Family Medicine Expert’s Standard-of-Care Testimony Excluded
Posted on August 27, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
This lawsuit arises out of medical care and treatment Courtney L. Mapes rendered to Plaintiff Bradley Medina on February 8, 2019 at Family Health Care Network. Medina brought a cause of action against Mapes for medical negligence based on the allegation that Mapes misdiagnosed him with a hamstring injury rather than an infection in his leg.
Defendant filed a motion to exclude or limit “the scope of the opinions from Plaintiff’s designated rebuttal expert, Daria Majzoubi, M.D.,” asserting Majzoubi’s “proposed testimony exceeded the permissible scope of a rebuttal expert witness.”
Family Medicine Expert Witness
Daria Majzoubi, M.D. specializes in family medicine, and has been practicing medicine for over 13 years, starting his practice in the Central Valley in 2003.
Trained at George Washington University, Majzoubi did his Residency at Northwestern University.
Discussion by the Court
Defendant explained, “Plaintiffs were given leave to designate Majzoubi strictly to rebut the opinions of Defendant’s Infectious Disease expert as it relates to issues of medical causation presented in this case” however, “Majzoubi’s report testimony focuses nearly entirely on the issue of standard of care” and “goes beyond the scope of her designation as rebuttal expert in this case.”
Plaintiffs contended that Majzoubi’s expert report and causation testimony is essential to its case and precluding it would be unfair.
Majzoubi spoke to standard of care only, which is an issue Plaintiffs must prove in their case in chief. The fact that he disagreed with the defense experts does not make him a rebuttal expert. Therefore, the Court held that Majzoubi’s designation cannot properly be characterized as rebuttal testimony.
Plaintiffs also asserted that the Defendant would not suffer any prejudice or unfairness because Defendant has retained an expert. However, the Court granted Plaintiffs several extensions solely for the purpose of designating a rebuttal expert to respond to the opinions of Defendant’s retained infectious disease expert, but they did not do so. Also, Plaintiffs failed to provide the Court any explanation or argument relating to untimely/improper disclosure.
Held
The Court granted the Defendant’s motion to exclude or limit the scope of the opinions from Plaintiff’s designated rebuttal expert, Daria Majzoubi, M.D.
Key Takeaway:
If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26, the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.
The Court did not find the failure to timely designate Majzoubi to be “substantially justified or harmless.”
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Medina Et Al V. Mapes |
| Docket Number: | 1:21cv844 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, California Eastern |
| Order Date: | August 10, 2025 |
