Ramirez v. Barajas CA4/2 ( 2021 )

Filed 9/13/21 Ramirez v. Barajas CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
FRANCISCO ROMEO RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff and Appellant, E071558
v. (Super.Ct.No. CIVDS1516561)
ISAOLE BARAJAS et al., OPINION
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. John M. Pacheco,
Judge. Affirmed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Wilshire Law Firm and Daniel B. Miller for Plaintiff and Appellant, Francisco
Romeo Ramirez.
Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs, Scott B. Spriggs, and Ronald R. Carlson for
Defendants and Appellants, Isaole Barajas and Star Auto Parts, Inc.
1
Plaintiff Francisco Ramirez appeals from the judgment after a jury trial on his
personal injury claim. Plaintiff sued Isaole Barajas and her employer, Star Auto Parts,
Inc., (defendants) for $1.4 million in damages after Barajas rear-ended another person’s
car, causing it to hit the back of his pickup truck. Defendants admitted negligence but
contested causation and damages, and two months before trial, plaintiff rejected their
settlement offer of $350,000. (Code Civ. Proc., § 998, unlabeled statutory citations refer
to this code.) Ultimately, the jury concluded defendants were responsible for some but
not all of plaintiff’s medical costs (he had shoulder and neck surgery after the accident),
awarding him a total of $58,311.77.
Plaintiff challenges the damage award, arguing it is contrary to the law on
exacerbating a preexisting condition because the evidence the accident worsened his
existing shoulder injury was undisputed. He also argues the trial court committed
reversible error by excluding two documents he intended to use to impeach defendants’
orthopedic expert. In addition, defendants have filed a cross-appeal of the section 998
award, arguing the trial court improperly taxed the majority of their costs.
We conclude plaintiff’s arguments lack merit and defendants’ cross-appeal is
untimely. We therefore affirm the judgment and dismiss the cross-appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
2
I
FACTS
A. The Accident and Subsequent Medical Treatment
In November 2014, Barajas was on delivery for her employer when she caused a
rear-end collision involving three cars. She tried to change lanes but didn’t see there was
a construction zone ahead and the cars in front of her had stopped. Her subcompact Ford
Fiesta rear-ended another subcompact car (a Chevy Aveo) at about 50 miles per hour,
which caused that car to collide with plaintiff’s pickup truck (a Nissan Frontier) at about
17 miles per hour. Plaintiff had been looking in his rearview mirror and saw the first
collision happen so he braced for the impact by putting his foot on the brake and hands
on the steering wheel.
After the accident, plaintiff made sure his two sons weren’t hurt, then got out of
his truck to check on the other two drivers, who were also okay but Barajas was crying
and apologizing. Plaintiff told her accidents happen and it was a good thing no one was
hurt. When the police arrived, plaintiff declined medical treatment but mentioned he had
some pain in his shoulder and neck. He drove away from the accident and took his sons
to lunch before going home. The cost of repairing his truck was $772 for parts and $2,507
for labor.
The accident happened on Friday afternoon. Plaintiff said he felt some pain over
the weekend and took two ibuprofen. On Sunday, he hired an attorney, who referred him
to a chiropractor. The chiropractor diagnosed plaintiff with a cervical spine sprain or
3
1
strain and treated him for about 20 sessions. The chiropractor’s final assessment report,
dated January 2015, says plaintiff’s neck pain had “resolved with full range of motion.”
At trial, the chiropractor said the diagnostic test he performed on plaintiff’s neck did not
indicate radiculopathy (or nerve injury).
In February 2015, plaintiff had surgery on his right shoulder to repair a tear in his
labrum (bone socket tissue) commonly referred to as a “SLAP” tear (which stands for
“superior labrum anterior to posterior”). In May 2015, he began receiving cervical
injections for renewed pain in his neck and, in April 2016, underwent surgical
discectomy and fusion of his fifth and sixth cervical vertebrae (C5 and C6).
Plaintiff was 39 years old at the time of the accident and was between jobs. His
most recent employment was in 2012, working in construction as a stone setter, a job that
required him and his partner to lift 100- to 200-pound stones on a routine basis.
B. Expert Testimony
Both sides presented medical and accident reconstruction experts to express their
views on the severity of the accident and whether it necessitated the treatment plaintiff
had received. It was undisputed that the Delta-V of plaintiff’s truck (the change in speed
from the impact) was between seven and eight miles per hour. It was also undisputed that
the labral tear in plaintiff’s right shoulder was a preexisting condition and was not caused
by the accident. As defendants’ radiologist explained, the presence of a sizable cyst near
1A sprain is an injury to the tissue or tendons that connect two bones together,
whereas a strain is an injury to muscle or the tendons that attach muscle to bone.
4
the tear (caused by joint fluid seeping into the injury) meant the tear had occurred a few
years before the accident—either from one movement or repetition over time.
Where the experts disagreed was whether the accident necessitated either surgery.
Plaintiff’s experts believed the accident had exacerbated the tear to the point it required
surgery and had caused a disc injury to plaintiff’s neck. Plaintiff’s radiology expert could
not say whether the abnormalities in plaintiff’s cervical discs that were present in his
postaccident MRI predated the accident. Dr. Alexander, the orthopedic surgeon who had
performed the discectomy and fusion of plaintiff’s C5 and C6 vertebrae, acknowledged
that plaintiff’s MRI indicated he was suffering from aging-related disc degeneration, but
he believed the accident had caused additional trauma to the discs thereby necessitating
surgery.
Defendants’ orthopedic expert, Dr. Bhatia, strongly disagreed with Dr.
Alexander’s opinion and his treatment plan. He said it is virtually impossible in today’s
vehicles for a person to suffer a spinal injury from a low speed collision, and that if
plaintiff had suffered a disc injury from the accident, he would have immediately felt
severe nerve pain in his neck and the pain would have persisted. He believed the surgery
Dr. Alexander performed was “absolutely” unnecessary at this stage of plaintiff’s life and
that he would have recommended more conservative and less invasive treatment. In his
opinion, plaintiff had suffered a cervical sprain from the accident, necessitating precisely
the type of treatment the chiropractor had performed. He said the cost of that treatment
would typically be $2,000 but could be as high as $4,000.
5
Defendants’ radiologist believed to a medical certainty that plaintiff’s MRI
showed chronic, aging-related degeneration that was actually quite typical for someone
plaintiff’s age. He explained that the presence of bone spurs on plaintiff’s cervical
vertebrae indicated his discs had been degenerating for years prior to the accident. The
fact the discs were bulging rather than herniated also pointed towards a chronic condition
as opposed to acute trauma.
As for plaintiff’s shoulder, Dr. Bhatia apportioned the cause of surgery equally
between the accident and the preexisting tear and cyst. He said that “both of the issues
. . ., the incident and the underlying labral tear and cyst played into” the need for surgery.
“[I]f either one of those hadn’t existed, he probably wouldn’t have needed surgery at the
time he had it.” When asked if he could quantify “on a percentage basis . . . what portion
[of the shoulder surgery] would be due to preexisting conditions and what portion would
be due to the auto accident,” Dr. Bhatia replied, “I would say 50/50.”
Finally, defendants’ accident reconstruction and biomechanics expert concluded it
was virtually impossible defendant suffered a disc injury from the accident because the
impact was so minor. He explained that a change in velocity of seven to eight miles was
within the range of impact between bumper cars, and the trailer hitch on the back of
plaintiff’s truck had absorbed some of the impact. By his calculation, the impact would
have caused plaintiff’s neck to move three inches at most, which could possibly result in
a muscle or tendon strain, but not radiculopathy or disc injury.
6
C. The Verdict
The parties stipulated that the reasonable charges for the medical treatment
plaintiff had received was $205,881.17—that is, $62,623.53 for the shoulder treatment
and $143,257.64 for the neck treatment. During plaintiff’s closing statement, counsel
argued his damages totaled over $1.4 million broken down as follows: $205,881.17 for
past medical expenses; $150,000 for future medical expenses; $400,000 for past pain and
suffering; and $653,350 for future pain and suffering. In contrast, defense counsel argued
for a total damage award of $65,000. He said defendants should be liable for half the cost
of the shoulder surgery plus $4,000 for the chiropractic treatment of the neck, plus
$30,000 for past pain and suffering.
The jury retired to deliberate around noon on the last day of trial and returned a
verdict that same afternoon. They found Barajas’ negligence was a substantial factor in
causing harm to plaintiff and awarded him $58,311.77 in damages, comprised of
$33,311.77 for past medical expenses, $25,000 for past pain and suffering, and nothing
for future medical expenses or future pain and suffering. They were unanimous on each
of the damage amounts except for the $25,000 award for past pain and suffering, for
which the vote was nine to three.
7
II
ANALYSIS
A. The Damage Award
Plaintiff contends the damage award is contrary to the law on aggravation of
preexisting conditions. He argues the evidence was undisputed on two crucial points—
that the accident had aggravated his labral tear and that he would not have needed surgery
if the accident had not occurred. As a result, he argues, the law on aggravating
preexisting conditions renders defendants liable for the entire cost of his surgery, not half
the cost like the jury awarded. We disagree.
“The amount of damages is a fact question, committed . . . to the discretion of the
jury,” and we review the award for substantial evidence. (Westphal v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1078.) We do not “reassess the credibility of witnesses
or reweigh the evidence,” but instead “consider the evidence in the light most favorable
to the judgment, accepting every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in its
favor.” (Ibid.) “A reviewing court must uphold an award of damages whenever possible
and all presumptions are in favor of the judgment.” (Bertero v. National General Corp.
(1974) 13 Cal.3d 43, 61, citations omitted (Bertero).)
A plaintiff in a personal injury action must prove causation of injury to a
reasonable medical probability. (Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (1985) 163
Cal.App.3d 396, 402.) Here, plaintiff is correct that “‘a tortfeasor may be held liable in an
action for damages where the effect of his negligence is to aggravate a preexisting
8
condition or disease.” (Sanchez v. Kern Emergency Medical Transportation Corp. (2017)
8 Cal.App.5th 146, 168.) What he overlooks however, is the second part of the
preexisting condition rule, which provides that he may recover only to the “extent that his
or her condition has worsened as a result of defendant’s tortious act.” (Ibid.)
The trial court correctly instructed the jury on these principles with CACI 3927,
which says that if the jury found plaintiff “had a physical or emotional condition that was
made worse by [the accident],” they “must award damages that will reasonably and fairly
compensate him for the effect on that condition.” (Italics added.) The instruction directs
the jury to “decide the full amount of money that will reasonably compensate . . .
[plaintiff] for all damages caused by [the accident], even if [he] was more susceptible to
injury than a normally healthy person would have been, and even if a normally healthy
person would not have suffered similar injury.” (Italics added.)
While it was undisputed plaintiff’s labral tear was a preexisting condition and the
accident aggravated it, the evidence was in conflict over whether the accident caused
plaintiff to need surgery. Plaintiff’s experts said the accident was the sole cause of
surgery, but when defense counsel asked Dr. Bhatia if the accident was the sole cause or
whether he could quantify what portion of the shoulder surgery was caused by the
preexisting conditions and what was caused by the accident, Dr. Bhatia replied that both
were causes and the allocation was “50/50.” He then reiterated the point on cross,
explaining, “both of the issues that we’ve discussed, the incident and the underlying
9
labral tear and cyst played into it. He—if either one of those hadn’t existed, he probably
wouldn’t have needed surgery at the time he had it.”
At oral argument, plaintiff argued Dr. Bhatia’s opinion was based on mere
possibility, and not on a reasonable medical probability, because the expert used the word
“maybe” in the following sentence: “So maybe if he didn’t have the car accident, he
[would wind] up needing the surgery at the same time.” But this takes too narrow a view
of Dr. Bhatia’s opinion. It ignores the fact he also told the jury that “both . . . the incident
and the underlying labral tear and cyst played into it” and “if either one of those hadn’t
existed, he probably wouldn’t have needed surgery at the time he had it.” (Italics added.)
Plaintiff is correct that the standard for establishing causation in a personal injury case is
not “medical ‘possibility.’” (Jennings v. Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc. (2003)
114 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1118.) But neither is it medical certainty. The standard is
“medical ‘probability,’” and a “possible” cause “becomes ‘probable’ when, in the
absence of other reasonable causal explanations, it becomes more likely than not that the
injury was a result of its action.” (Ibid.) As we read the entirety of Dr. Bhatia’s
testimony, he provided the jury a basis to conclude it was more likely than not that the
accident and preexisting conditions were equal causes of his harm (i.e., the cost of
shoulder surgery).
The adequacy of damages depends upon the facts of each case. (Miller v. San
Diego Gas & Electric Co. (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 555, 558.) “Obviously there is no rule
by which either expert or laymen may measure the precise degree, if any, to which a pre-
10
existing pathological condition has been aggravated.” (Taylor v. Pole (1940) 16 Cal.2d
668, 672-673.) As a result, “the segregation of the items which combine to form the full
measure of actual injury is a matter for the exercise by the jury . . . and in assessing the
damages it is accorded a ‘wide latitude’ and an ‘elastic discretion.’” (Ibid.)
It is clear from the damage award that the jury found Dr. Bhatia’s opinions more
credible than those of plaintiff’s experts. Dr. Bhatia allocated 50 percent of the need for
surgery to the accident and testified that $2,000 was a reasonable cost for chiropractic
treatment of a cervical sprain/strain. The jury awarded $33,311.77 for past medical
expenses, which equals the sum of half of the stipulated cost of the shoulder surgery plus
$2,000 for chiropractic treatment.
“The relevant and considered opinion of one physician, though inconsistent with
other medical opinions, may constitute substantial evidence.” (Smith v. Workmen's Comp.
App. Bd. (1969) 71 Cal.2d 588, 592.) Because the damage award is sufficiently supported
by Dr. Bhatia’s testimony, we presume the jurors resolved the evidentiary conflicts in
defendants’ favor and defer to their determination of the effect the accident had on
plaintiff’s preexisting condition. (Bertero, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 61.)
B. Excluded Impeachment Evidence
Plaintiff argues that two of the trial court’s rulings limiting his counsel’s attempt
to impeach Dr. Bhatia constitute reversible error. Again, we disagree.
11
1. Additional facts
Dr. Bhatia is the chief of spine surgery and chair of the orthopedics department at
the University of California, Irvine (UCI). He is a board-certified specialist in spine
surgery, graduated valedictorian of his class at Baylor College of Medicine, and has
written more than a dozen text books or book chapters in his field. He has received
awards and recognition for his research and surgeries, the most notable of which was
when he operated on an “internal decapitation.” The patient’s skull had been severed
from his spine (and was held together by only the skin and muscles) during a car accident
that left the driver dead. Dr. Bhatia fully repaired the injury, “[a]nd six weeks later he
was throwing the ball out at the first Angels game.”
On cross-examination, plaintiff’s counsel attempted to impeach Dr. Bhatia’s
credibility in two areas. First, counsel tried to admit as a prior inconsistent statement the
following quote from an informational pamphlet: “Each year, about three million people
experience whiplash injuries to their neck and back. Of these three million people, only
about one half, will fully recover. About 600,000 of those individuals will have long-term
symptoms, and 150,000 will actually become disabled as a result of the injury.” The
pamphlet was called “A Patient’s Guide to Cervical Whiplash,” and it had Dr. Bhatia’s
name, telephone number, and photograph on it. Before introducing the pamphlet,
plaintiff’s counsel asked Dr. Bhatia if he “[w]ould . . . agree that three-million rear end
accidents occur a year, and only about half those folks fully recover?” Dr. Bhatia
responded that he hadn’t researched that issue but the statement seemed “extremely out
12
of the usual.” Counsel then showed him the pamphlet, which he did not recognize. After
a series of questions, it became clear that Dr. Bhatia had never seen the pamphlet before,
and to his knowledge it had never been displayed in any of his offices. Defense counsel
objected that the pamphlet lacked foundation and the trial court sustained the objection.
The second area related to Dr. Bhatia’s outside income disclosures to his
employer, UCI. Plaintiff wanted to show Dr. Bhatia was violating UCI’s disclosure
policy by reporting only a portion of the income he earned as a forensic expert. In this
vein, during cross-examination counsel asked Dr. Bhatia to estimate how much he had
earned from his expert work in 2016. When Dr. Bhatia answered it was likely somewhere
around $200,000, counsel showed him his income disclosure for the 2015-2016 reporting
period, which listed outside earnings of 32,700. Dr. Bhatia explained that UCI’s reporting
requirement applied only to income earned from commitments that directly conflicted
with his work at the university, which is why he had reported a lower number. In an
attempt to demonstrate Dr. Bhatia’s interpretation was wrong, counsel showed him UCI’s
disclosure policy for the year 2014. During a lengthy series of questions, counsel and Dr.
Bhatia went back and forth pointing out the places in the policy that supported their
respective interpretations. When counsel tried to read to the jury certain clauses of the
policy he believed supported his interpretation, the trial court sustained defendants’
hearsay objection.
13
2. Discussion
Plaintiff argues the court erred by excluding the whiplash pamphlet because
foundation is not required for a prior inconsistent statement. Relying on Am-Cal
Investment Co., Inc. v. Sharlyn Estates, Inc. (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 526, 541 and
Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301, 316-317 (Jazayeri), he argues it was also
error to exclude the contents of UCI’s reporting policy as hearsay because the policy falls
within the “operative facts” exception. We disagree on both points.
Under Evidence Code section 780, “[t]he credibility of a witness may be attacked
by showing that, on some former occasion, he made statements ‘inconsistent with any
part of his [trial] testimony.’” (People v. Woodberry (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 695, 702-703;
Evid. Code, § 780, subd. (h).) A trial court has wide latitude in determining whether to
admit impeachment evidence, and we review the court’s ruling for abuse of discretion.
(People v. Turner (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 397, 408.)
Issues of foundation aside, there is a more fundamental reason for excluding the
whiplash pamphlet—it isn’t a prior inconsistent statement. Plaintiff wanted to use the
pamphlet’s statement that only about half of the people who experience whiplash will
recover to impeach Dr. Bhatia’s credibility, but nothing Dr. Bhatia said at trial was
inconsistent with the pamphlet’s generalized comment on whiplash. Dr. Bhatia gave
specific reasons for concluding that plaintiff had not suffered a disc injury but had instead
suffered a cervical strain. He never opined about cervical strains in general or how likely
people who suffer from a cervical strain are to recover. Additionally, even if the
14
statement were inconsistent with any of Dr. Bhatia’s testimony, plaintiff would not be
able to demonstrate prejudice. Because the statement is so generalized and contained in a
pamphlet Dr. Bhatia claimed to have never seen (let alone endorse), there is simply no
likelihood that its exclusion from the case had any effect on the jury’s unanimous
decision not to compensate plaintiff for the neck surgery.
As for UCI’s income reporting policy, plaintiff misunderstands the operative facts
exception. As Jazayeri explains, the hearsay exception applies when “the very fact in
controversy is whether certain things were said or done[,] not . . . whether these things
were true or false,” and the proffered document proves whether those things were in fact
said or done. (Jazayeri, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 316, quoting 1 Witkin, Cal.
Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Hearsay, § 31, p. 714, italics added.) The most common
application of this exception is where the parties dispute whether they had reached an
agreement, and the court allows the admission of a written contract, which would
otherwise be hearsay, as evidence that there had in fact been a meeting of the minds. That
is not the situation with the income reporting policy. During cross-examination, counsel
and Dr. Bhatia spent a significant amount of time debating the proper interpretation of
one particular clause in the policy. By seeking to admit the policy as evidence, plaintiff
was trying to demonstrate that his interpretation was correct, not that the policy exists. As
such, the court properly excluded the document as hearsay.
15
In any event, plaintiff cannot demonstrate this ruling prejudiced his case, either.
Though the policy was not admitted into evidence, counsel covered the relevant policy
language at length during cross-examination, at times quoting directly from the
document. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel also spent a significant portion of his closing
statement arguing that his interpretation of the policy was correct, meaning Dr. Bhatia
was underreporting the income he received for his forensic expert work. As a result, the
jurors had all of the information they needed to infer that Dr. Bhatia was not credible
based on his reporting conduct. But such an inference was unlikely on this record, given
Dr. Bhatia’s credentials and the fact the policy leaves room for his interpretation of the
reporting requirement. We therefore conclude there is no likelihood that admitting the
policy into evidence would have affected the outcome of the case.
C. Defendants’ Cross-Appeal Is Untimely
1. Additional facts
The trial court entered judgment on August 29, 2018. On September 13,
defendants sought a total of $139,951.97 in costs and fees under section 998. They sought
$111,774.88 in expert witness fees; the remaining fee request for $28,177.09 covered
ordinary litigation costs. While their cost memorandum separated their request into
various categories, defendants didn’t identify the dates on which any of the costs had
been incurred. Plaintiff filed a motion to tax the majority of defendants’ costs on the
grounds the costs were either incurred pre-offer or unreasonable. Plaintiff attached
several invoices from defendants’ experts to show the costs had been incurred pre-offer.
16
In opposing the motion, defendants attached a declaration from their attorney which said
he was attaching a “true and correct copy of documents related to Defendant’s costs as
set forth in [their] Memorandum of costs,” but the declaration had no attachments.
On October 29, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the judgment. On November
7, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiff’s motion to tax costs and granted it in its
entirety, taxing $130,667.58 of defendants’ costs and awarding them the remaining
$9,284.39 The court found defendants’ request “deficient” because they failed to identify
the dates of the costs. The court also noted that defendants’ opposition failed to attach
any information regarding the costs or address the costs plaintiff had argued were
unreasonable. On December 10, defendants filed a notice of cross-appeal, checking the
box marked “other” and saying they were cross-appealing the court’s “order taxing
costs.”
2. Discussion
“Section 998 exists to encourage settlement of disputes, where possible, before the
parties and the public have incurred the sizeable expense of conducting a full-blown trial.
It applies in cases, like this one, where one party has made and the other party has
rejected a settlement offer before trial.” (Arave v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
Inc. (2018) 18 Cal.App.5th 1098, 1116.) The statute provides, “If an offer made by a
defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or
award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the
defendant’s costs from the time of the offer. In addition . . . the court . . . in its discretion,
17
may require the plaintiff to pay a reasonable sum to cover costs of the services of [the
defendant’s] expert witnesses . . . actually incurred and reasonably necessary.” (§ 998,
subd. (c).)
In their cross-appeal, defendants challenge the court’s order taxing the majority of
their section 998 request. They argue the court erroneously failed to treat their attorney’s
declaration “that all the costs in the Memorandum are true and accurate” as sufficient to
satisfy their burden of proving costs and expert fees under section 998. While this
argument fails for multiple reasons (the most obvious of which is that defendants have
mischaracterized the declaration—it did not say the costs listed in the memorandum were
true and accurate, it said it was attaching true and accurate information about the costs,
but then failed to do so), we lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of the cross-appeal,
because, as plaintiff correctly points out, defendants’ challenge is untimely.
Under the California Rules of Court, defendants were required to file their cross-
appeal within 20 days of the superior court serving them notice of plaintiff’s appeal,
which occurred on October 30, 2018. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.108(g).) As we’ve seen,
defendants did not file their notice until December 10, which is 21 days past the cross-
appeal deadline. A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement we may not
overlook. (Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1316 [in the absence
of a valid and timely notice of appeal, the reviewing court lacks jurisdiction].)
18
We note there is an additional jurisdiction issue with defendants’ challenge to the
cost order. A cross-appeal may challenge only the same judgment or orders challenged by
the underlying appeal (Aheroni v. Maxwell (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 284), and it is well
established that “[a]n award of expert witness fees [under] section 998 is not incidental to
the judgment but is instead a separately litigated issue.” (Fish v. Guevara (1993) 12
Cal.App.4th 142, 148.) This is because, while section 998 makes ordinary litigation costs
mandatory, it gives the trial court discretion to award expert fees. (§ 998, subd. (c).) And,
because it is not incidental to the judgment, “a postjudgment award of expert witness fees
cannot be reviewed on an appeal [or cross-appeal] from the judgment” but must instead
be the subject of a separate notice of appeal. (Fish, at p. 148.) In other words, plaintiff’s
“notice of appeal from the judgment did not create appellate jurisdiction over the trial
court’s subsequent [ruling on] . . . expert witness fees” such that a cross-appeal would be
sufficient to challenge the ruling. (Ibid.) Thus, untimeliness aside, defendants’ cross-
appeal would not give us jurisdiction to review the court’s order taxing expert fees—
which, at $111,774.88 were the bulk of the costs taxed. To challenge that order,
defendants were required to file a separate notice of appeal.
19
We note there is an additional jurisdiction issue with defendants’ challenge to the
cost order. A cross-appeal may challenge only the same judgment or orders challenged by
the underlying appeal (Aheroni v. Maxwell (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 284), and it is well
established that “[a]n award of expert witness fees [under] section 998 is not incidental to
the judgment but is instead a separately litigated issue.” (Fish v. Guevara (1993) 12
Cal.App.4th 142, 148.) This is because, while section 998 makes ordinary litigation costs
mandatory, it gives the trial court discretion to award expert fees. (§ 998, subd. (c).) And,
because it is not incidental to the judgment, “a postjudgment award of expert witness fees
cannot be reviewed on an appeal [or cross-appeal] from the judgment” but must instead
be the subject of a separate notice of appeal. (Fish, at p. 148.) In other words, plaintiff’s
“notice of appeal from the judgment did not create appellate jurisdiction over the trial
court’s subsequent [ruling on] . . . expert witness fees” such that a cross-appeal would be
sufficient to challenge the ruling. (Ibid.) Thus, untimeliness aside, defendants’ cross-
appeal would not give us jurisdiction to review the court’s order taxing expert fees—
which, at $111,774.88 were the bulk of the costs taxed. To challenge that order,
defendants were required to file a separate notice of appeal.
20
III
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment and dismiss defendants’ cross-appeal. In the interests of
justice, the parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.278(a)(5).)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
SLOUGH
J.
We concur:
MILLER
Acting P. J.
FIELDS
J.
21