Articles Posted in Brain Injury

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 January 12, 2008, plaintiffs Jamie Lynn and Jerry Welming purchased a 2008 Harley-Davidson Road Glide motorcycle from Harley-Davidson of Elk Grove, California, which is owned by Harley-Davidson of Sacramento Inc. During the sales transaction, Greg Temple, a Harley of Sacramento sales associate, represented to plaintiffs that the motorcycle they were purchasing had ABS brakes, though it had only standard brakes. In discussing ABS brakes, Temple never mentioned that ABS brakes were an option or that they came at an additional cost.

On April 11, 2009, plaintiff Janice Welming and Jerry Welming, an experienced motorcyclist, were riding their motorcycle on Highway 99 during a road trip as they had done almost every weekend since purchasing the motorcycle a year earlier. Jerry Welming was getting ready to exit the highway, so he briefly checked his side mirrors to avoid cutting off another motorcyclist who had been traveling nearby for several miles. When he looked up from the mirrors, he saw the sudden emergency of a wall of traffic about a couple hundred feet ahead.

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

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a personal injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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.)

The Def. denied these allegations and argued that its action had been prompt and in accord with what other school districts had been doing at that time. Plffs’ expert neurologists opined that based on the degree of injury, she was without adequate profusion of oxygen for a period in excess of 12-15 minutes. The Def. contended that the time period was much shorter. The Def.’s expert also maintained that there was no way to medically determine what the degree of injury would have been had more prompt action occurred.

The Def. filed a Frye motion to dismiss the case arguing that Plffs’ experts’ opinions were not based on generally accepted scientific principals. The motion was denied by the Honorable Curt Momo.

The lawsuit had originally been filed against the Sacramento School District in December, 1998. Plffs were originally represented by different counsel. After discovery, Plffs entered into a settlement with counsel for the District for the amount of $600,000. The Curtis’ objected to the settlement pointing out that they had not consented to the amount, did not agree to settle for that amount and that it made no sense for Curtis’s needs. On July 14, 2006, the Court initially approved the settlement. Subsequently, the Crawfords retained attorney to help them set the settlement aside.

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

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a personal injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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.)

TEXT:

10/15/96 – Plff, female age 13, student at Sacramento Middle School. This case arises from an incident when Plff Curtis collapsed forward onto her face on the gravel track while running a timed mile on a remote athletic field, went into ventricular fibrillation and sudden cardiac arrest. Fellow middle school students witnessed Curtis’s collapse, noted that Curtis’s eyes were rolled back in her head and she was not breathing. No communications devices were present on the remote athletic field and the instructor did not know what to do.

Two 13-year-old students then ran to an adjacent field to try to summon assistance. After speaking to a teacher on the adjacent field, they ran from there, to the school office. After some discussion with the office staff, a call for medical assistance was finally made.

Curtis was revived by paramedics and taken to the hospital where it was determined that she had suffered permanent brain damage. Investigation into the incident afterwards raised questions regarding actions taken by the school, the amount of time it took to initiate CPR and to summon assistance, and the absence of an emergency action plan so that staff would know how to react and do so in a manner in which precious time was not lost.

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

Continue Reading ›

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: Annie was extricated from her car and then taken by ambulance to the emergency room. She was placed in the intensive care unit, having sustained multiple fractures to her arms and legs, and underwent open reduction, internal fixation surgery, with the insertion of screws, pins and plates.

Facts:

On Nov. 28, 2007, plaintiff Annie Darius, 16, a high school student, was driving a Chevy Cobalt on Folsom Drive in Sacramento, CA. After losing consciousness due to a hypoglycemic episode, Annie veered off the road and crashed into a tree. Her airbag didn’t deploy, and she eventually sustained a permanent brain injury.

Laura Gerald, individually, and as guardian ad litem for Annie, sued the county of Sacramento, General Motors (GM), and Dan Rango, of Dan Rango Chevrolet, where the Cobalt was purchased.

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

Continue Reading ›

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.)

The jury ultimately found that Danbee Livestock’s employee’s lax trailer maintenance schedule and its failure to keep maintenance records were dispositive in deciding that only Danbee Livestock was at fault for the trailer’s loss of its wheel.

CLAIMED INJURIES

According to Plaintiff: Plaintiff One sustained skull and facial fractures, permanent brain injury, primarily to his frontal lobe, a broken clavicle, fractures to all ribs on his right side, at least one collapsed lung, a diaphragm puncture, a lacerated kidney, right elbow fracture, and a fractured pelvis. He had to be airlifted from the accident scene to HIJ Hospital in Sacramento. His elbow and pelvic fractures were beyond the capabilities of HIJ orthopedists, and he was only stable enough for transfer to a hospital where these surgeries could be performed three weeks after the accident. His pelvic and elbow injuries have rendered him permanently totally disabled, and his brain injury detrimentally affects his ability to function day to day. He requires future surgery for hardware removal and life-long moderate case management. Plaintiff Two sustained left shoulder fractures and a left rotator cuff tear which required surgery. He was rendered permanently partially disabled and cannot lift more than 5 lbs above his shoulder, more than 25 lbs off the ground, or push/pull more than 50 lbs. Other than some trigger point injections, further treatment will not benefit him. He also sustained a mild-to-moderate head injury, which resulted in erratic behavior and irritability and for which he requires limited neuropsychological treatment. Plaintiff Two: Loss of consortium. Other than the defense claim that plaintiff One was solely at fault for his brain injuries due to his failure to wear an adequate helmet, and that plaintiff Two sustained no permanent brain injury, the nature and extent of plaintiffs’ injuries was not contested.

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

Continue Reading ›

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.)

Danbee Livestock’s trailer operator testified that he had possessed the trailer since it was new in 1993. He was responsible for all maintenance on it, but only kept maintenance records in his head. He took it to XYZ or D-2 when it needed work and told XYZ or D-2 personnel generally what parts of the trailer he wanted work performed on. Invoices presented at trial established that there was no regular maintenance program for the trailer. Before trial, and again after all evidence had been presented, plaintiffs sought a judicial determination that Danbee Livestock could not delegate its duty to maintain the trailer and its wheel bearings to XYZ and/or D-2. The court declined to so rule. The court also declined to apply res ipsa loquitur against Danbee Livestock. The court instead instructed the jury on presumption of negligence per se under CACI Instruction 418 and Vehicle Code § 24002(a).

The only documented work on the trailer’s wheel bearings was performed by D-2 in 2002 and 2004 and by XYZ in 2005 when it repacked the trailer’s wheel bearings while doing brake replacement. Plaintiffs and defendant Danbee Livestock contended, through the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert Dame and Danbee Livestock’s experts Curt and Williamson, that XYZ improperly cleaned the wheel bearings prior to their inspection, thereby rendering inspection ineffective, and that the cleaning method used, wiping with shop rags and pumping new grease into the bearings with a “bearing packer,” left dirt and grit which caused rapid wear.

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

Continue Reading ›

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.)

Plaintiff One was wearing a non-DOT-approved helmet, characterized by the defense as a “novelty helmet,” when his accident occurred. Defense expert Ramieen Kalzi testified that the “novelty helmet” afforded One no protection from head injury. Kalzi based his opinion solely on standardized testing he did on exemplar helmets and made no effort to either replicate the accident or determine what forces would render a DOT-approved helmet ineffective. Plaintiffs’ neurosurgeon Dr. Jim Iman testified that One could have sustained permanent brain injury from several causes, including inadequate brain oxygenation over a period of time, and that it was impossible to isolate the actual cause. Defense neurologist Dr. Jeff Samson testified that One’s brain injury was caused solely by forces which had been transmitted through the helmet. All experts agreed that One’s extensive orthopedic injuries were unaffected by the type of helmet he wore.

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

Continue Reading ›