Bonds v. Roy
California Supreme Court
20 Cal. 4th 140, 83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 289, 973 P.2d 66 (1999)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Dr. Mohan Roy (defendant) performed surgery on Charles Bonds (plaintiff). Bonds alleged that Roy negligently cut a major nerve in his arm during the surgery and sued Roy for medical malpractice. Roy designated three expert witnesses for trial, including Dr. Jan Duncan, and submitted expert witness declarations for each of them. Duncan’s expert-witness declaration stated that Duncan was expected to testify on the issue of damages. On the last day of trial, during the last afternoon recess, Roy’s counsel asked to expand Duncan’s testimony to include expert testimony about: (1) whether the symptoms exhibited by Bonds were consistent with a cut nerve or merely a stretched nerve and (2) the standard of care for an immediate reoperation and consultation with a neurologist. The trial court denied Roy’s request to expand Duncan’s testimony, and the jury returned a verdict for Bonds. Roy appealed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. Roy then petitioned the California Supreme Court for review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brown, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
