Legal Opinion
Brun v. Bailey
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 11, 1994No. C011911PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PUGLIA, P. 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…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- People v. KnowlesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- City & County of San Francisco v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- McClenahan v. KeyesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- United Pacific Insurance v. Hanover InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Henneberque v. City of Culver CityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Temple Community Hospital v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Marsh v. Mountain Zephyr, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1996
- Baker-Hoey v. Lockheed Martin Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2003
- Consumer Cause, Inc. v. Mrs. Gooch's Natural Food Markets, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
- Plunkett v. SpauldingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.