Mathis

Mathis v. Morrissey

Good Law
11 Cal. App. 4th 332·13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 819·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1381·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9665
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 30, 1992C011114California6,068 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sparks, J.

In this wrongful death/medical malpractice action we consider whether the trial court erred in refusing two special instructions, one concerning a physician’s duty to inform the patient of different schools of thought on the proposed surgery and the other dealing with the burden of proof. For the reasons which follow, we conclude that the trial court correctly refused the special instructions. We also consider and reject the argument that an expert witness was disqualified because of asserted bias.

Plaintiffs, the heirs of decedent Gordon Mathis, appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of defendant James D. Morrissey, M.D. Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in refusing two of their requested jury instructions and by permitting an expert witness to testify despite alleged bias. We shall affirm.

Facts

Plaintiffs’ decedent, Gordon Mathis, died in June 1983, approximately five and one-half months after undergoing arterial bypass surgery performed by defendant. At the time of his death decedent was 50 years of age. He had previously suffered two serious heart attacks (myocardial infarctions). His heart had suffered damage which necessitated 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.