Court of Appeal Vacates $14M Verdict for Expert Disclosure Violation

Division Eight of the California Court of Appeal vacated a nearly $14 million jury verdict in a personal injury lawsuit involving a low-impact traffic accident after finding the trial court improperly allowed a late-disclosed expert to testify. The plaintiff disclosed a new spinal surgeon just seven court days before trial without seeking court permission or showing good cause for the delay.

The trial judge permitted the testimony as long as the defense could depose the doctor immediately. The Court of Appeal held that this last-minute deposition did not cure the prejudice caused by the surprise designation. Fancourt v. Zargaryan (2025).

Failure to Follow Expert Disclosure Rules

California’s expert disclosure rules under Code of Civil Procedure §2034 are designed to prevent trial by ambush. When adding a new expert after the exchange deadline, a party must file a motion and demonstrate good cause for the late designation.

Here, the plaintiff did neither. The appellate court found that allowing the expert to testify without compliance with the statutory scheme was an abuse of discretion.

Why the Error Affected the Verdict

The newly disclosed surgeon was the first physician to recommend spinal surgery. The jury ultimately awarded significant future medical expenses and substantial pain and suffering damages.

The Court of Appeal concluded it was probable that this testimony materially influenced the verdict. The matter was remanded for a new trial.

Takeaway for Trial Lawyers

Expert witness rules are not technicalities. Courts expect strict compliance, especially when late disclosures can affect trial strategy, cross-examination preparation, and case valuation.

If you are handling a significant injury matter that calls for experienced trial counsel from intake through resolution, we welcome the opportunity to collaborate.

Sharing is caring: