(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this automobile accident case could just as easily involve the California Highway Patrol or the law enforcement divisions of any local municipality, such as Roseville, El Dorado Hills, West Sacramento, or Elk Grove.
However, plaintiff’s experts testified not only to plaintiffs physical limitations, but also to her traumatic brain injury and to her continued future need for care in a supportive environment. Even defendant’s medical and neurological experts, during their trial testimony, agreed that plaintiff Sandra White did in fact suffer a traumatic brain injury. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Regarding defendant’s seven purported “false assumptions” that supposedly make the evidence presented in this case “insignificant,” plaintiff responds as follows:
Not one of plaintiff’s witnesses was aware of the “sub rosa” video prior to their testimony. Despite defendant’s contention that the sub rosa contradicts the weight of the evidence, plaintiff’s family testified 1) that plaintiff was able to leave the house by herself on occasion and in fact had confusedly wandered in the neighborhood on occasion; 2) that plaintiff was able to dress herself on occasion, but more frequently than not needs assistance; 3) that plaintiff could move her arm somewhat, and that her movement and rotation in her left arm had reduced over recent months; 4) that plaintiff required supervision and was not the same since the collision and that the family tries to watch her as much as they can; 5) that plaintiff could walk unassisted on occasion, having good days and bad days.
Further, plaintiff’s experts testified that plaintiff’s future care needs would range from a level 2 to level 3 environment, which is contrary to Defendant’s motion papers that suggest all evidence proffered by plaintiff suggested she would need no less than 24-hours a day, every day care. Further, plaintiff’s expert Jan Black testified that Ms. White future surgical needs were suggested, but yet unknown pending further testing.
Defendant also contends that a false assumption relied on by plaintiff’s experts is that plaintiff would not be allowed to smoke; however, whether or not plaintiff smokes or is allowed to smoke has no bearing on this case. Further, defendant contends that a false assumption relied on by plaintiff’s experts is that plaintiff could not conduct a transaction by herself, relying on the “sub rosa” videotape as some sort of defining proof that plaintiff in fact can conduct transactions. However, since the video shows no more than an exchange without any verifiable source to indicate what was actually taking place, it is more than speculation to suggest that plaintiff’s experts’ opinions would somehow be changed by these few seconds of videotape. (See Part 8 of 10.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.