Trost v. Superior Court of California

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that treating physician is not entitled to compensation established by Rule 26(b)(4)(C
• Treating physicians are fact witnesses and are not entitled to charge a fee above the statutory minimum for their testimony.
• treating physicians are not generally considered to be expert witnesses and cannot rely on Rule 26(b)(4)(C) to claim they are entitled to more than the statutory compensation scheme set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1821
• “Courts consistently have found that treating physicians are not expert witnesses merely by virtue of their expertise in their respective fields.”
• “Courts consistently have found that treating physicians are not expert witnesses merely by virtue of their expertise in their respective fields.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).