In Garrett v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 173, the plaintiff, a patient, sued the supplier of a prosthetic bone for product liability. The court reversed a summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The defendant had argued that the declaration of plaintiff's expert was not admissible because it lacked a reasoned analysis of the conclusion because, in part, the expert did not describe the testing methods employed. The court acknowledged the court's "gate-keeping" function for expert testimony enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 781. The court said: "Unlike Sargon, supra, 55 Cal.4th 747, this case involves the exclusion of expert testimony presented in opposition to a summary judgment motion. The trial court here did not conduct an evidentiary hearing, and there was no examination of an expert witness pursuant to Evidence Code section 802. Absent more specific information on the testing methods used and the results obtained, the trial court here could not scrutinize the reasons for Kashar's opinion to the same extent as did the trial court in Sargon. We do not believe, however, that the absence of such detailed information justified the exclusion of the expert's testimony. The rule that a trial court must liberally construe the evidence submitted in opposition to a summary judgment motion applies in ruling on both the admissibility of expert testimony and its sufficiency to create a triable issue of fact. In light of the rule of liberal construction, a reasoned explanation required in an expert declaration filed in opposition to a summary judgment motion need not be as detailed or extensive as that required in expert testimony presented in support of a summary judgment motion or at trial. Liberally construing the expert's declaration, we conclude that the explanation provided for the expert's opinion was sufficient and that the trial court could not properly exclude the expert testimony based on the expert's failure to identify the particular tests employed or describe the test results. We therefore hold that the trial court failed to liberally construe the declaration as required, and that the sustaining of the objections to the the expert's declaration based on Evidence Code sections 801, subdivision (b) and 802 was an abuse of discretion." (Garrett, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at pp. 189-190.)