On March 06, 2019 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Hyle, John,
and
Aguilar, Elia M,
Rodriguez, Arianna Athena,
Rodriguez, Arianne Athena,
Rodriguez, David J,
for PI Motor Vehicle
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
SUPERIOEfixg'JfirE’gummzm
TRACY W. GOLDBERG, State Bar No. 128681 '
couwwowsmBERNARDINO
KEITH L. SHOJI & ASSOCIATES SAN BERNARDINO DISTR'CT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW x A
Employees of the Law Department SEE Crzymzz
St6ate Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
1 00 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200 "1r -.
__
flaxvd
Riverside, California 92507-7425 9y ”INLAZfi'IUDEMT‘.’
(951)328-2000 Fax: (855)811-3889
"
Shoii@statefarm.com
OCDWNODUI¥WNA
Attorneys for Defendants, Arianne Athena Rodriguez, erroneously sued
and served as Arianna Athena Rodriguez, David J. Rodriguez and Elia
Aguilar
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
JOHN HYLE, No.: CIVDS 1907037
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN
LlMlNE NO. 7 TO PRECLUDE
v. PLAINTIFF'S NON-RETAINED
MEDICAL EXPERTS AND
ARIANNA ATHENA RODRIGUEZ, TREATING PHYSICIANS FROM
DAVID J. RODRIGUEZ, ELIA M. PROVIDING OPINIONS ON
AGUILAR, MATTERS UNRELATED TO
THEIR TREATMENT 0F
Defendants. PLAINTIFF; DECLARATION 0F
TRACY w. GOLDBERG;
[PROPOSE010RDER
NNNNMNNNNAAAAAAAAAA
mflmmth—‘O‘Dmflmm#wN—\
Dept. 8-28
ComplaintFiled: 03/06/19
Trial Date: 09/19/22
Comes now, defendants Arianne Athena Rodriguez, David J.
Rodriguez, and Elia M. Aguilar, prior to commencement of trial and voir
dire examination of the jury and moves this Court for an Order in Limine
as follows: for an order precluding plaintiff’s non-retained medical experts
and treating physicians from expressing any opinion on matters unrelated
to their treatment of plaintiff. Additionally, we request the court issue an
order to prevent these non-retained medical experts and treating
_ 1 _
DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7
physicians from responding to hypothetical questions concerning whether
plaintiff’s pre-existing conditions could have been aggravated by the
subject accident and whether the pre—existing conditions could have made
plaintiff more susceptible to injury. Finally, these medical experts should
be precluded from testifying based on questions concerning plaintiff’s
medical records that these doctors, chiropractors, and physician’s
assistants never reviewed while they were treating the plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s designated non-retained medical experts are not qualified
to testify as to the nature of the incident alleged by plaintiffs to have
occurred pursuant to the Evidence Code and case law because they have
not been designated as retained experts. Thus, any testimony by these
physicians would merely be unsubstantiated speculation as to how the
alleged incident occurred and how it relates to plaintiff’s injuries. An order
should be issued instructing plaintiffs and their counsel not to refer to,
interrogate concerning, comment on, attempt to suggest to the jury, or
attempt to introduce in any way evidence or testimony by plaintiff’s treating
physicians, including: Defendants further moves that plaintiff and his
counsel be instructed to inform their witnesses of these instructions and to
direct them not to make any reference to the foregoing.
None of the non-retained medical experts and treating physicians
reviewed any prior medical records, radiological films or studies during the
course of their treatment of plaintiff. Thus, none of these medical
practitioners should be allowed to provide opinions concerning plaintiff’s
preexisting condition. Furthermore, none of these non-retained experts
should be permitted to testify on the issue of whether the subject accident
was a cause of plaintiff’s alleged injuries and need for medical treatment.
This motion is made on the grounds that the contested evidence is
not only irrelevant under Evidence Code § 350, but it is also inadmissible
_ 2 _
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7
Document Filed Date
September 09, 2022
Case Filing Date
March 06, 2019
Category
PI Motor Vehicle
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SUPERIOEfixg'JfirE’gummzm TRACY W. GOLDBERG, State Bar No. 128681 ' couwwowsmBERNARDINO KEITH L. SHOJI & ASSOCIATES SAN BERNARDINO DISTR'CT ATTORNEYS AT LAW x A Employees of the Law Department SEE Crzymzz St6ate Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 1 00 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200 "1r -. __ flaxvd Riverside, California 92507-7425 9y ”INLAZfi'IUDEMT‘.’ (951)328-2000 Fax: (855)811-3889 " Shoii@statefarm.com OCDWNODUI¥WNA Attorneys for Defendants, Arianne Athena Rodriguez, erroneously sued and served as Arianna Athena Rodriguez, David J. Rodriguez and Elia Aguilar SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO JOHN HYLE, No.: CIVDS 1907037 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LlMlNE NO. 7 TO PRECLUDE v. PLAINTIFF'S NON-RETAINED MEDICAL EXPERTS AND ARIANNA ATHENA RODRIGUEZ, TREATING PHYSICIANS FROM DAVID J. RODRIGUEZ, ELIA M. PROVIDING OPINIONS ON AGUILAR, MATTERS UNRELATED TO THEIR TREATMENT 0F Defendants. PLAINTIFF; DECLARATION 0F TRACY w. GOLDBERG; [PROPOSE010RDER NNNNMNNNNAAAAAAAAAA mflmmth—‘O‘Dmflmm#wN—\ Dept. 8-28 ComplaintFiled: 03/06/19 Trial Date: 09/19/22 Comes now, defendants Arianne Athena Rodriguez, David J. Rodriguez, and Elia M. Aguilar, prior to commencement of trial and voir dire examination of the jury and moves this Court for an Order in Limine as follows: for an order precluding plaintiff’s non-retained medical experts and treating physicians from expressing any opinion on matters unrelated to their treatment of plaintiff. Additionally, we request the court issue an order to prevent these non-retained medical experts and treating _ 1 _ DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 physicians from responding to hypothetical questions concerning whether plaintiff’s pre-existing conditions could have been aggravated by the subject accident and whether the pre—existing conditions could have made plaintiff more susceptible to injury. Finally, these medical experts should be precluded from testifying based on questions concerning plaintiff’s medical records that these doctors, chiropractors, and physician’s assistants never reviewed while they were treating the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s designated non-retained medical experts are not qualified to testify as to the nature of the incident alleged by plaintiffs to have occurred pursuant to the Evidence Code and case law because they have not been designated as retained experts. Thus, any testimony by these physicians would merely be unsubstantiated speculation as to how the alleged incident occurred and how it relates to plaintiff’s injuries. An order should be issued instructing plaintiffs and their counsel not to refer to, interrogate concerning, comment on, attempt to suggest to the jury, or attempt to introduce in any way evidence or testimony by plaintiff’s treating physicians, including: Defendants further moves that plaintiff and his counsel be instructed to inform their witnesses of these instructions and to direct them not to make any reference to the foregoing. None of the non-retained medical experts and treating physicians reviewed any prior medical records, radiological films or studies during the course of their treatment of plaintiff. Thus, none of these medical practitioners should be allowed to provide opinions concerning plaintiff’s preexisting condition. Furthermore, none of these non-retained experts should be permitted to testify on the issue of whether the subject accident was a cause of plaintiff’s alleged injuries and need for medical treatment. This motion is made on the grounds that the contested evidence is not only irrelevant under Evidence Code § 350, but it is also inadmissible _ 2 _ DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7