Brain Injury

Sacramento Auto Collision With Bus Causes Multiple Injuries Including Brain Injury

June 25, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

INJURIES: Marks was taken by ambulance from the scene of the accident to the emergency room. She sustained a fracture to her right ankle, which was treated with closed reduction casting, rather than internal fixation, due to metal allergies. She also claimed that she sustained cervical and lumbar strains and sprains, torn medial menisci in both knees, as well as minor injuries to her hands, right leg and the right side of her chest.

Facts:

On Oct. 17, 2005, plaintiff Cathlene Marks, 59, a Walmart manager, was driving northbound in Sacramento, CA. At approximately 2:30 p.m., Marks drove through an intersection and collided with a bus operated by Susan Helen, who was traveling westbound. Marks claimed she sustained multiple injuries in the crash.

Marks sued Helen and XYZ Transit Inc., the owner of the bus. She alleged Helen was negligent in the operation of the bus and that XYZ was vicariously liable for her actions.

Marks contended that Helen failed to yield for oncoming traffic at the intersection, since the defendant’s part of the intersection was controlled by a stop sign, while plaintiff’s was not.

The defendants admitted liability at the start of trial, and the matter proceeded to assess damages.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Avid Snowboarder Suffers Brain Injury When Struck In Head At Tahoe Ski Resort, Part 2 of 2

June 18, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

CLAIMED INJURIES

According to Plaintiff: Plaintiff returned to work two days later. She was unable to perform her work and was told to return when she was medically capable of doing so. She treated with a primary care doctor, who noted a bruise on her head and neck tenderness. An orthopedic surgeon felt she had a minimal disc protrusion because of the incident but could not rule out that it might have pre-existed the incident. Plaintiff was placed in a neck brace. When she was weaned from the brace, she started developing other problems, including visual disturbances, sensitivity to light, headaches, right-sided numbness, numbness in her face, dizziness, and exhaustion. Her doctors determined she did not have a traumatic brain injury, and the majority of her treating doctors recommended a psychiatric consult. A headache specialist opined that plaintiff had trauma-induced migraines that would resolve within four to six years. He felt there was medication he could have prescribed to greatly reduce her symptoms and allow her to return to work and normal living. Plaintiff felt she had a negative response to medication and declined medication. She also felt her injuries were physical and declined seeking any psychiatric or psychological care. Plaintiff remained off work until early 2009, when she started work as an outpatient physical therapist three days a week. Defendant contended that plaintiff was not badly injured, that she would have been able to return to work within three months if she had followed her doctors’ recommendations, and that, as a result, she had failed to mitigate her damages.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Rear-End Car Collision Causes Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

June 4, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

FACTS/CONTENTIONS

According to Plaintiff: Over four years ago, plaintiff Neil Harris, an amateur boxer and mixed-martial arts fighter and trainer, was rear-ended by a delivery truck driver, defendant James Vermon. At the scene of the collision, plaintiff said he was fine; there was no report done by the paramedics. Days later, he had dizziness and word-finding difficulty. He did not see a doctor. Weeks later, he was diagnosed as having a minor concussion. All brain scans were read and reported as normal by both the treating doctors and defense experts. There was no positive imaging to make a brain injury case on. The Glasgow Coma Scale was normal, and there was no loss of consciousness at the scene.

After the late diagnosis of concussion, plaintiff’s symptoms worsened, and, after six months, he developed a tic disorder, uncontrollable movements of his right arm and other parts of his body.

The defense experts all called him a faker and fraud because all the MRI scans were clean. Even treating doctors and plaintiff’s experts diagnosed him as having a conversion disorder. The defense consistently offered zero for the four years this case was ongoing. Medical research by the team of experts found reports that tic disorders, while rare, can occur months after a mild traumatic brain injury.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Man Suffers From Severe Brain Injury After Car Runs Stop Sign, Part 2 of 2

May 15, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

On August 3, 2009, plaintiff reported feeling numbness in his left leg. An examination found palpable tenderness in the right groin over the ramus and in the posterior right sacral region. On August 6, 2009, he was examined by another doctor and he reported continued morning headaches. X-rays of his right ribs taken on August 10, 2009 revealed a non-displaced fracture of the anterior segment of the eighth rib. By September 3, 2009, plaintiff’s headaches were becoming more severe, with confusion, altered mental status, blurred vision, lower extremity tremors, and numbness. A CT scan revealed a 2.5 cm hematoma on the left cerebral hemisphere and midline shift. He was admitted to a hospital, and burr holes were done for drainage. The following day, a CT scan found more hemorrhage and a craniotomy was performed. He was discharged on September 14, 2009. Plaintiff was subsequently diagnosed with disc bulges at L3-L4 and L4-L5, severe spinal stenosis at L4-L5, and L5-S1 facet hypertrophy. He underwent physical therapy from April 14, 2010 until May 25, 2010, and he underwent an epidural injection on January 14, 2011. He underwent a surgery at L4-L5. Plaintiff claimed that he had cognitive deficits and experiences memory loss, confusion, and right arm tremor. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that plaintiff’s relationship with his wife and his quality of life had been affected by his injuries. He suffers from depression and a personality change, with him being more aggressive and argumentative with a shorter temper. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that this was an effect of the closed-head injury. Defense counsel disputed the traumatic brain injury claims and the need for back surgery.

CLAIMED DAMAGES

According to Plaintiff: $214,261 past medical; $39,390 future medical; $1,500,000 past pain and suffering; $2,000,000 future pain and suffering.

SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS

According to Plaintiff: Demand: $2,195,000 (CCP § 998); Offer: $50,000 at time of trial.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Driver Injured In Intersection Collision, Sustains Brain Injury, Part 1 of 2

May 8, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

FACTS/CONTENTIONS

According to Plaintiff: On June 24, 2009, plaintiff Mark Matt, a 74-year-old farmer, was driving a truck southbound on G Avenue when he came to a stop at the intersection with S Avenue and then began to proceed through the intersection. He was struck by a truck driven by defendant Reid Murphy, who was traveling eastbound on S Avenue making a delivery for his employer, HIS Services, to XYZ Services Inc. Murphy did not stop at a stop sign at the intersection.

Plaintiff sued Murphy, his employer, IHS, and XYZ, alleging that Murphy was negligent in the operation of the vehicle, while IHS and Sears were vicariously liable. Defendants filed a cross-complaint against Jim Marion for indemnification and apportionment of fault.

Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Murphy was not paying attention and was speaking to his assistant at the time of the accident. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that plaintiff stopped, looked both ways, and then proceeded into the intersection at 5 mph.

Murphy claimed that he could not see the stop sign because a freightliner truck owned and operated by Jim Marion was blocking his view.

Defense counsel argued that plaintiff was a substantial factor in the cause of the accident.

Plaintiff’s counsel argued that there were a number of warning signs to Murphy that a stop was coming.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Woman Suffers Major Brain Injury After Car Hits Her In Crosswalk

May 1, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

FACTS/CONTENTIONS

According to Plaintiff: On February 10, 2011, plaintiff Renee Camp was walking across H Avenue within the south pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection with P Street in Sacramento, California. While she was lawfully within the crosswalk she was struck by defendant Merrel Lance, who was driving a full-size Toyota pickup. As a result of the impact, plaintiff’s body was thrown approximately 20-50 feet into the air, landing on the pavement, suffering severe traumatic brain injuries, and leaving plaintiff incoherent and permanently blind. Plaintiff has undergone two brain surgeries and now requires around-the-clock attendant care, which she will need for the rest of her life.

Plaintiff, through her Guardian ad Litem, Danelle Vant, alleged that defendant negligently operated his vehicle such that he struck plaintiff while she was walking in a designated crosswalk.

Defendant accepted liability; however, defendant questioned plaintiff’s loss of future earnings, the level of necessary future medical care, as well as the level of daily around-the-clock care necessary.

CLAIMED INJURIES

According to Plaintiff: Plaintiff was taken from the incident scene by ambulance to Sacramento Hospital Medical Center for emergency treatment. Her condition rapidly deteriorated, and due to rising pressure in her brain as a result of the traumatic brain injury, she had two brain surgeries, which included a partial frontal lobectomy with bilateral craniectomy. After an extended stay at Rehabilitation Hospital, plaintiff was discharged to the care of her sisters on April 5, 2011, one of whom she now lives with. Plaintiff requires around-the-clock attendant care, including assistance with dressing, feeding, ambulating, all of her bathroom needs, and making sure she does not wander off.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Brain Injury Sustained After Car Collision With Sheriff Deputy

April 24, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to court records: On June 29, 2008, plaintiff Emerson Adword drove a vehicle owned by plaintiff Cynthia Adword east on Garden Grove Boulevard through an intersection in Los Angeles. Defendant Ralph Merick drove south on the street.

Plaintiff alleged defendant Merick drove over the speed limit and entered the intersection on a red light. Plaintiff also claimed defendant Merick was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident.

Defendant Merick’s vehicle was owned by the County of Los Angeles and defendant Merick was allegedly working in the course and scope of his employment with the sheriff’s department at the time of the collision.

Plaintiff alleged defendants Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and County of Los Angeles negligently trained, supervised, hired, controlled, operated, and dispatched defendant.

Defendants contended it was disputed who proceeded into the intersection against a red signal. Defendants Merick and County of Los Angeles cross-complained against plaintiffs for comparative indemnity.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Two Men Sustained Traumatic Brain Injuries in Sacramento Car Accident

April 17, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to court records: On June 28, 2002, in Elk Grove, California, defendant Jerry Curt failed to stop for a red light at a signal intersection and collided with plaintiffs Curt Flemmings and Ryan Walter’s vehicle. Both plaintiffs were rendered incompetent. Walter was the adult son of Reese Walter. Flemmings was the husband of Martha Flemmings.

Reese Walter was appointed the guardian ad litem for Ryan Walter and Martha Flemmings was appointed the guardian ad litem for Curt Flemmings.

ABC Towing & Storage were also named as defendants.

Plaintiffs alleged defendants were negligent in case.

Further, plaintiff Martha Flemmings filed a separate case, for loss of consortium. Following trial in the first case, plaintiffs sued Interstate Insurance in Sacramento Superior Court, for bad faith.

CLAIMED INJURIES
According to court records:

Plaintiff Flemmings: extensive internal injuries; head injury that has led to progressive dementia; chronic pain; multiple surgeries; diminished immune system. Plaintiff Walter: brain injury, rendering him permanently childlike in personality and behavior; 24/7 professional supervision.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Severe Brain Injury Sustained Following Motorcycle Crash in Sacramento, Part 3 of 3

April 10, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

When he returned his attention to the road, he became aware that the traffic had already stopped. He panicked, steered left towards the center divider and improperly slammed on his rear brake. His actions were entirely contrary to proper motorcycle operation, which requires that riders steer straight and use both the front and rear brakes in an emergency braking situation. Welming’s actions caused the rear wheel to lock up and sent the motorcycle into a 73-foot skid toward the center divider. He then let off the brake, steered right, and improperly applied only the rear brake again, which locked the rear wheel a second time and caused the motorcycle to skid toward the number 2 lane for 116 feet. During the second skid, Welming lost control of the motorcycle. At this point, Janice Welming was thrown from the rear of the motorcycle.

CLAIMED INJURIES
According to court records:
Janice Welming: severe traumatic brain injury; aphasia; cognitive deficits; memory lapses; skull fracture; craniotomy; closed-head injury; intracranial hemorrhage fractures of the facial bone; three rib fractures; multiple pulmonary contusions; fractured right scapula; complex regional pain syndrome; brachial plexopathy; ear laceration; vision loss; abrasions.

Jerry Welming: minor bruises.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Sacramento Motorcycle Accident Leaves Passenger With Major Brain Injury, Part 2 of 3

April 3, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

Plaintiffs claimed that the accident was the result of misrepresentations made by both the dealer who sold them the motorcycle and the manufacturer of the motorcycle.

Plaintiffs claimed negligent misrepresentation against defendant Harley of Sacramento and its employee Temple and claimed strict products liability against defendants Harley-Davidson and Harley of Sacramento based on theories of a design defect and failure to warn related to the braking systems and indicator lights of the motorcycle. Even though plaintiffs’ motorcycle did not have ABS brakes, Harley-Davidson designed the non-ABS-equipped motorcycle with an ABS icon on the tachometer as if the motorcycle had ABS installed on it. Additionally, they alleged, Harley-Davidson intentionally designed its ABS-equipped motorcycles so that the ABS components were concealed.

Plaintiffs claimed that had their motorcycle been equipped with ABS brakes as they reasonably believed based on the representations of the dealer and the appearance of the motorcycle, which indicated to them that their motorcycle had ABS brakes, either the accident would not have occurred or Janice Welming’s injuries would not have been as severe. Plaintiffs also claimed that the accident would have been avoided had defendants warned them that their motorcycle was not equipped with ABS brakes because Welming would have operated the brakes differently.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.