Can a party defendant in a medical malpractice action be required to give opinion testimony at deposition relating to their after-the-fact opinions of their care and treatment of a plaintiff?

In County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, supra, 224 Cal.App.3d 1446, 274 Cal.Rptr. 712, we addressed the issue of whether or not party defendants in a medical malpractice action could be required to give opinion testimony at their depositions relating to after-the-fact opinions of their care and treatment of a plaintiff before the section 2034 exchange. The trial court had ordered the party physicians to so testify. We reversed the order and noted as follows: "In a malpractice action, the defendant himself or herself may provide the expert testimony which establishes plaintiff's prima facie case. [Citation.] However, the present expert opinions of a party physician concerning the care given are irrelevant unless the physician is designated as an expert witness.... [p] Questions to the defendant physicians about their impressions and reasons for their action or lack of action at the time the medical procedure was performed are, of course, entirely appropriate.... But, as [in] Scarano [v. Schnoor (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 612, 323 P.2d 178] ... questions about after-the-fact opinions and impressions of the physicians stand in quite another light." (Id. at pp. 1455-1456, 274 Cal.Rptr. 712.) We based our reasoning on section 2034: "As we have seen, ... section 2034 is expressly applicable to the expert opinion of parties to a lawsuit. We see no reason to disrupt the carefully crafted legislative scheme for the regulation of discovery of the identity, qualifications and opinions of expert witnesses. The trial court order that the physician defendants testify at deposition about their present opinion of the medical propriety of their acts, even though they have not been designated as expert witnesses, would have that effect. It is for that reason that we direct that it be set aside." (Id. at p. 1457, 274 Cal.Rptr. 712.)