Tamamian v. Delgado CA2/1 ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Filed 6/23/23 Tamamian v. Delgado CA2/1
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION ONE
    JACK HAGOP TAMAMIAN,                                                B317575
    Plaintiff and Appellant,                                  (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. BC703639)
    v.
    MAREK SOTO DELGADO,
    Defendant and Respondent.
    Appeal from a judgment and an order of the Superior
    Court of Los Angeles County, Cary H. Nishimoto, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    Feher Law, Thomas S. Feher, Andrew V. Alexandroff
    and Nahid A. McGlynn for Plaintiff and Appellant.
    Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar, John K. Paulson,
    Emily T. Zinn and David J. Mendoza for Defendant and
    Respondent.
    ______________________________
    In October 2016, Marek Delgado (Delgado) rear-ended
    Jack Tamamian (Tamamian) on the Interstate 210 freeway in
    Pasadena, California. Tamamian reported no pain or injury at
    the time of the collision. Two years later, he filed a personal
    injury suit against Delgado claiming that the accident triggered
    the onset of debilitating lower back and leg pain. Following a
    two-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Delgado,
    concluding that the accident was not a substantial factor in
    causing Tamamian’s alleged harm. Tamamian then filed motions
    for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial,
    both of which the trial court denied.
    Tamamian now asks us to reverse the order denying
    his posttrial motions. He contends that no evidence whatsoever
    supports the jury’s verdict because all trial witnesses agreed
    that he suffered at least some harm in the collision. He urges
    further that a host of purported trial errors—namely, improper
    cross-examination and closing argument by defense counsel, the
    erroneous admission of belatedly disclosed evidence, and error
    in reading back certain expert testimony to the jury—requires
    that we grant him a new trial. We conclude, however, that
    substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict, and that any
    trial errors were harmless. We therefore affirm.
    FACTUAL SUMMARY AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1
    A.    The Accident
    At approximately 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, October 1, 2016,
    Delgado, driving a Cadillac sedan, rear-ended Tamamian, who
    was driving a Toyota Tacoma. The collision was minor enough
    1 We summarize here only the facts and procedural history
    relevant to our resolution of this appeal.
    2
    that the parties did not call the police. Instead, Delgado and
    Tamamian each exited their vehicles, exchanged information,
    and then returned to their cars and drove away from the accident
    site.
    Tamamian did not report any pain or injury at the time of
    the collision, and he drove to work at Speedy Radiator—an auto
    body shop where he services radiators—immediately following
    the accident. He worked a half day, consistent with his typical
    Saturday schedule. Tamamian’s radiator repair work, which he
    has performed for over 35 years, is physically demanding. The
    job requires that he slide underneath cars and remove radiators
    from vehicles.
    B.    The Initial and Supplemental Repair Estimates
    On November 15, 2016, a month and a half after the
    collision, Tamamian obtained a repair estimate for the damage
    to his truck. The estimate totaled $1,651.10 and called for, inter
    alia, the repair of the truck’s bumper and tailgate. The estimate
    did not identify any frame damage to the vehicle.
    Tamamian received the funds necessary to complete
    the repairs to his truck, but elected not to do so. Instead, he
    continued driving the truck in its postaccident condition for
    three years.
    On September 6, 2019—nearly three years after the initial
    estimate and more than a year after filing the complaint in this
    action (discussed post)—Tamamian obtained a supplemental
    repair estimate for his truck. This second estimate was
    significantly higher, identifying $4,176.73 in necessary repairs.
    In contrast to the initial repair estimate, the supplemental
    estimate indicated that the truck had sustained frame damage.
    3
    C.    Tamamian’s Medical Treatment
    Tamamian first sought medical treatment for lower back
    pain three days after the October 1, 2016 collision. He went to
    urgent care, where medical personnel gave him a shot for the
    pain and referred him to a chiropractor. The chiropractor treated
    Tamamian for several months in 2016 and 2017.
    Because Tamamian indicated that his lower back
    pain had not improved, the chiropractor referred him to
    Dr. Stepan Kasimian, an orthopedic surgeon. Seventy percent
    of Dr. Kasimian’s practice is “lien-based care,” meaning that,
    for patients who are personal injury plaintiffs, Dr. Kasimian
    agrees the patients may defer paying for his medical services
    until their personal injury actions have resolved. Dr. Kasimian
    agreed to treat Tamamian on a lien basis.
    Dr. Kasimian performed an initial examination of
    Tamamian on December 18, 2017, and a second examination on
    February 5, 2018. Tamamian indicated he was experiencing pain
    in his lower back and the entirety of his right leg, in addition to
    numbness in the toes on his left foot. Dr. Kasimian ordered an
    MRI for Tamamian, as well as a nerve test and x-rays.
    Based on the results of these tests and Tamamian’s
    reported symptoms, Dr. Kasimian referred him to Dr. Lawrence
    Miller, a pain management physician who practices with
    Dr. Kasimian’s medical group. Dr. Miller concluded that
    Tamamian’s other medical conditions—which included diabetes,
    kidney stones, and prior colon cancer—made him a poor
    candidate for an epidural steroid injection, a nonsurgical option
    designed to mitigate back pain. At some point between February
    and July 2018, Dr. Kasimian therefore recommended that
    Tamamian undergo lumbar decompression surgery.
    4
    Tamamian, however, initially decided against surgery and
    for the next two years limited his treatment to home exercises.
    Tamamian continued working at Speedy Radiator throughout
    this time period. Not until February 2, 2020—more than three
    years after the collision and nearly two years after Tamamian
    filed his personal injury claims against Delgado—did he decide
    to undergo the surgery. Dr. Kasimian charged Tamamian
    approximately $41,600 for the procedure.
    Following the surgery, Tamamian experienced some
    temporary relief of his symptoms, but within a few months his
    lower back pain returned, accompanied by new pain radiating
    down his left leg. Dr. Kasimian therefore recommended a
    “revision surgery,” during which he would insert a cage into
    Tamamian’s spine in an effort to relieve pressure on the nerve
    located at the L5-S1 vertebrae. As of the time of trial in this
    action, Tamamian had not yet scheduled the revision surgery.
    D.    Trial Proceedings
    On April 24, 2018, Tamamian filed a complaint against
    Delgado in connection with the October 1, 2016 collision.2
    Tamamian and his wife, Aida Starr Tamamian (Aida), then
    filed a first amended complaint on June 20, 2018. The amended
    complaint asserted causes of action for motor vehicle negligence
    and general negligence on behalf of Tamamian, as well as a loss
    of consortium claim on Aida’s behalf. On November 26, 2019,
    Aida dismissed her loss of consortium claim, leaving Tamamian
    as the sole plaintiff in the action.
    2  In addition to Delgado, the complaint named the owner
    of the vehicle as a defendant. The trial court subsequently
    granted a judgment of nonsuit as to the owner, and he is not a
    party to this appeal.
    5
    The case proceeded to jury trial in September 2021.
    Delgado conceded negligence, but disputed causation and
    damages. Over the course of the two-week trial, Tamamian
    presented testimony from Aida and his son, Vartan Tamamian
    (Vartan), concerning how his lower back pain had impacted his
    quality of life. In addition, Tamamian testified on his own behalf.
    Tamamian did not call his chiropractor or his urgent care
    doctor as trial witnesses. He did, however, present testimony
    from Dr. Kasimian, Dr. Miller, and two other medical experts—
    neurosurgeon Dr. Andrew Fox and neuroradiologist Dr. Brian
    King—in support of his claims that the collision caused his
    lower back and leg pain. Tamamian’s medical experts explained
    that, prior to the accident, Tamamian likely had preexisting
    degenerative changes in his back, including a herniated disc and
    narrowing of his spinal nerve pathway. They opined, however,
    that the collision served as a catalyst for Tamamian’s symptoms.
    Dr. Fox, for example, likened Tamamian’s condition to an
    aneurysm:
    “So I equate this as a neurosurgeon it’s like having an
    aneurysm. You can have an aneurysm and it’s asymptomatic
    but all of a sudden you have change in pressure, that aneurysm
    ruptures. . . . So [Tamamian] has an underlying pathology
    but [it was] asymptomatic and he didn’t know about becoming
    symptomatic until he had an event which caused him to become
    symptomatic.”
    In addition to medical experts, Tamamian presented
    testimony from Brian Smith, a biomechanics expert, concerning
    the forces generated by the collision.
    During the defense case, Delgado called as a witness
    Dr. Missak Klitchian, Tamamian’s family physician, who testified
    6
    that Tamamian visited him only infrequently and had not
    adequately controlled his diabetes for five or 10 years.
    Delgado also offered testimony from his own medical
    experts—neuroradiologist Dr. Rachel Gordon and neurosurgeon
    Dr. Luke Macyszyn—who opined that the accident did not cause
    Tamamian’s lower back and leg pain. Dr. Gordon explained,
    based on a comparison of a 2012 CT scan of Tamamian’s
    abdomen with his postaccident MRI films, that Tamamian
    had had “a pretty degenerative back” since “at least . . . 2012,”
    and noted that she saw no evidence of trauma-based injuries.
    Dr. Macyszyn testified further that the “most reasonable and
    straightforward explanation[s] for [Tamamian’s] symptoms
    of . . . feeling numbness in his legs” were his diabetes and the
    chemotherapy he had received to treat his colon cancer.
    In addition, Delgado presented testimony from his own
    accident biomechanics expert, Daniel Voss, as well as from
    an expert in medical billing, Henry Lubow, who testified that
    Dr. Kasimian’s charges for the surgery were unreasonably high.
    Tamamian did not present any rebuttal witnesses. In
    closing argument, he asked the jury to award him over $350,000
    for medical expenses and to award between $2 and $4 million to
    compensate him for past and future noneconomic harm resulting
    from the accident.
    Over the course of their day-long deliberations, the jurors
    made several requests. As relevant here, the jury asked “to hear
    Dr. King’s testimony regarding flare-up—(II exam) and his cross-
    examination.” In response, the trial court permitted a readback
    to the jury of Dr. King’s cross-examination. Approximately an
    hour after the readback, the jury returned a 9 to 3 verdict for the
    defense, indicating on the special verdict form its conclusion that
    7
    Delgado’s negligence was not “a substantial factor in causing
    harm to [Tamamian].”
    Tamamian subsequently filed a motion for judgment
    notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. The trial court
    denied both motions at a December 10, 2021 hearing, explaining
    in relevant part:
    “The thing that I think [Tamamian] missed is that the
    optics of this case did not sit well with the jury. We’re talking
    about a rear-end accident that ultimately there was evidence that
    [the car] wasn’t even damaged. And yet there were two—two
    damage estimates, but [Tamamian] continued to drive the car for
    three years. How could anyone drive a vehicle at all, much less
    for three years, if it’s got frame damage? . . . After the accident
    [Tamamian] continued on with his daily activities. . . . And [he]
    was not asking the jury for three months of—of medicals. [He
    was] asking for medicals based on $120,000 worth of medical
    treatment of which the jury could easily have concluded that
    the $46,000 that Dr. Kasimian charged for his surgery was
    unnecessary. Either that or it was merely a—a surgery to
    correct what was a preexisting injury. . . . The jury is entitled
    to disregard expert witnesses. . . . And I think this entire case
    boils down to the issue of credibility of [Tamamian] and his
    wife. . . . So I—I think that the tentative rulings are correct and
    those will be the order.”
    Tamamian timely appealed.
    8
    DISCUSSION
    A.    The Trial Court Properly Denied Tamamian’s
    Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the
    Verdict
    “On appeal from an order denying a motion for
    judgment notwithstanding the verdict, our standard of
    review . . . is ‘whether any substantial evidence—contradicted
    or uncontradicted—supports the jury’s conclusion.’ [Citation.]
    We may not reweigh evidence or consider witnesses’ credibility.
    [Citation.] Rather, we view the evidence in the light most
    favorable to the jury’s verdict, we disregard conflicting evidence,
    and we draw all legitimate inferences in favor of the verdict.”
    (Morgan v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2021) 
    60 Cal.App.5th 1078
    , 1085 (Morgan).)
    Tamamian does not dispute that he bore the burden at
    trial of demonstrating that the collision was a “substantial factor”
    in causing his alleged harm—namely, his lower back and leg
    pain, along with the loss of enjoyment of life that he contends
    resulted from that pain. (See Crouch v. Trinity Christian Center
    of Santa Ana, Inc. (2019) 
    39 Cal.App.5th 995
    , 1014 (Crouch).)
    Nor does he contend that the trial court misinstructed the
    jury concerning the definition of “substantial factor.”3 Instead,
    Tamamian contends that no evidence whatsoever supports the
    jury’s determination that the collision was not a substantial
    3 The court instructed the jury, using CACI No. 430,
    that “[a] substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a
    reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the
    harm. It must be more than a remote or trivial factor. It does
    not have to be the only cause of the harm. Conduct is not a
    substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have
    occurred without that conduct.”
    9
    factor in causing his alleged harm because “all witnesses agreed
    that [he] had an onset of low back pain following the October 1,
    2016 motor vehicle collision—and that [his] pain was caused by
    the subject collision.” At a minimum, Tamamian urges, the
    defense expert witnesses agreed that he suffered a lower back
    muscle strain as a result of the accident.
    The record belies Tamamian’s contentions. As an initial
    matter, no defense expert offered an opinion that Tamamian “had
    an onset of low back pain” following the collision. The testimony
    on which Tamamian relies for this argument consists merely of
    the defense experts’ confirmation (on cross examination) of the
    contents of Tamamian’s deposition transcripts and medical
    records—materials the experts had no hand in preparing.4 Such
    testimony does not constitute agreement by the defense experts
    that Tamamian in fact experienced pain following the collision or
    that the accident caused his pain.
    Moreover, Tamamian ignores testimony from each
    of Delgado’s experts expressly disavowing that the collision
    triggered his pain. Dr. Gordon testified that Tamamian’s 2012
    CT scan and postaccident MRI films indicated that he had had
    “a pretty degenerative back” since “at least . . . 2012,” and that
    the films contained no evidence of trauma-based injury to his
    4
    For example, Tamamian points to the following testimony
    from Dr. Gordon:
    “[Plaintiff ’s counsel:] All right. And in your review of this
    information, you understand that . . . Tamamian’s symptoms
    of low back pain and radicular symptoms started after the
    October 1st, 2016 collision; correct?
    “[Dr. Gordon:] That was what was in his medical records,
    yes.”
    10
    spine. Dr. Macyszyn opined similarly, testifying that, to the
    extent Tamamian suffered any injury in the collision, it would
    have been “at most” a minor back strain:
    “Once again, when I reviewed all these records, and, you
    know, obviously there’s a lot of them, you know, I see you know
    an older patient who has degenerative disease in [the] lumbar
    spine. There was a very minor accident that occurred. Patient
    continued to go to work the following day or the following week,
    continued to work physically in a laborious job. [He] [d]id not
    require treatment for, you know, three to four years. To me this
    was a minor injury that at most led to a musculoligamentous
    strain, so like a back strain that all of us have experienced
    at some point that self-resolved. And the rest of the stuff is
    unrelated to this, once again, minor accident.” (Italics added.)
    Finally, although Voss, the defense biomechanics expert,
    testified that the forces generated by the collision could affect
    a human body by causing a “sprain [or] strain[,] particularly in
    the neck [or] upper back,” he also testified that a person’s lower
    back—the area Tamamian contends he injured in the accident—
    would be “well supported” in such a collision. And Voss testified
    further that the “force in th[e] collision would be significantly less
    than the force involved in” the activities of “daily living,” such as
    “simply bending over.”
    Accordingly, we conclude that the trial record contains
    substantial evidence supporting the jury’s finding that the
    accident was not a substantial factor in causing Tamamian’s
    alleged harm. The trial court therefore properly denied
    Tamamian’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
    (See Morgan, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 1085.)
    11
    B.    The Trial Court Acted Within Its Discretion in
    Denying Tamamian’s Motion for a New Trial
    “ ‘An order denying a motion for new trial will not be set
    aside unless there was an abuse of discretion that resulted in
    prejudicial error.’ [Citation.] We accord great deference to the
    trial court’s exercise of its wide discretion in ruling on a motion
    for a new trial. [Citation.] In reviewing an order denying a
    motion for a new trial, we review the entire record, including
    the evidence, and independently determine whether any error
    was prejudicial.” (Crouch, supra, 39 Cal.App.5th at p. 1018.) A
    trial court’s decision regarding the admission of evidence is also
    reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Meeks v. AutoZone, Inc. (2018)
    
    24 Cal.App.5th 855
    , 861, 867 (Meeks).)
    Here, Tamamian contends that he is entitled to a new trial
    because (1) the court erroneously permitted defense counsel to
    examine various witnesses on allegedly improper topics, (2) the
    court erred in admitting evidence of Tamamian’s 2012 CT scan
    and by permitting Dr. Gordon to offer new opinions related to
    the scan, (3) defense counsel made improper closing arguments,
    and (4) the trial court erred by reading back to the jury only
    Dr. King’s testimony on cross-examination, rather than the
    entirety of his testimony. As detailed below, each of Tamamian’s
    arguments fails.
    1.    Allegedly Improper Examination Topics
    a.    Aida’s loss of consortium claim and
    her employment as a paralegal
    Tamamian first contends that the trial court erred by
    permitting defense counsel to cross-examine Aida concerning
    her dismissed loss of consortium claim and her employment as
    12
    a paralegal at HG Law—a law firm that previously represented
    Tamamian in this case. We disagree.
    Tamamian’s insistence that such testimony “provides zero
    probative value” because it “does not tend to prove or disprove
    the severity or extent of [his] injuries” ignores that defense
    counsel is entitled to probe a witness’s credibility. (See Newman
    v. Los Angeles Transit Lines (1953) 
    120 Cal.App.2d 685
    , 691 [“[A]
    witness may be required to answer any question which tends to
    test [her] accuracy, veracity or credibility and especially in the
    case of a party to the action where [she] appears as a witness.
    [Citation.] Great latitude should be allowed in developing the
    existence of bias. [Citation.] Liberal cross-examination is the
    rule.”].) Aida’s employment as a paralegal at a law firm that
    once represented her husband, as well as her status as a former
    party to the action, were relevant to the jury’s assessment of her
    credibility because these factors might have affected the nature
    and content of her trial testimony.
    Moreover, Tamamian offers no legal authority in support
    of his contention that cross-examining Aida on these topics
    resulted in undue prejudice. The two cases on which he relies
    do not address the propriety of examining witnesses concerning
    their employment status or regarding dismissed claims. (See
    Richard v. Scott (1978) 
    79 Cal.App.3d 57
    ; Holling v. Chandler
    (1966) 
    241 Cal.App.2d 19
    .) We therefore are unpersuaded that a
    new trial is warranted on this basis.
    b.    Aida’s and Vartan’s prior personal
    injury claims
    Next, Tamamian insists that we must grant him a new
    trial because defense counsel improperly questioned Aida and
    Vartan concerning their involvement in prior, unrelated personal
    injury litigation. Again, we disagree.
    13
    Although Tamamian contends there is “a plethora of
    case law” in support of his position, he points to only two cases,
    neither of which concerns the permissibility of cross-examining
    nonparty witnesses concerning their involvement in prior
    litigation: Downing v. Barrett Mobile Home Transport, Inc.
    (1974) 
    38 Cal.App.3d 519
     (Downing) and Lowenthal v. Mortimer
    (1954) 
    125 Cal.App.2d 636
     (Lowenthal).
    In Downing, the Fourth Appellate District held that
    a trial court erred in permitting the introduction of a party’s
    involvement in another accident because “[g]enerally, evidence
    that a litigant was involved in a prior accident is inadmissible
    when its only purported relevance is to show a propensity for
    negligent acts.” (Downing, supra, 38 Cal.App.3d at p. 524.)
    Downing thus does not address the issue relevant here—namely,
    the propriety of admitting evidence of a witness’s involvement in
    prior litigation.
    Lowenthal lends more support to Tamamian’s position,
    but still is not dispositive of the issue. In Lowenthal, the
    defendant rear-ended the plaintiffs, a husband and wife who
    owned a delicatessen. (Lowenthal, supra, 125 Cal.App.2d at
    p. 638.) “On cross-examination[,] [the wife] testified that their
    business required a cheerful person behind the counter, that
    after the accident her husband was irritable, [and] that this
    caused them to worry about being able to resume their business.”
    (Id. at p. 639.) Purportedly to offer another explanation for the
    husband’s “ ‘irritability,’ ” defense counsel proceeded to cross-
    examine plaintiffs concerning their involvement in 15 prior
    commercial lawsuits “wholly unrelated to personal injuries.”
    (Id. at p. 640.) The Lowenthal court held that the trial
    court erred in permitting this line of questioning, explaining:
    “Introduction of the element of 15 other lawsuits could have had
    14
    no effect other than to prejudice the jury against the plaintiffs.
    For litigiousness, in the eyes of most people, reflects more upon
    character than upon impairment of health.” (Id. at p. 642.)
    Tamamian concedes that Lowenthal does not address the
    propriety of cross-examining a nonparty witness (as opposed to a
    party) concerning involvement in prior personal injury litigation,
    but he insists that “[i]f a party’s litigation history is irrelevant, it
    is the undeniable proposition that a nonparty witness’s litigation
    history is similarly irrelevant.”
    We need not resolve this issue because—even assuming
    the court erred in permitting cross-examination concerning prior
    personal injury actions—Tamamian has failed to demonstrate
    prejudice. The record does not support Tamamian’s contention
    that defense counsel spent “countless hours with several
    witnesses on the . . . topic” of prior litigation. Indeed, Tamamian
    identifies only two limited instances of questioning on the
    topic: approximately two pages of transcripts from the cross-
    examination of Vartan and another two pages of transcripts from
    the cross-examination of Aida.
    In addition, the testimony that defense counsel elicited
    from Vartan and Aida was not analogous to the prejudicial
    revelation in Lowenthal that plaintiffs had been involved
    in 15 prior lawsuits. (Lowenthal, supra, 125 Cal.App.2d at
    pp. 639–640.) Vartan testified that he had filed a personal
    injury suit only once before, in connection with a hip injury,
    and that he had previously filed one workers’ compensation
    claim in connection with a lower back injury. Aida testified
    that she similarly had filed a personal injury suit only once, after
    being hit by a drunk driver. Particularly in light of plaintiff ’s
    counsel’s argument emphasizing that Tamamian had “never filed
    a lawsuit before or any kind of claim,” Tamamian has failed to
    15
    demonstrate that defense counsel’s limited cross-examination of
    Aida and Vartan on the topic resulted in prejudice. (See Crouch,
    supra, 39 Cal.App.5th at p. 1018.)
    c.    Two repair estimates
    Finally, we are not persuaded that defense counsel’s
    questioning of witnesses concerning the two repair estimates
    for Tamamian’s truck requires a new trial here.
    Tamamian first argues that the court erred in permitting
    any evidence of two separate estimates because “[t]he process of
    two repair estimates is standard, ubiquitous, and not suggestive
    of fraud or any ulterior motives,” and “[t]he [c]ourt failed to
    appreciate the commonality of two repair estimates being
    performed.” At trial, however, Tamamian admitted that it is
    “uncommon” for a supplemental repair estimate to take place
    three years following the initial estimate.5 We therefore agree
    with the trial court’s conclusion that “why [Tamamian] would
    ask for the vehicle to be repaired three years” after the collision
    arguably “calls into question his credibility.” The court therefore
    did not abuse its discretion in permitting evidence of the two
    repair estimates. (Meeks, supra, 24 Cal.App.5th at p. 861.)
    Tamamian next contends that—even if the court did not
    err in admitting evidence of the two estimates—defense counsel
    violated a stipulation and trial court rulings concerning the scope
    of permissible questioning by examining “multiple witnesses”
    on the topic for “[m]ultiple hours” in a manner designed to
    5  We note further that, although he did not testify
    at trial, Farmers Insurance’s person most knowledgeable
    confirmed at deposition that a three-year delay between initial
    and supplemental repair estimates is “unusual.”
    16
    “insinuate fraud” and attorney involvement in the supplemental
    repair estimate. (Italics omitted.)
    The record does not contain any stipulation between the
    parties on the topic.6 Tamamian is correct, however, that the
    trial court instructed defense counsel not to reference attorney
    involvement in obtaining the supplemental estimate and not to
    intimate fraud.
    We disagree that defense counsel ran afoul of the court’s
    rulings by “spen[ding] hours questioning witnesses about the two
    repair estimates.” The record does not support this contention.
    Tamamian identifies only 13 lines of transcripts from the two-
    week trial that he claims constituted improper questioning on
    the topic.
    But we agree with Tamamian that this testimony does
    reflect that defense counsel arguably violated the court’s
    rulings by suggesting attorney involvement in obtaining the
    supplemental estimate:
    “[Defense counsel:] If your law firm was representing
    your husband in 2019, you would have been representing him
    at the time of that [sic] second vehicle repair estimate was
    performed, correct?
    “[Aida:] Yes. I believe so.
    “[Defense counsel:] Okay. And so who arranged for this
    second inspection in September 2019 to take place?
    “[Aida:] I don’t recall.
    “[Defense counsel:] Okay. Whose idea was it?
    “[Aida:] What do you mean?
    6  The portion of the record to which Tamamian cites
    reflects only that his own counsel proposed such a stipulation.
    We see no indication that defense counsel agreed to the proposal.
    17
    “[Defense counsel:] Whose idea was it to go get a second
    inspection done?
    “[Aida:] It was not a second inspection.”
    In our view, defense counsel’s questions skirted—rather
    than outright flouted—the trial court’s prohibition on referencing
    attorney involvement in obtaining the supplemental estimate.
    Even assuming, however, that defense counsel violated the trial
    court’s rulings, we are not persuaded that the “ ‘misconduct . . .
    was sufficiently egregious to cause prejudice.’ ” (Fernandez v.
    Jimenez (2019) 
    40 Cal.App.5th 482
    , 494 (Fernandez).) Our
    determination “ ‘ “ultimately rest[s] upon [our] view of the overall
    record, taking into account such factors, inter alia, as the nature
    and seriousness of the remarks and misconduct.” ’ ” (Id. at
    p. 494.)
    Viewed in the context of the entire trial record,
    defense counsel’s four questions arguably suggesting attorney
    involvement in the supplemental repair estimate were harmless.
    The jury did not hear any direct evidence of attorney involvement
    in the repair estimate process; to the contrary, Aida testified
    that she did not know who arranged for the supplemental
    estimate. Moreover, Tamamian elicited testimony from his
    own biomechanics expert aimed at demonstrating the ubiquity
    of supplemental repair estimates.
    Accordingly, we conclude that any error resulting from
    defense counsel’s inquiries concerning attorney involvement in
    the supplemental repair estimate was harmless.
    2.    2012 CT Scan and Dr. Gordon’s New Opinions
    Next, Tamamian contends that we must grant a new trial
    because the court abused its discretion by (1) admitting into
    18
    evidence a 2012 CT scan of his abdomen,7 and (2) permitting
    Dr. Gordon to testify that (a) all people have back pain, and
    (b) Tamamian must have had pain prior to the collision—opinions
    that Tamamian contends Dr. Gordon never offered in deposition.
    As an initial matter, Tamamian has forfeited these
    contentions on appeal by failing to support his arguments
    with adequate citations to the record. (See Cal. Rules of Court,
    rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [“[e]ach brief must . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . [s]upport
    any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume
    and page number of the record where the matter appears”];
    Liberty National Enterprises, L.P. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co. (2011)
    
    194 Cal.App.4th 839
    , 846 [“We look askance at this practice of
    stating what purport to be facts—and not unimportant facts—
    without support in the record. This is a violation of the rules,
    specifically rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) of the California Rules of Court,
    with the consequence that such assertions will, at a minimum, be
    disregarded.”].)
    Moreover, even if considered on their merits, Tamamian’s
    contentions fail. As to the 2012 CT scan, Tamamian argues
    that defense counsel impermissibly subpoenaed the scan
    from Hill Medical Corporation after the close of discovery, and
    that after he moved to quash the subpoenas, defense counsel
    misrepresented that they had withdrawn them. He urges further
    that the trial court prohibited him from addressing the scan in
    his case in chief. Nothing in the record supports these assertions.
    Tamamian appears to have confused subpoenas Delgado issued
    to Huntington Memorial Hospital—which Tamamian did move to
    7 The record reflects that the trial court did not, in fact,
    admit the 2012 CT scan into evidence, but the court did permit
    its use as a demonstrative and allowed Dr. Gordon to testify
    concerning the scan.
    19
    quash—with subpoenas issued to Hill Medical Corporation, the
    entity that produced the 2012 CT scan. And we see no indication
    that the trial court ruled that Tamamian could not address the
    scan during his case in chief.
    With respect to Dr. Gordon’s trial testimony, the record
    discloses that defense counsel informed Tamamian on August 3,
    2021—more than a month before trial—that Dr. Gordon had
    formulated new opinions, offered to make her available for a
    second deposition, and offered to cover the cost of that deposition.
    Defense counsel also offered to provide an expert report in lieu
    of testimony. Tamamian failed to respond to these offers.
    Instead, he waited until September 3, 2021 to file a motion in
    limine to exclude Dr. Gordon’s testimony, which the trial court
    denied during a September 15, 2021 hearing. At that same
    hearing—held two days before the start of jury selection—the
    trial court denied Tamamian’s subsequent request to redepose
    Dr. Gordon, reasoning: “Counsel previously were given the
    opportunity to depose said expert, and declined.” On this record,
    we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in
    permitting Dr. Gordon to offer new opinions at trial. (See
    Easterby v. Clark (2009) 
    171 Cal.App.4th 772
    , 780 [trial court
    committed reversible error in striking expert trial testimony not
    previously offered at deposition, where counsel provided notice of
    expert’s changed opinions three months prior to trial].)
    3.    Purportedly Improper Closing Arguments
    Next, Tamamian contends that we must grant a new trial
    because defense counsel made improper closing arguments by
    (1) asserting, purportedly without evidentiary support, that
    Tamamian had preexisting lower back pain, and (2) commenting
    20
    on Tamamian’s failure to call his chiropractor and urgent care
    doctor as trial witnesses. We disagree with both arguments.
    Contrary to Tamamian’s contention, the record does
    contain at least some evidence supporting defense counsel’s
    argument in closing that it was “not reasonable” for “[a]
    60-year-old gentleman who has been working replacing radiators
    for over 30 years . . . [to] ha[ve] no back pain.” Tamamian’s 2012
    CT scan reflects that he had significant, degenerative changes
    in his spine at least four years prior to the accident, and he
    worked for more than 30 years repairing radiators—a physically
    demanding job that Tamamian’s own expert witnesses conceded
    could impact his spine health.
    And we conclude that any error8 by defense counsel in
    commenting on Tamamian’s failure to call his chiropractor or
    urgent care physician was harmless. The comment of which
    8 Tamamian contends that long-standing caselaw holds
    that such comments were impermissible. (See Smith v. Covell
    (1980) 
    100 Cal.App.3d 947
    , 956–957 [“Defense counsel in his
    rebuttal argument commented on plaintiffs’ failure to call as
    witnesses the doctors . . . who had treated [one plaintiff] for
    injuries sustained in the accident; the implication was that
    such doctors would have testified adversely to plaintiffs’ case.”
    “[That] conduct was prejudicial in an unmeasured amount
    but adds support to the conclusion that reversal and retrial of
    the issue of damages is mandated.”]; Patton v. Royal Industries,
    Inc. (1968) 
    263 Cal.App.2d 760
    , 769.) Delgado counters that
    Tamamian ignores more recent authority from our Supreme
    Court. (See People v. Gonzales (2012) 
    54 Cal.4th 1234
    , 1275 [“it
    is neither unusual nor improper to comment on the failure to call
    logical witnesses”].) We need not resolve this issue, in light of our
    conclusion that any such error was harmless.
    21
    Tamamian complains is limited to six lines of transcripts9 in
    a closing argument spanning more than 25 pages. Moreover, the
    jury heard from Tamamian’s treating physicians Dr. Kasimian
    and Dr. Miller, as well as two other medical experts, all of whom
    provided testimony in support of Tamamian’s assertions that he
    experienced severe back and leg pain as a result of the collision.
    Accordingly, we conclude that defense counsel’s arguments were
    harmless. (See Fernandez, supra, 40 Cal.App.5th at p. 492.)
    4.    Readback of Dr. King’s Cross-Examination
    Testimony
    Finally, Tamamian argues that the trial court reversibly
    erred by permitting a readback to the jury of only the cross-
    examination of Dr. King, Tamamian’s neuroradiology expert,
    rather than the entirety of his testimony. Although Tamamian
    argues there was “a good-faith dispute as to what testimony the
    jurors wanted to be read back,” he provides no citations to the
    record substantiating such a dispute. Nor does Tamamian point
    to any legal authority in support of his contention that reading
    back only the portion of a witness’s testimony requested by the
    jury is unduly prejudicial. (Contra Asplund v. Driskell (1964)
    
    225 Cal.App.2d 705
    , 714 [“[I]t is not the party to whom the law
    gives the right to select testimony to be read. And the law does
    not make the party or his attorney the arbiter to determine the
    jury’s wishes.”].) We therefore are not persuaded that a new trial
    is warranted on this basis.
    9 Defense counsel argued: “So let’s get to the specifics. Did
    we hear from the chiropractor? No. Did we hear from the urgent
    care doctor? No. We called his primary care physician. We
    didn’t hear from the owner of the premises. Now, in this case, if
    the chiropractor was crucial, why didn’t we hear from him?”
    22
    DISPOSITION
    We affirm the October 5, 2021 judgment entered following
    the jury trial, as well as the trial court’s December 10, 2021 order
    denying Tamamian’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the
    verdict and for a new trial. Respondent Delgado is awarded his
    costs on appeal.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
    ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
    We concur:
    CHANEY, J.
    WEINGART, J.
    23
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B317575

Filed Date: 6/23/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/23/2023