Gilman

Gilman v. Beverly California Corp.

Caution
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 627·231 Cal. App. 3d 121·283 Cal. Rptr. 17·91 Daily Journal DAR 7024·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4506
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 12, 1991H005882California3,283 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cottle, J.

Introduction

Defendant Beverly California Corporation (hereafter Beverly), operator of a licensed skilled nursing facility, appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in this medical malpractice wrongful death action. Beverly contends the trial court committed prejudicial error in excluding evidence pertaining to the allocation of negligence between Beverly and the decedent’s treating physician, and in prohibiting Beverly’s key expert witness from responding to plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony. Beverly also contends that the noneconomic damage award must be reversed because the trial court refused to give complete instructions and because the award is excessive as a matter of law. Finally, Beverly contends the court erred in permitting plaintiffs to recover their expert witness costs and prejudgment interest.

Plaintiffs cross-appeal, based on the trial court’s manner of calculating the judgment. The court first reduced the jury’s verdict for noneconomic damages to $250,000 pursuant to the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), and then reduced it further, pursuant to Proposition 51, to reflect the percentage of fault attributed to the decedent’s treating…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.