## Facts

- Manfred Muller was seriously injured in a 1999 rollover crash and initially treated at Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center (FCH) under physicians including Dr. Sanagaram Shantharam.
- After approximately 13 days, Muller was transferred to a Los Angeles hospital for rehabilitation, then later to UCLA Medical Center, where his left arm was amputated below the elbow.
- Muller and his wife, Rose Shoshana, sued FCH and others, alleging negligent medical care contributed to the progression of injury leading to amputation; Shoshana sought loss-of-consortium damages.
- After an earlier reversal and remand for a new trial, the case was retried against FCH and Dr. Shantharam; another physician originally involved was dismissed before the second trial.
- In the second trial, defendants presented expert evidence suggesting a below-the-elbow amputation could occur absent negligence in earlier care, making the level of amputation central to causation.
- Plaintiffs attempted to present Dr. James London as a rebuttal expert to contradict the defense experts on that point; the trial court excluded his testimony, and the jury returned a defense verdict.
- The trial court later granted plaintiffs a new trial based on its conclusion that excluding the rebuttal expert was legal error and prejudicial.
- Plaintiffs also sought discovery sanctions tied to alleged misconduct affecting the attempted rebuttal testimony; the trial court denied sanctions.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting a new trial after concluding it had prejudicially erred in excluding plaintiffs’ rebuttal expert testimony.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion for discovery sanctions relating to expert-disclosure and use.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order granting a new trial.
- The Court of Appeal held the trial court acted within its discretion in determining the rebuttal expert should have been allowed and that the exclusion was prejudicial.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying discovery sanctions, finding no abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- An order granting a new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and substantial deference is given to the trial court’s assessment of prejudice from trial error.
- Rebuttal evidence may be admitted when it contradicts, impeaches, or diminishes the weight of the opposing party’s evidence; expert rebuttal is proper when directed at a theory or emphasis advanced by the opposing experts at trial.
- Excluding expert rebuttal on a central causation issue can support a finding that the error likely affected the verdict and warranted a new trial.
- Discovery sanctions are discretionary; a court may decline sanctions where the record does not compel a finding of sanctionable misuse or where other relief adequately addresses any prejudice.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s grant of a new trial because excluding plaintiffs’ rebuttal expert on a key medical-causation dispute was reasonably found prejudicial, and it separately upheld the denial of discovery sanctions because the sanctions ruling fell within the trial court’s discretion.


Muller v. Fresno Cmty. Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 172 Cal. App. 4th 887 (Ct. App. 2009)