![]() The trial court had concluded that Skorheim's opinions, based on comparisons to six much larger companies, were speculative. Other provisions of law, including decisional law, may also provide reasons for excluding expert opinion testimony.įollowing this test, the Supreme Court found that the trial court had properly excluded Skorheim's opinions. Thus, under Evidence Code sections 801, subdivision (b), and 802, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to exclude expert opinion testimony that is (1) based on matter of a type on which an expert may not reasonably rely, (2) based on reasons unsupported by the material on which the expert relies, or (3) speculative. A court may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.”īased upon this review of existing law, the Supreme Court formulated the following tests for determining the admissibility of expert opinions: "ection 802 authorizes a court to promulgate case law restrictions on an expert’s ‘reasons.' This means that a court may inquire into, not only the type of material on which an expert relies, but also whether that material actually supports the expert’s reasoning. The Sargon decision concluded that the basis for the trial court's authority to scrutinize the validity of expert opinions is found in both Sections 801 and 802 of the Evidence Code. The Supreme Court found that the exercise of this gatekeeping function was fundamental to the rationale for admitting expert opinions: "Exclusion of expert opinions that rest on guess, surmise or conjecture is an inherent corollary to the foundational predicate for admission of the expert testimony: will the testimony assist the trier of fact to evaluate the issues it ust decide?" We construe this to mean that the matter relied on must provide a reasonable basis for the particular opinion offered, and that an expert opinion based on speculation or conjecture is inadmissible. ![]() Evidence Code section 801, subdivision (b), states that a court must determine whether the matter that the expert relies on is of a type that an expert reasonably can rely on in forming an opinion upon the subject to which his testimony relates. Matter that provides a reasonable basis for one opinion does not necessarily provide a reasonable basis for another opinion. An expert opinion has no value if its basis is unsound. Under California law, trial courts have a substantial “gatekeeping” responsibility. The Supreme Court started by summarizing the role of the trial court in evaluating expert testimony. The Supreme Court granted a petition for review. Skorheim’s opinion leaves the determination of up to a billion dollars of lost profit damages to pure speculation.” The Court of Appeal again disagreed and found that the trial court had erred. The trial court found it unreasonable for Skorheim, “or any such expert, to rely on much of the data which forms the basis of his opinions, because no data bears any resemblance to Plaintiff’s historical profits or to those of any similar business.” Skorheim's opinions were based on comparisons of the plaintiff to much larger companies. The trial court held an eight day evidentiary hearing and concluded that Skorheim's opinions were speculative and should be excluded. Although Skorheim acknowledged that the dental supply company's maximum historical profit had been $101,000 annually, he was prepared to testify that it had lost between $220 million to $1.18 billion in future profits as a result of the university's breach. On remand, the dental implant company sought to introduce the testimony of a Certified Public Accountant, James Skorheim. The case was appealed and remanded, with the Court of Appeal holding that the trial court order excluding damages for lost profits was in error. In an initial trial, the Court excluded claims for lost profits on the ground that they were not foreseeable. ![]() S191550 (November 26, 2012), a small dental supply company sued a university for breach of a contract to conduct clinical trials of a newly developed and patented implant. University of Southern California, Case No. The California Supreme Court has just issued an opinion which sets clear standards for the admission of expert testimony and affirms a "gatekeeping" role for California trial courts. Plantiffs respond that California trial judges do not play the same role as federal district judges, who are directed under the Daubert standard to act as gatekeepers, weighing the evidentiary basis of expert opinions before they are admitted in Court. Defendants frequently argue that the opinions of plaintiffs' experts on issues ranging from damages to causation are speculative and lack an evidentiary foundation. ![]() For years, plaintiffs and defendants have battled over the standards for admission of expert witness opinions in California courts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |