McCormick-Gordon v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center RB

A. Dr. Rifkin Had No Education, Training, Or Experience In
Urology, Catheter Removal Or Infectious Diseases.
"A person is qualified to testify as an expert ifhe has special
knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him
as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates." (Evid. Code,
§ 720; Moore v. Belt (1949) 34 Ca1.2d 525, 532.)
Dr. Rifkin had no specialized training or board certification in
urology or infectious diseases. His only board certification was in general
surgery. (CT 97:20-22.) So aside from whatever he may have learned at
the University of Guadalaja, he had no education or specialized training in
urological conditions, appropriate use of catheters, standards concerning
placement and removal of catheters, or infectious diseases.
Dr. Rifkin's work experience also diverged far from the fields of
urology and infectious diseases. At the time ofhis declaration, he had been
working in a hair restoration practice for the previous 12 years. (CT 109,
111.) Before that, Dr. Rifkin spent a few years in private practice as a
surgeon. (CT 111.) Plaintiffs presented no evidence that Dr. Rifkin had
ever placed any catheters or done any urological examinations. There was
also no evidence that any of Dr. Rifkin's work experience involved
diagnosing or treating infectious diseases. Given this lack of relevant work
experience, it is Hot surprising that plaintiffs didn't even bother to submit
Dr. Rifkin's curriculum vitae, but instead relied solely on a generic, oneparagraph
summary of his educational background. (CT 97:7-24.)
11