McCormick-Gordon v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center RB

"[W]hen 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." (Id. at p. 1116.)
Dr. Rifkin's opinion suffers from similar deficiencies. He
acknowledged (1) that catheter removal problems are not uncommon,
(2) that Gordon suffered from many infections completely separate from
whatever the catheter fragment might have caused, and (3) that Gordon had
an increased risk ofinfections because ofhis immune-suppressed state.
Nevertheless, Dr. Rifkin concluded that a small fragment of a catheterwhich
is designed to remain in the body-played a "major role" in
Gordon's death. Since Dr. Rifkin provided no reasonable explanation to
connect the catheter fragment to Gordon's eventual death-to explain its
supposed "major role"-his opinion "has no evidentiary value." (Ibid)
The court in In re Lockheed Litigation Cases, supra, 115
Cal.App.4th 558 excluded an expert's causation opinion on similar grounds.
The cOUl1 affirmed summary judgment against the plaintiffs, who had sued
for wrongful death allegedly caused by exposure to toxic chemicals
manufactured by the defendants. (Id at p. 561.) The court explained how
expert opinions should be evaluated:
"'The value of opinion evidence rests not in the conclusion
reached but in the factors considered and the reasoning
employed. Where an expert bases his conclusion upon
assumptions which are not supported by the record, upon
matters which are not reasonably relied upon by other
experts, or upon factors which are speculative, remote or
23