(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case present such issues to the court.
It is not disputed that plaintiff sustained a fracture of each of his big toes and, also, a fracture of the second toe of his right foot. It is, also, not disputed that plaintiff currently has some reduced range of motion in curling the toes that were fractured (flexion) and that in the first phalange of his second right toe there is about 15degrees of obliquity with respect to the second phalange thereof.
Additionally, it is not disputed that plaintiff sustained abrasions (road rash) to the top of his head, his face, abdomen, both hands and both knees. Said injuries were described in the paramedic records and in the ER records at General Hospital. There was no loss of consciousness and plaintiff’s GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale- a measure of brain injury potential) was a perfect 15 out of 15. Plaintiff was given a small injection of morphine sulfate and was given a prescription for Vicodin tablets. Plaintiff underwent x-rays of his chest and neck at the ER, which were negative.
Plaintiff, also, underwent a CT study of his head, which was likewise negative. There was no casting or taping of plaintiff’s toes and plaintiff was given a pair of fracture shoes to wear home. Plaintiff’s discharge instructions were to wear only shoes with hard soles and to return in 3-4 days to the Wound Care Clinic. Plaintiff never returned to General Hospital. The defense does not dispute any of the foregoing injuries. (See Part 4 of 7.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.