 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davila v. Nickell10/26/2005
been merely an inadvertent error, but it is equally plausible that counsel's actions were part of a tactical strategy to prevail in the case without relying on statute of limitations and/or res judicata defenses.
III. Davila Children
A. Standing Issue
The Louies contend the court erred in refusing to permit their expert economist, Dirk Yandell, to testify about the basis of his opinion as to the amount of support provided by Davila to the Davila children before his death. We conclude the evidentiary ruling constituted prejudicial error.
1. Factual Background
At the time of the accident, Davila was living with Mayra Lopez and her three children. These children, through their guardian ad litem, brought a wrongful death claim against defendants. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60, subdivision (c), the minors had standing to bring a wrongful death claim only if they were "dependent on [Davila] for one-half or more" of their support during the 180 days before Davila's death. The Davila children had the burden to prove this amount of support. (See Nelson v. County of Los Angeles (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 783, 788.)
Although the Davila children did not produce documentary evidence of Davila's income or support payments, the children's mother (Lopez) testified in a conclusory fashion that Davila contributed more than 50 percent to the children's support. Lopez also had testified in her deposition that while she and Davila were living together, the children were covered by Medi-Cal. Although Lopez testified at trial that these benefits terminated in 1994, Lopez acknowledged at her deposition that the children were eligible for these benefits at the time of Davila's death.
Based on the economic value of the children's Medi-Cal and Denti-Cal eligibility, defense expert Yandell prepared a report calculating that Davila contributed 40.33 percent to the minors' support. This calculation was based on Yandell's expert opinion that these benefits had an economic value and on the assumption (based on Lopez's testimony) that Lopez and Davila shared equally in providing the remaining support to each minor.
At trial, counsel for the Davila children moved to exclude any reference to Lopez's deposition testimony pertaining to the children's Medi-Cal eligibility and to exclude Yandell's anticipated testimony about the 40.33 percent support figure because the basis of his opinion was privileged. Counsel argued that eligibility for Medi-Cal is "absolutely privileged" under Welfare and Institutions Code section 10850 and Civil Code section 1798.1. Relying on Sinacore v. Superior Court (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 223 (Sinacore), the court agreed and ruled that Yandell could not refer to the minors' prior eligibility for Medi-Cal in his testimony.
During his testimony, Yandell opined that Davila had provided less than 50 percent of the support to the Davila children, but Yandell was not permitted to explain the basis of his opinion. This allowed the Davila children's counsel to conduct cross-examination in a way that strongly suggested the expert's opinion was baseless and made it virtually impossible for defense counsel to rehabilitate the expert on this point.
2. Analysis
The Louies contend the court erred in excluding Yandell's testimony about the Davila children's prior Medi-Cal eligibility to support his conclusion that Davila provided less than 50 percent support at the time of his death.
The Davila children respond that the evidence was inadmissible under Welfare and Institutions Code section 10850. This code section prohibits the disclosure of three categories of confidentia
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|