Compensation For Medical Treatment At Issue In Sacramento Automobile Collision Case, Part 9 of 9

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the post-trial stage of civil litigation. 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 also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)


It is respectfully submitted that the plaintiff in this matter did carry her burden of proof in establishing that she suffered both economic and non-economic harm as a direct result of the automobile accident in question.

The testimony of the plaintiff was that she sought medical care and treatment immediately after this accident and was admitted to Kaiser Hospital’s emergency room where she was examined, found to have suffered a physical injury, and was administered powerful narcotics as a result of her pain and suffering. Additionally, she testified that as a result of this accident she became nauseated and was vomiting which further required medical care and treatment for a condition which was not present prior to this accident occurring. The plaintiff’s testimony as to her loss of income as a result of the off work notice given by physicians at Kaiser also demonstrated economic damage.

The court, by allowing counsel for the defendant to use exhibits over and over and over again after objections were made to their introduction constituted irregularities in the proceeding and attorney misconduct. To have allowed defendant’s counsel over objection to question witnesses concerning medical records that the witness did not author, and which the witness did not rely on in reaching opinions and conclusions for the purpose of attempting to impeach the plaintiff’s claim of certain injuries is sufficient to grant this motion for new trial. What counsel for the defendant attempted to do was to show by an absence of record, without establishing a foundation that the record even inquired or dealt with the subject matter of the personal injuries prejudiced this plaintiff and apparently influenced the jury to disregard the law with regard to causation.

Further, it is respectfully submitted that this verdict is against the law because it is not supported by substantial evidence. To have found that there was no causation of harm would be to disregard the un-controverted evidence with regard to the plaintiff’s medical care and treatment following this accident as well as her economic and non-economic loss. Defendant’s counsel’s arguments concerning the failure of medical practitioners who were not called as witnesses to note complaints of physical injuries related to this accident constituted attorney misconduct and was prejudicial to this plaintiff.

There being substantial evidence of both economic and non-economic damages requires this court to grant this motion for new trial on the issue of damages and with a finding that there was a causal connection between the accident and injuries suffered.

The interests of justice require the court re-weigh the evidence of the credibility of the witnesses, and apply the law of the state of California which mandates that this defendant be held as a substantial factor in causing injury to plaintiff Alice Hall, and to grant this motion for new trial.

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

Contact Information