligent and did not follow the standard of care.
Given these facts, my understanding is that no expert witness is required because the fact that the defendant was negligent is not in dispute. Am I correct in making this assumption? A trial date is currently set. If I'm correct in assuming that no expert witnesses are required, should I have to file something with the court to get the court's approval for not hiring an expert? Or should I play it safe and hire an expert?
Thank you very much in advance for your response.
1 Answer from Attorneys
The court doesn't approve or disapprove someone's decisions regarding witnesses. It is up to you to take the risk of not retaining an expert witness. The defendant could always claim that he was pressured into making the admission and, if the trier of fact believes him, you would have to figure out how to get back on track. Also, there are certain deadlines for disclosing experts if a disclosure is demanded. Make sure to participate in the expert disclosure, or you might be barred if you change your mind.
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
