Brun

Brun v. Bailey

Bad Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 833·27 Cal. App. 4th 641·32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 624·94 Daily Journal DAR 11269·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6207
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 11, 1994C011911California7,276 words

Opinion

Opinion

Puglia, J.

Michael D. Hanley (appellant), a chiropractor, appeals from an order denying his motion for a protective order (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025, subd. (i)), to direct Stephen D. Bailey (defendant) to pay appellant an expert witness fee. We shall hold that a health care practitioner who treats a civil litigant, and is thereafter deposed as a percipient witness by an opposing party in that litigation, is not entitled to an expert witness fee unless asked to express an opinion during the deposition.

I

Annette J. Brun (plaintiff) sued defendant and others for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Appellant provided plaintiff with chiropractic treatment for her injuries during the period from July 1988 to September 1990. In March 1991, defendant moved to compel appellant to appear and answer questions at a deposition, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1992, 2020 and 2023 (further statutory references to sections of an undesignated code are to the Code of Civil Procedure). Counsel for defendant asserted in support of the motion that he had attempted to obtain appellant’s cooperation in setting the deposition, but appellant refused to attend a deposition unless he…

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.