Keough v. Luna CA2/6

Filed 5/21/25 Keough v. Luna CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

MORGAN KEOUGH, 2d Civ. No. B337028 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2019-00531755- Plaintiff and Respondent, CU-PA-VTA.) (Ventura County) v.

DIANA LAURA RODRIGUEZ LUNA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Diana Laura Rodriguez Luna appeals a judgment entered in favor of Morgan Keough following a jury trial. We reject Luna’s contention of attorney misconduct and affirm. This appeal concerns a lawsuit to recover damages for injuries suffered by Keough in an automobile collision on May 13, 2019, at the intersection of Peach Hill and Tierra Rejada Roads in Moorpark. Luna claims that Keough’s attorney committed prejudicial misconduct at trial by, among other things, attempting to elicit testimony from an expert witness regarding the number of past medical visits Keough attended. The trial court denied a mistrial regarding this matter and later a motion

for new trial. We agree with the court that the information had little probative value and did not deprive Luna of a fair trial. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In the early morning of May 13, 2019, Keough’s automobile collided with one driven by Luna as Keough made a left turn. Both vehicles were severely damaged and Keough suffered serious injuries, including a crushed left foot, traumatic brain injury, and optic nerve damage. Keough brought an action against Luna for vehicular negligence. Keough sought future medical expenses and past and future noneconomic damages. She waived past medical expenses as well as damages for past and future earnings. In a pretrial hearing, Keough informed the trial court that she “waived her claim for past medical bills.” Luna stated that “[w]e want to make sure right here right now that there are no medical bills coming in.” The court agreed, stating that the past medical bills were not relevant. The trial court and counsel then discussed the matter of the number of Keough’s past medical visits and the necessary foundation to establish that number. Luna objected on foundation and hearsay grounds to a list of 173 visits, by date and name of the medical provider. The court warned Keough to lay a proper foundation. Evidence of the number of past visits, Keough asserted, was relevant to her past noneconomic damages. Luna then requested the trial court to order that the number of Keough’s past medical visits be removed from Keough’s opening statement PowerPoint presentation. The court declined to make that ruling. Instead, it ruled that the timeline of Keough’s medical appointments could remain in the opening PowerPoint if the number of visits would be established “through