MONTGOMERY
Filed 7/16/10
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE
DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
LAURA MONTGOMERY et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF ORANGE COUNTY,
Respondent;
MARK KNIGHT,
Real Party in
Interest.
G042602
(Super. Ct.
No. 30-2007-00100483)
O P I N I O
N
Original proceedings;
petition for a writ of mandate to
challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Janet C. Pesak,
Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal.
Const., art. VI, § 21.) Petition
granted.
Gans & Rosenfield,
Paul W. Rosenfield and Jerry N. Gans for Petitioners.
Reback, McAndrews, Kjar,
Warford & Stockalper, Jamie A. Mason and Terrence J. Schafer for Real Party
in Interest.
*
* *
Laura and Douglas
Montgomery (the Montgomerys) are
the plaintiffs in a medical
malpractice action against physician Mark Knight. They petition for relief from the order of
the trial court removing their only expert witness on the medical standard of
care and causation. The trial court
found the expert created an irreconcilable conflict of interest for Knight's
counsel because he had represented the expert 10 years before. The petitioners contend the prophylactic
removal was unnecessary because their expert waived any conflict of interest
arising out of the previous representation.
We agree and grant the petition.
BACKGROUND
In December 2007, the Montgomerys
filed a complaint against Knight and Euclid
Cosmetic Outpatient
Surgery Center,
alleging that Knight was negligent when performing liposuction on Laura,
causing injury. Douglas
alleged damages arising from the loss of his wife's consortium.
On March 23, 2009, the Montgomerys
filed their expert designation, listing Laura's treating physicians and John M.
Shamoun, a board certified plastic surgeon, who was expected to provide
testimony on â€
| Description | Laura and Douglas Montgomery (the Montgomerys) are the plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action against physician Mark Knight. They petition for relief from the order of the trial court removing their only expert witness on the medical standard of care and causation. The trial court found the expert created an irreconcilable conflict of interest for Knight's counsel because he had represented the expert 10 years before. The petitioners contend the prophylactic removal was unnecessary because their expert waived any conflict of interest arising out of the previous representation. Court agree and grant the petition. |
| Rating |
