Hale

Hale v. Superior Court

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 1024·28 Cal. App. 4th 1421·34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 279·94 Daily Journal DAR 14116·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7731
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 16, 1994D021574California813 words

Opinion

Opinion

Work, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

Lilian Hale (Hale) was driving on the wrong side of the road when she collided with a car driven by Carol DeFelice (DeFelice). Hale was taken to a hospital where it was determined she had severe left-side paralysis and multiple malignant brain tumors. She died 10 days later.

DeFelice and her husband (DeFelices) filed a personal injury action against Hale’s estate and personal representative (collectively estate) for negligence and loss of consortium. The estate answered that Hale was not negligent but rather the accident was an act of God.

The DeFelices listed two of Hale’s treating physicians as experts on their expert designation. When the estate learned the DeFelices had contacted the doctors without its permission, it sought an order restraining the DeFelices from making “ex parte” contact with the physicians but allowing the estate to communicate with them. The court prohibited contact with the doctors by the DeFelices, but refused to let the estate communicate with the doctors except through formal discovery because they had been designated as De-Felices’ experts.

The estate’s petition for writ of mandate contends it holds the…

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.