Articles Posted in Car Accidents

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

EXPERT FEES cont.

Disputed Costs for Dr. Greene:

1. $4725.00 for apparently 10.5 hours of work at $450 per hour
2. $175.00 for an MRI/CT scan
3. $225.00 for 3 X-Rays
4. $800.00 for a confirmatory consultation
5. $450.00 for a preparation of a report

As to number (1) above, the deposition testimony of Dr. Greene loosely estimated that he only had put in 7 hours on his review of this case (far less than the 10.5 Defendant has claimed). A reasonable review of the medical records in the Plaintiff’s opinion could have been done in less than half the time and accordingly the costs for this should be cut in half to $2,362.50 for 5-plus hours of work.

Numbers (2) and (3). The MRI/CT scans and the X-rays were unnecessary as several had already been taken and the Defense should have provided those to Dr. Greene well before his evaluation of the client. Therefore, these costs should not be reimbursable at all.

For number (4) Plaintiff is unsure what a confirmatory consultation even is. Without some description and or justification of this cost, Plaintiff refuses to pay for it.

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

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
DEFENDANTS’ COST MEMORANDUM IMPROPERLY CLAIMS $25,773.25 IN COSTS WHICH SHOULD BE TAXED

Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5 provides for the items recoverable as costs. The statute sets forth items specifically recoverable (subdivision (a)) and not recoverable (subdivision (b)), with all remaining items discretionary with the court (subdivision (c)(4)). In all cases, however, allowable costs must be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to the preparation, and reasonable in amount. Id. at § 1033.5 (c)(2) and (c)(3).

As set forth below, Defendants have included unreasonable and unjust costs in this lawsuit which should be denied.

A. FILING AND MOTION FEES

Regarding Item No. 1 in Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs, “Filing and Motion Fees” items a, b, and c wrongfully seeks $129.50 for the filing of 1) Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial; 2) a Motion to Compel a Court Ordered Psych Exam as well as an Ex Parte for the same.

Again, as noted above, Plaintiff won the case however she failed to beat Defendant’s 998 offer. Being the case Defendant is only entitled to post-§998 offer costs. All of these filings took place well before the trial in this matter and therefore any associated costs should be disallowed.

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

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff Deborah Hill’s Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs

Plaintiff will move this court for an order striking and/or taxing the following items of cost set forth in Defendants Memorandum of Costs filed in this matter.

Per code Plaintiff is only required to pay Defendant’s post-CCP 998 offer costs the court finds reasonable. Defendant’s CCP §998 offer was served on March 16, 2010 and expired April 16, 2010. Thus the only recoverable costs are those incurred after April 16, 2010.

(1) Regarding Item No. 1, “Filing and Motion Fees” Items a, b, and c, wrongfully included in CCP §998 offer, therefore not entitled to a reimbursement of these costs;

(2) Regarding Item No. 8, “Expert Fees,” wrongfully seeks $25,643.75 because it is much too expensive for the services provided and is therefore unjustified and unreasonable thus preventing Defendants from getting a reimbursement for these costs.

Plaintiff seeks an order taxing these costs pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5.

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

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

DISCUSSION

California Evidence Code Section 720 requires that an expert must have “special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates.”

Mr. Hall has no education, experience or other qualifications as an engineer, and does not otherwise qualify to determine impact speeds, vehicle speeds, change in velocity of the vehicles, or the forces involved in the collision. Mr. Hall did not examine the accident scene, nor is there a police report in this case that would have provided him with physical evidence at the scene of the accident. His methodology for computing speeds was to look at photographs of the damage to the respective vehicles, use a magnifying glass to estimate the amount of inches of damage, and then utilize a formula on a preprinted form entitled “Low Speed Collsion (sic) Worksheet”; however, the formula begins with an estimated value of .25 for a coefficient of restitution, which he supplied based upon his memory of having read such a value on a NHTSA website for 2001-2006 Honda Civic automobiles.

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

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiffs John and Anna Greene’s Motion in Limine Number1 to Exclude Testimony of Bill Hall
INTRODUCTION

Defendants have designated Bill Hall, as an expert witness, who intends to give opinions on matters that are far beyond his qualifications and far beyond his expertise. Mr. Hall has no formal education beyond high school, and had worked as a police officer for the city of Sacramento for 15 years. Although Mr. Hall has taken some courses in accident reconstruction, there are no accident reconstruction issues in this case. This case involves a very clear rear end impact to a stopped vehicle. Extracts from Mr. Hall’s deposition relating to his lack of qualifications are referenced herein.

Mr. Hall intends to give unqualified opinions in the following areas:

1. An engineering analysis, that calculates the speed of the two vehicles involved in the collision, based upon vehicle damage photographs that he reviewed months after the collision and engineering formulae and concepts that he is not qualified to analyze; and,
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

ARGUMENT

Dr. Lee’s opinions about the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s medical bills must be excluded, California Evidence Code § 803, because they are not based on special knowledge, skill, experience, training, education, or matters perceived by, or personally known or made known to him, that are if a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming such opinions, California Evidence Code § 801(b).

In his deposition, Dr. Lee admitted that he had no access or exposure to Plaintiff’s medical bills or any other relevant information, Naples Restaurant, Inc. v Coberly Ford (1968) 259 Cal App 2d 881, 66 Cal Rptr 835, that his opinions are based solely on irrelevant, conjectural and speculative data, Roscoe Moss Co. v. Jenkins (1942) 55 Cal. App.2d 369, 130 P.2d 477; Hyatt v Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal App 3d 325, 145 Cal Rptr 47, Stephen v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 134 Cal App 4th 1363, 37 Cal Rptr 3d 9, and that he has no experience or expertise in the relevant subject matter, Maatuk v. Guttman (2009) 173 Cal App 4th 1191, 93 Cal Rptr 3d 381.

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

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

DR. LEE SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM EXPRESSING OPINIONS ABOUT THE REASONABLENESS OF PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL BILLS BECAUSE INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENTS ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE DETERMINATION OF REASONABLENESS, AND THOSE OPINIONS ARE INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE

A plaintiff may introduce evidence of the amounts billed by health care providers, because they reflect on the nature and extent of his or her injuries, help jurors assess overall general damages, and give them an accurate picture of the extent of the plaintiffs injuries Hanif v. Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635; Nishihama v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 93 Cal.App.4th 298; Greer v. Hossam Ali Buzgheia, (2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 1150; 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 780; Katiuzhinsky v. Perry (2007) 152 Cal App 4th 1288.

On the other hand, it is reversible error to allow a defendant to admit collateral source cash payments into evidence, limit Plaintiffs’ recovery of special damages for medical expenses to the amounts paid by a financial services company to purchase the accounts from medical providers, or prevent the plaintiff from arguing to the jury that the full amounts billed represent the reasonable value of the medicals services provided, Olsen v. Reid, (2008) 164 Cal.App. 4th 200; Katiuzhinsky v. Perry (2007) 152 Cal.App. 4th 1288.

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

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

DR. LEE SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM EXPRESSING OPINIONS ABOUT THE REASONABLENESS OF PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL BILLS, BECAUSE THOSE OPINIONS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN PROBATIVE.

The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will:

(a) necessitate undue consumption of time, or

(b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury, California Evidence Code § 352.

A trial judge must balance the probative value of the proffered evidence against its prejudicial effect in the context of the case before the court, considering materiality, the strength of the relationship to the issue on which it is offered, and whether it is necessary to prove the proponent’s case or merely cumulative to other available and sufficient proof, Burke v. Almaden Vineyards, Inc. (1978) 86 Cal App 3d 768, 150 Cal Rptr 419. Evidence should be excluded as unduly prejudicial, when it is of such nature as to inflame the emotions of the jury, and motivate them to use the information to reward or punish one side, rather than logically evaluate the point upon which it is relevant, Vorse v. Sarasy (1997) 53 Cal App 4th 998, 62 Cal Rptr 2d 164.

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

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

An expert must base his opinion either on facts personally observed or on hypotheses that find support in the evidence; Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co. (1968) 69 Cal 2d 33, 69 Cal Rptr 561, 442 P2d 641, and not on irrelevant, conjectural, or speculative data, Roscoe Moss Co. v. Jenkins (1942) 55 Cal. App.2d 369, 130 P.2d 477; Hyatt v Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal App 3d 325, 145 Cal Rptr 47.

Thus, in personal injury actions against lawn mower and tire manufacturers experts were not permitted to testify about articles and statistical surveys dealing with other mowers and tire failures, where the proponent of the evidence failed to show any similarity between the other tire failures and mower accidents, none of the material the experts consulted constituted the type of professional technical literature that reasonably may be relied on by an expert in forming an opinion, and the opinions were based on mere speculation, Luque v McLean (1972) 8 Cal 3d 136, 104 Cal Rptr 443, 501 P2d 1163; Stephen v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 134 Cal App 4th 1363, 37 Cal Rptr 3d 9.

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

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
THIS COURT MAY HEAR AND DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DR. LEE’S TESTIMONY, OUT OF THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY
(a) When the existence of a preliminary fact is disputed, its existence or nonexistence shall be determined as provided in this article;
(b) The court may hear and determine the question of the admissibility of evidence out of the presence or hearing of the jury;

(c) A ruling on the admissibility of evidence implies whatever finding of fact is prerequisite thereto; a separate or formal finding is unnecessary unless required by statute, California Evidence Code §402.

DR. LEE SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM EXPRESSING OPINIONS ABOUT THE REASONABLENESS OF PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL BILLS, BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROPER BASIS FOR HIS OPINIONS.

If a witness is testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to such an opinion as is:

(a) Related to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact; and
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›