Simply because the defendant doctor provides an unopposed declaration by an expert does not necessarily mean the court should grant summary judgment. In Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 122] ( Kelley), Division Seven of the Second District Court of Appeal held that "a defendant doctor is not entitled to obtain summary judgment based on a conclusory expert declaration which states the opinion that no malpractice has occurred, but does not explain the basis for the opinion." ( Id. at p. 521.)
Similarly, when an expert's opinion is purely conclusory because unaccompanied by a reasoned explanation connecting the factual predicates to the ultimate conclusion, that opinion has no evidentiary value because an "expert opinion is worth no more than the reasons upon which it rests." ( Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519, 523-525 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 122].) Exclusion of expert opinions that rest on guess, surmise or conjecture ( Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 29 Cal.4th 1096) 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 must decide?
It is sufficient, if an expert declaration establishes the matters relied upon in expressing the opinion, that the opinion rests on matters of a type reasonably relied upon, and the bases for the opinion. ( Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519, 524.) As previously noted, respondents did not challenge Dr. Kent's credentials.
It is well settled that, where an expert declaration does not provide the facts upon which its conclusions are based and a reasoned explanation of how such facts led to the conclusions, it "does not establish the absence of a material fact issue for trial, as required for summary judgment." ( Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519, 524, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 122 ( Kelley ).) Hospital's expert did not opine specifically as to the standard of care regarding room assignments and, consequently, did not dispose of this theory as a matter of professional negligence.
Defendants' Replies Citing Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 122] ( Kelley), all defendants asserted that the Katz and Mar declarations were wholly conclusory and therefore insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Dr. Rosson and the Medical Center also filed evidentiary objections to the declarations, asserting that Dr. Katz's and Dr. Mar's declarations lacked foundation.
( Id . at pp. 656, 664-665, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 199.) In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeal cited Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 122 ( Kelley ) and Johnson, supra , 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 52. ( Good Samaritan , at pp. 663-664, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 199.) In Kelley , a patient sued physicians, alleging that he suffered neurological damage and other injuries as a result of negligent medical care after being treated for a laceration on his arm.
Because the standard of care in a medical malpractice case is a matter "peculiarly within the knowledge of experts" ( Sinz v. Owens (1949) 33 Cal.2d 749, 753 [ 205 P.2d 3]), expert testimony is required to "prove or disprove that the defendant performed in accordance with the standard prevailing of care" unless the negligence is obvious to a layperson. ( Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519, 523 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 122].) However, the expert testimony must be based on such matters as may be reasonably relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion on the subject.
We are familiar with authorities, which criticize, and even reject, expert medical declarations that do not recite in detail the reasoning and/or facts behind the opinion. (See, e.g., Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519, 524 (Kelley).)However, we agree with the view that "excruciating" detail is not required.
The Ruling The trial court stated during the hearing on the motion for summary judgment that Dr. Ballard’s declaration did not establish causation because it failed to meet the standards for expert declarations as set forth in Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519 (Kelley). Dr. Ballard’s declaration did not state exactly what records he reviewed in forming his opinions.
As to the issue of causation, plaintiff argues that Dr. Smolens’s opinion was conclusory, in that he failed to provide the reasons upon which his opinion was based. For this last argument, plaintiff relies on Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519 (Kelley). Defendant responds that it was entitled to summary judgment if it provided evidence sufficient to negate even one element of plaintiff’s cause of action.