Ruling by
Dennis M. PerlussLower Court
Los Angeles County Superior CourtLower Court Judge
Elihu M. BerleTrial court erred in rejecting expert testimony simply because it was based on inadmissible evidence, without further consideration of reliability of data used, and error was prejudicial.
Court
California Courts of Appeal 2DCA/7Cite as
2021 DJDAR 8439Published
Aug. 17, 2021Filing Date
Aug. 13, 2021Opinion Type
ModificationDisposition Type
Reversed and RemandedCase Fully Briefed
Jul. 21, 2020Oral Argument
Aug. 5, 2021Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
ALEXANDRIA CARE CENTER, LLC et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
No. B297023
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC529776)
California Courts of Appeal
Second Appellate District
Division Seven
Filed August 13, 2021
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
(NO CHANGE IN THE APPELLATE JUDGMENT)
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on August 12, 2021 be modified as follows:
On page 20, replace Salazar v. See's Candy Shops, Inc. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 85, 90 with Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.5th 58, 65.
There is no change in the appellate judgment.
PERLUSS, P. J.
SEGAL, J.
FEUER, J.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Related Content
California Courts of Appeal, Civil Litigation
Ruling clarifies precedent on expert reliance on hearsay
By Stephanie I. Blum, Timothy D. Reuben
