Articles Posted in Brain Injury

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 personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this wrongful death/brain injury case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint is Uncertain Because the Facts Support Only a Cause of Action for Professional Negligence and Not for General Negligence

California Code of Civil Procedure §430.10 provides, in pertinent part:

The party against whom a complaint … has been filed may object, by demurrer … to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:

(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

(f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, uncertain includes ambiguous and unintelligible.

A demurrer may be taken to the entire complaint or to any of the causes of action stated in the complaint. Code Civ. Proc. §430.50. For the purposes of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer assumes all material facts alleged in the complaint to be true. Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591, cert denied, 432 U.S. 907. The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and it only raises questions of law. Banerian v. O’Malley (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 604, 611. A demurrer must be sustained if the complaint’s cause of action is uncertain. Code of Civ. Proc. §§430.10(f).

Continue Reading ›

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 personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this wrongful death/brain injury case and its proceedings.)

LEGAL ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff’s Complaint is Barred by the Statute of Limitations.

A complaint is subject to a demurrer under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subparagraph (e), if the facts alleged in the complaint and matters of which the court is entitled to take judicial notice show the action is barred by the statute of limitations. Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano & Hatch v. Berwald (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 990, 995; Basin Construction Corp. v. Department of Water & Power (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 819, 823. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims is set out in Code of Civil Procedure §340.5. It provides, in pertinent part:

In an action for injury or death by a health care provider based upon such person’s alleged professional negligence, the time for the commencement of action shall be three years after the date of injury or one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury, whichever occurs first. C.C.P. §340.5.

The plaintiff’s complaint does not specifically set forth the date of death of her mother; however, in each cause of action it is stated that the plaintiff was caused harm on September 27, 2007. The Coroner’s Report states that Ms. Miller died on that date.

Continue Reading ›

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 personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this wrongful death/brain injury case and its proceedings.)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff Nancy White filed a complaint on April 27, 2009, alleging wrongful death relating to the treatment and care defendant provided to her mother and decedent, Alice Miller. According to plaintiff, defendant UMC’s treatment at a cardiac catheterization laboratory and the patient’s subsequent ICU admission to UMC resulted in plaintiff’s mother’s death on September 27, 2007.

Plaintiff alleges that she is the daughter of decedent. Plaintiff does not identify other heirs.

All five causes of action are titled “General Negligence,” but based upon wrongful death allegations.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff’s first cause of action alleges that UMC failed to provide the proper standard of care of surgical intervention and repair ; and that defendant failed to provide timely assistance to the medical emergency thereby not providing the proper standard of medical care for emergencies. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff’s second cause of action sets forth additional theories. It is contended that UMC is legally obligated to provide adequate service providers, “and to provide adequate surgical staff to respond to STAT requests for assistance”; and to restrict the “permitted hours of operation to the times in which UMC has sufficient surgical staff to respond to STAT requests”; and that UMC’s “surgical staff did not respond to three pages for STAT assistance in a timely fashion that meets [the] acceptable standard of care.”

Continue Reading ›

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 personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this wrongful death/brain injury case and its proceedings.)For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Defendant Universal Medical Center’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Its Demurrer To Plaintiff’s Complaint
INTRODUCTION

The demurrer of Universal Medical Center (“UMC”) to plaintiff’s complaint and its five causes of action should be sustained without leave to amend for the following reasons:

Plaintiff’s decedent died on September 27, 2007. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on April 27, 2009. Plaintiff’s complaint is thus outside the statute of limitations for wrongful death cases based upon medical negligence, as set forth in C.C.P. §340.5.

Plaintiff’s complaint sets forth five causes of action, all of which seem to be alleging various theories supporting the same tort; i.e., all five causes of action appear to be restated causes of action for wrongful death based upon medical negligence. Yet, all five causes of action are set out on the Judicial Council forms for General Negligence. Plaintiff cannot claim general negligence under the circumstances presented by the facts of this case.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, is cited extensively by Defendant. Unfortunately, it does not support Defendant. The decision specifically holds that medical malpractice and Elder Abuse are separate causes of action. After holding that the statute is ambiguous, the court held that “if the neglect is ‘reckless’ or done with ‘oppression, fraud or malice,'” then the action falls within the scope of section 15657 and as such cannot be considered simply “based on … professional negligence” within the meaning of section 15657.2. (Delaney at 28.) Plaintiff has pleaded that the failure to restrain and the failure to treat decedent in this matter was at least reckless.

The pleading standard has been met and defendants would have the court make a factual determination that the actions were not “reckless” at the pleading stage which is an improper request. Delaney is not a case that interprets the scope of pleadings. It is a decision that interprets the scope of the statute. It cannot be cited as setting forth pleading requirements as Defendant attempts in the Demurrer.

The result is relatively simple. Plaintiff is entitled to and does state a cause of action for Elder Abuse, whether the proof presented at trial is sufficient to take the damages outside of the scope of ordinary negligence (15610.57) and into the scope of enhanced damages (15657 and 15657.2) is a separate issue. However, Plaintiffs submit that sufficient facts have been plead to meet the pleading standards as to this damage issue.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

THE MISINTERPRETATION OF THE COMPLAINT

Defendant argues that since there is insufficient pleading in Paragraphs 18-20 of the Complaint, the complaint must fail. This is the underpinning of the whole of the Demurrer and is wholly without merit. Defendant fails to cite Paragraph 17 of the Second Cause of Action which incorporates all of the facts plead in the first 16 Paragraphs. The argument is specious at best and justifies the court overruling the Demurrer without further consideration. The elements plead including the course of the care prior to death are provided in the earlier paragraphs.

STATUTORY ANALYSIS

Defendant bases the argument on Welfare and Institutions Code §§15657 and 15657.2 and ignore §15610 et seq. which define Elder Abuse itself. Plaintiff has met the pleading requirements of pleading Elder Abuse as defined by the code. Defendant is mixing an argument that the damages portion of the claim cannot be made on the facts pleaded, and further, defendant attempts to insert a requirement for pleading specificity as if there was a claim for punitive damages.

No such claim has been here made at this time as the interplay between C.C.P. §425.13 and the Elder Abuse statutes has not been litigated or established. Plaintiff fully expects to conduct the appropriate discovery and when sufficient data has been gathered move this court for leave to file an Amended Complaint setting forth claims for punitive damages against the appropriate defendants. (See Part 4 of 4.)

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs’ decedent suffered a stroke in 2001. She was hospitalized through February 19, 2002 when she was transferred to Defendant Nationwide Skilled Nursing Facility with orders that Posey restraints be used in view of the loss of use of one side of her body and confusion which could result in injury. Defendant chose to ignore the orders and on her first night in the SNF decedent got out of bed apparently not remembering that she could not walk normally, fell and hit her head.

A staff person for Defendant SNF heard her fall and eventually went to check on her. She was found on the floor with a bruise/abrasion on her forehead. She was anti-coagulated to prevent further strokes and presented a clear risk of developing a sub-dural hematoma, a la Chick Hearn of the L.A. Lakers. The facility chose to do nothing until she was checked at about 7:00 in the morning and pronounced good. Finally, at about noon, when she started to present with severe problems showing loss of mental facilities Defendant decided that she should be sent to the hospital to be checked out.

It was too late, the sub-dural hematoma had grown to the point where it was not operable by the time decedent arrived at the hospital. The barn door had been closed after the animals had escaped. Decedent was, however, a strong person and managed to hold on at home in a severely debilitated state through her death on April 25, 2002.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Demurrer of Defendant Nationwide Skilled Nursing Facility and Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Plaintiffs file their Opposition to Demurrer of Defendant Nationwide Skilled Nursing Facility to the Second Cause of Action in of Plaintiffs’ Complaint currently set for hearing. The Opposition will be based on the following:

1. Defendant has failed to properly deal with the content of the Complaint in that the initial basis for the Demurrer is that Paragraphs 18-20 do not state sufficient facts. Defendant does not cite the court to Paragraph 17 which incorporates all of the facts stated in the First Cause of Action. Thus, no basis for the Demurrer has been stated.

2. Plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts, including a 10-hour delay in treating a patient with a head injury who was on anticoagulant therapy, was aged, and had suffered a stroke. Further, Plaintiff has pleaded that Defendant ignored direct orders of the forwarding physician that decedent be restrained to prevent exactly the situation that occurred.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/automobile accident case and its proceedings.)

ITEMIZED LIST OF CLAIMED DAMAGES
MEDICAL SPECIALS TO DATE
(1) University Neuropsychology Group $ 5,500.00
(2) Suzanne Perry, Ph.D. (approx.) $ 5,000.00
(3) Medical Center $ 2,253.90
(4) Beverly Tower Imaging $ 3,055.00
(5) Michael Lee, D.C. $ 3,230.00
(6) Donna Green, M.D. $ 1,225.00
(7) Robert James, M.D. $ 1,950.00
(8) The Massage Place $ 994.00
(9) Joan John, M.D. $ 7,000.00
(10) A.U.D. (Audiology) $ 1,000.00
(11) Tim Jones, M.D. $ 550.00
(12) Matrix Group $ 775.00
(13) XYZ Hospital $ 1,646.00
TOTAL: $34,178.90
FUTURE MEDICAL SPECIALS
(Approx.) $50,000.00
LOSS OF EARNINGS
(1) Loss of Earnings to Date: $ 170,000.00
(2) Future Loss of Earnings: $ 500,000.00
STATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

The parties have had two sessions of mediation with a mediator from ADR Services. Plaintiff’s lowest demand was $500,000.00,: Defendant’s highest offer was $50,000.00.

Defendant Brown is covered by a $500,000.00 automobile insurance policy. Plaintiff had tendered a statutory offer to settle for the policy limits back in September 4, 2008. In turn, Mr. Brown tendered a statutory offer to settle for $50,000.00.

Plaintiff next tendered a statutory offer to settle for $250,000.00 on December 4, 2008. That offer has expired and in light of the significant ongoing difficulties plaintiff has suffered, her demand was once again for the full policy limits. That renewed offer to settle for the policy limits has expired.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/automobile accident case and its proceedings.)

SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S LOSS OF EARNINGS

At the time of the accident, Ms. Smith was working with LexisNexis. She initially took some time off from work after the car accident and then was able to return to work but at a lighter reduced schedule. Some difficulties arose at work with her inability to work full-time and her ongoing disability. As a result, Ms. Smith suffered additional ongoing stress from work environment.

Ms. Smith’s pre-accident employment reviews were outstanding. She was clearly a star in the LexisNexis sales field. However, she suffered a severe inability to perform her job post-brain injury. She was eventually terminated by LexisNexis in March, 2008.

Ms. Smith is claiming loss of earnings as follows:

2006: $ 20,000.00
2007: $ 25,000.00
2008: $ 125,000.00
TOTAL: $ 170,000.00

Ms. Smith has been seen by Dean Black, a vocational rehabilitation expert. Mr. Andersen has projected a substantial loss of earnings. Comparing Ms. Smith’s pre-incident loss of earnings to her potential post-incident loss of earnings, Ms. Smith can be anticipated to suffer loss of earnings in excess of $500,000.00.

Ms. Smith is optimistic that her condition will improve and that she will be able to return to some form of active employment.

Continue Reading ›