Sanchez v. Gama
233 Ariz. 125
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Hernandez sues Sanchez for personal injuries from a motor vehicle accident in Scottsdale, Arizona.
- Hernandez listed Injury Chiropractic as a witness and as treating physicians to testify about injuries and medical treatment.
- Dr. Hobbs of Injury Chiropractic treated Hernandez; Sanchez subpoenaed him for deposition and sought limits and advance expert fees.
- Judge Gama limited Dr. Hobbs’s role to treating-physician activities; arbitrator later ruled Hobbs entitled to $300/hour.
- Sanchez sought special action relief arguing Hobbs was not an expert and thus not entitled to expert-fee compensation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Whitten governs civil-treating-physician compensation. | Sanchez argues Whitten applies, limiting treating physicians to non-expert status in civil cases. | Hernandez argues Whitten is distinguishable or not controlling in civil actions; treating physicians can be compensated as experts when testifying about care. | Whitten applies; treating physicians are not automatically experts and may be compensated only when testimony is expert. |
| Whether Rule 26(b)(4) governs treating-physician discovery and fees in civil cases. | Hobbs is an expert under Rule 26(b)(4); fees may be required. | Rule 26(b)(4) only covers retained experts; treating physicians not specially employed aren’t governed by it. | Rule 26(b)(4) does not automatically apply to treating physicians not retained for trial; fees need not be paid as expert testimony. |
| Whether treating-physician testimony about diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis is expert testimony. | Dr. Hobbs’s testimony could be considered expert given medical expertise and preparation for trial. | Testimony is primarily factual based on treatment and personal observations, not expert analysis. | Testimony is not automatically expert; depends on content and purpose; treating physicians can be fact witnesses unless testimony is developed for litigation as expert. |
| Whether the trial court properly distinguished fact versus expert testimony to determine compensation. | Court should treat the physician as a treating fact witness unless questions require expert causation or standard-of-care opinions. | Any opinions derived for the litigation should be compensated as expert testimony. | Court should lean on whether the questions solicit expert testimony; ordinary treatment facts are not compensable as expert fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Montgomery v. Whitten, 228 Ariz. 17, 262 P.3d 238 (App.2011) (distinguishes treating physicians as fact or expert witnesses in civil cases)
- Duquette v. Superior Court, 161 Ariz. 269, 778 P.2d 634 (App.1989) (treating physician not automatically an expert witness; context matters)
- Davoll v. Webb, 194 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir.1999) (treating physician not expert witness when testifying about treatment based on personal observations)
- Brandt v. Med. Def. Assocs., 856 S.W.2d 667 (Mo.1993) (treating physician generally a fact witness unless litigation-specific opinions are sought)