Unexpected events can interrupt even the most carefully prepared trial. But when a lead attorney suddenly becomes ill, does the court have to pause the case?
That issue was at the center of Alsaedi v. Westbrook (2026), an unpublished California Court of Appeal decision involving a mid-trial request for a continuance after the defendant’s lead attorney tested positive for COVID-19 and was required to quarantine.
The decision provides helpful guidance on when a judge may allow a trial to continue instead of granting a mid-trial continuance.
How Lead Counsel’s Illness Became an Appellate Issue
The lawsuit arose from a 2018 car accident in San Francisco. The plaintiffs claimed they suffered catastrophic injuries in the crash and sued for negligence. The injured plaintiff’s spouse also brought a loss of consortium claim, seeking compensation for the impact the injuries had on their marriage.
The case proceeded to trial in late 2023. The defendant was represented by a lead trial attorney and a second-chair associate who had been involved in preparing and trying the case.
Several days into testimony, the defendant’s lead counsel notified the court that they had tested positive for COVID-19 and would need to quarantine for several days.
Why the Trial Judge Denied a Mid-Trial Continuance
The parties disagreed over whether the second-chair associate could continue trying the case.
Although defense counsel initially highlighted the associate’s prior trial experience, the defense later argued he lacked the authority and civil trial experience to step into lead counsel’s role. The trial judge disagreed, concluding that the associate was capable of proceeding based on his involvement in the case and performance during trial.
The defendant’s lead counsel returned from quarantine the following Monday, right before the medical experts testified.
Why the Defendant Appealed the Verdict
The jury returned a verdict of approximately $4.18 million in favor of the plaintiffs after the trial court reduced part of the damages award.
The defendant appealed the verdict, arguing that the trial judge made three key mistakes:
- Refusing to pause the trial during lead counsel’s illness.
- Excluding evidence that the plaintiffs’ attorneys had referred certain treating physicians who were being paid on medical liens.
- Allowing a police officer to give an opinion on who caused the collision.
Why the Appellate Court Upheld the Verdict
The Court of Appeal rejected each argument and affirmed the judgment.
Addressing the continuance issue, the court explained that an attorney’s unexpected illness may establish good cause for a continuance under the California Rules of Court. However, illness does not automatically require delaying a trial. Instead, judges must consider all of the relevant circumstances.
Here, the court found no abuse of discretion because:
- The second-chair associate had participated throughout the case, appeared on pretrial filings, and demonstrated he could competently continue the trial.
- Lead counsel returned before the medical expert testimony the defense claimed required her presence.
- The request arose near the end of a weeks-long trial, when delaying the proceedings would have disrupted the jury and the court’s schedule.
Other Appellate Issues the Court Considered
The Court of Appeal also addressed two evidentiary issues commonly raised in personal injury litigation.
Attorney-Referred Doctors and Medical Liens
The defendant argued that the jury should have heard evidence that some treating physicians were referred by the plaintiffs’ attorneys and treated on a lien basis. The Court of Appeal concluded that even if excluding that evidence was error, it was harmless because the jury had already heard extensive evidence regarding the doctors’ financial interests and billing practices.
Police Officer Testimony on Fault
The defendant also challenged a police officer’s opinion regarding fault. The court found any error harmless because the defense had already acknowledged negligence during opening statements, and the jury viewed dashcam footage that independently showed how the collision occurred.
Practical Lessons for Personal Injury Trial Lawyers
Serious personal injury trials often involve multiple experts, complex medical evidence, and lengthy proceedings. Alsaedi v. Westbrook offers several practical lessons for trial attorneys.
An Attorney’s Illness Does Not Automatically Delay a Trial
An attorney’s illness may provide good cause for a continuance, but it is only one factor the court considers when deciding whether to postpone a trial. Judges may also evaluate:
- The stage of the trial.
- The expected length of the delay.
- Whether another prepared attorney can proceed.
- Potential prejudice to either party.
- The impact on jurors, witnesses, and the court.
No single factor determines whether a continuance should be granted.
Prepare Second-Chair Counsel Before Trial Begins
Trial teams should ensure that second-chair counsel understands the evidence, witness order, expert testimony, and trial strategy before testimony begins.
When an emergency arises, that preparation may allow the case to continue without unfair prejudice to the client.
Preserve Specific Objections on the Record
Appellate courts evaluate a trial judge’s ruling based on the information available when the decision was made.
If substitute counsel lacks experience with particular experts or evidence, those concerns should be clearly raised when requesting a continuance—not after the trial has already moved forward.
Why This Decision Matters for Personal Injury Trials
Although Alsaedi v. Westbrook is an unpublished decision and generally cannot be cited as precedent in California courts, it provides a practical example of how appellate courts evaluate requests to delay an ongoing trial.
The case reminds trial lawyers that a continuance is never automatic. When another prepared attorney can competently continue the case without unfair prejudice, a court may allow the trial to proceed. For personal injury trial teams, that makes thorough preparation of second-chair counsel more important than ever.
