 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davila v. Nickell10/26/2005
l information pertaining to welfare recipients. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 10850; see Haskins v. San Diego County Dept. of Public Welfare (1980) 100 Cal.App.3d 961, 966.) The first category consists of "applications and records concerning any individual made or kept by any public officer . . . in connection with the administration of any . . . form of public social services." (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 10850, subd. (a).) The second category concerns information that identifies any welfare recipient "to any committee or legislative body." (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 10850, subd. (a).) The final category of confidential matter is a "list of persons receiving public social services." (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 10850, subd. (b); see Haskins, supra, at pp. 966-967.)
The evidence sought to be excluded-Lopez's deposition testimony-does not fall within any of these categories. It is not a public record kept by a public official; it is not information provided to a committee or legislative body; and it is not a list of persons receiving public social services. In Sinacore, the information sought to be discovered consisted of the actual records and files of the welfare agency. (Sinacore, supra, 81 Cal.App.3d at p. 225.) The Sinacore court held this information was properly excluded because it fell within the first statutory category of Welfare and Institutions Code section 10850, subdivision (a). (Sinacore, supra, at pp. 226-227.) Defendants in this case did not similarly seek to discover, or present, the actual records or files of a public agency.
The Davila children also rely on Civil Code section 1798.1 as a basis for the exclusion of the Medi-Cal eligibility evidence. This code section limits the "dissemination of personal information," defined as "any information that is maintained by an agency that identifies or describes an individual . . . ." (Civ. Code, § 1798.3, subd. (a).) The information at issue here was disclosed by the children's mother, not by a public agency. Thus Civil Code section 1798.1 is inapplicable.
Further, even assuming there was some form of statutory privilege attaching to the Medi-Cal eligibility information, the Davila children waived this privilege by failing to object to Lopez's deposition testimony. The attorney for the Davila children was present at Lopez's deposition and said he was representing both the mother and the minors. Lopez testified about the Medi-Cal benefits without objection or reservation. Accordingly, even if there was a privilege, it was waived by voluntary disclosure. (See Evid. Code, § 912.)
The court's erroneous exclusion of the evidence was prejudicial. The Davila children argue the error was harmless because Yandell was still permitted to testify that Davila's support was less than 50 percent. However, Yandell was not permitted to explain the basis of his opinion. Plaintiffs' counsel highlighted this weakness by questioning Yandell at length as to the basis of his opinion and created the false impression that there was no reasonable basis for the opinion and defense counsel could not rehabilitate him. The validity of an expert's opinion depends on the reasons and factual data upon which it is based. (Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519, 524.) By erroneously precluding Yandell from basing his opinion on a reasonable foundation (the economic value of Medi-Cal eligibility) the court so undermined Yandell's testimony that his opinion was rendered worthless.
The jury's incomplete understanding of the expert opinion was further prejudicial given that the evidence supporting the 50 percent finding was so minimal. The Davila children had the burden to prove the support issue. Yet, there was no documentary evidence
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.
|
|