Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Is Brought After Elderly Family Member Dies in Hospital, Part 1 of 5

May 4, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an 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 big rig accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

FACTS/CONTENTIONS

According to Defendant: On February 12, 2007, at approximately 11:00 p.m., decedent Sam Watson, 89 years old, was admitted by paramedics to the ER of defendant ABC Hospital (“ABC”) after he called 911. The paramedics reported to the ER physician that they had found decedent in his apartment amidst conditions that suggested elder abuse by his caretaker.

Although the patient’s only recorded complaint was being hungry, upon examination he was found to be dehydrated, malnourished, over-anticoagulated on Coumadin, and to have an apparent old fracture of his right hip. He also had pneumonia, hypoxia, and was “possibly demented.” Because his primary care physician, Dr. Park, was not on staff at ABC and could not be reached, he was admitted to the service of internist Sal Reason, M.D., who was on call to the ER. Dr. Reason had no prior relationship with the patient.
A plan for stabilization of the various conditions was established by Dr. Reason, who called in various consultants for assistance. Among the consultants was defendant Pat Haim, M.D., an orthopedist, to consult on the obviously fractured leg. In his history and physical note, Dr. Reason also indicated, among other conditions, “possible dementia.”

Dr. Haim saw the patient on February 13, 2007, and by then both a plane x-ray and a CT of the right hip demonstrated an old, complete intertrochanteric fracture of the right hip, with about 3 inches of displacement of the femoral shaft. Dr. Haim recommended a right hemiarthroplasty (partial artificial hip replacement) to be done after the patient’s condition was sufficiently stabilized for surgery.

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

Twins Born Prematurely Bring About Birth Injury Lawsuit, Part 2 of 3

May 3, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a birth 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 birth injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

At home, Teimen continued to have contractions but believed they were Braxton Hicks contractions. At 9:30 a.m., she went to the office of her perinatologist, Dr. Mann, for a scheduled visit. Mann determined that Teimen was in active labor, and tried to give tocolytics to stop the labor, but was unsuccessful. Mann then sent Teimen to XYZ Center, where Perk conducted the delivery.

At 1:40 p.m., Ashley was delivered vaginally, weighing 680 grams, and at 1:58 p.m., Chris was delivered by Cesarean section, weighing 650 grams. Both babies were immediately taken to the neonatal intensive care unit due to their prematurity and conditions of respiratory distress, gastric perforation, and exclusive to Ashley, heart defects and brain injury.

Ashley and Chris, minors through their guardian ad litem, Meed Teimen, and Cathy Teimen, sued Perk and XYZ Center for medical malpractice.

Prior to trial, the parents’ causes of action were dropped from the case. Meed Teimen was dismissed via a defense motion for summary judgment, while Cathy Teimen voluntarily discontinued herself from the case. XYZ also reached a confidential settlement with the plaintiffs before trial.

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

Woman Alleges Sexual Harassment and Wrongful Termination Suit

May 2, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a sexual harassment 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 note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

INJURIES: Serrie made an unspecified demand for back pay, front pay and past and future emotional distress.

Facts:

On April 7, 2009, plaintiff Alexa Serrie, 30, was terminated from her job as a marketer and translator for DEF Concepts Inc. and GHI Sales in Newport Beach.

In January 2005, Serrie, who lived out of the country, met Cameron Crew, who owned DEF and GHI, on an Internet dating website that caters to men who want to meet foreign women.

On Oct. 27, 2006, Serrie left her homeland and arrived in the United States on an H1-B work visa that Crew had obtained for her. Serrie lived at Crew’s house in Coto de Caza for a short time before starting work at Crew’s companies and moving into an apartment managed by MNO International Management Corporation, which Crew also owned.

As she worked at DEF and GHI, Serrie and Crew were involved in an on-again-off-again romantic relationship and even got engaged.

In early April 2009, Crew and Serrie went to San Diego and stayed in a hotel together. Reportedly, she refused to have sex with him. The following Monday, Crew allegedly wrote a letter to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, indicating that Serrie’s employment had been terminated and that her H1-B work visa should be cancelled. On Tuesday, he called her into his office and broke off their engagement right before a supervisor fired her. Soon thereafter, Crew notified Serrie that she had to move out of her apartment. Also, her car, which Crew owned, was repossessed.

Serrie sued Crew, DEF, GHI and MNO for wrongful termination, sexual harassment in the workplace and sexual harassment by a property manager. (Either before or during trial, plaintiff’s counsel dismissed causes of action for fraud and deceit, violation of Sec. 970 of the California Labor Code, discrimination and retaliation in housing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.)

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

Teenager Killed In Drunk Driving Accident, Part 1 of 2

May 2, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

FACTS/CONTENTIONS

Veteran Loses 90% of Eyesight In San Jose Hospital Study, Part 2 of 2

May 2, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

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

William claimed that the hospital’s optometry department first diagnosed him as a “glaucoma suspect” in August 2004, but he received no treatment for onset glaucoma during the next four and a half years, despite subsequent visits and assessments that he was at risk for the disease. William subsequently became legally blind. He contended that the hospital should have treated him accordingly.

William further contended that the hospital’s optometrists had not followed an internal policy that required all patients with glaucoma to have their treatment overseen and reviewed by an ophthalmologist and that the optometrists should have also consulted with an ophthalmologist for his care.

The defense argued that William’s private internist should have been aware of his eye condition and need for treatment, and should have referred him for such treatment. The defendant also denied that William’s early symptoms were in fact indicative of glaucoma, and contended that he received proper VA medical care for treatment of his eyes.

Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the defendant served subpoenas upon every one of William’s private health care providers for purposes of filing potential third party complaints, but records disclosed no outside visits to any private optometrists or ophthalmologists, as William’s eye care was provided exclusively at the Palo Alto VA.

William also claimed he suffered anxiety and depression, though he still has some quality of life.

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

Sacramento Woman Claims Medical Malpractice After Surgical Complications

May 2, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

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

INJURIES: Melon had multiple lengthy admissions to the UC Davis Medical Center. She was treated for sepsis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, malnutrition, a duodenal fistula and an enterocutaneous fistula. During one admission, she was treated with pressors to maintain her blood pressure and this treatment caused an amputation of the toes on her left foot and a partial amputation of the right foot. The enterocutaneous fistula healed and the duodenal was closed during a procedure in October 2007. Melon remained severely de-conditioned and she developed contractures of the AcHaimes tendons.

Facts:

On Aug. 23, 2005, plaintiff Karen Melon, 26, unemployed, underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by general surgeon Jeffrey R. Jemming. The following day, Melon had signs of sepsis and evidence of a bile leak. General surgeon Jerry Aaron, who was Jemming’s partner, performed an exploratory laparotomy. He found and repaired a perforation on the anterior aspect of the first part of the duodenum.

Melon’s condition initially improved, but then worsened on Aug. 29. There was increasing drainage from a drain Aaron had placed. On Sept. 1, Jemming performed an exploratory laparotomy with Aaron assisting. Jemming performed a Kocher maneuver and found a perforation on the posterior aspect of the second part of the duodenum. He resected a portion of the duodenum and performed a primary anastomosis.

Melon’s post-operative course was complicated by sepsis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome and adult respiratory distress syndrome. She was intubated and put on a ventilator. On Sept. 18, she was transferred to the UC Davis Medical Center.

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

San Francisco Hospital Performs Negligent Treatment Causing Permanent Brain Damage

May 2, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice 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. It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

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

INJURIES: Clemmens sustained traumatic encephalopathy and required eight months of hospitalization. He now has significant cognitive deficits and general difficulty performing the tasks of every day life. He is unable to return to work.

Facts:

On Sept. 26, 2007, plaintiff Nathan Clemmens, 53, a sales manager for Oasis, fainted while at San Francisco International Airport, hitting his head on the floor and becoming dazed. He was rushed via ambulance to San Francisco General Hospital, where a CT scan revealed a small subarachnoid hemorrhage and an EKG revealed a heart attack. A subsequent angiography showed an occluded right coronary artery.

The plaintiff was hemodynamically stable, but cardiologists at the hospital decided to perform angioplasty and place a stent. Following the administration of anticoagulant agents, Clemmens developed massive bleeding in the brain in the form of bilateral frontal intraparenchymal hemorrhages. He survived, but sustained permanent brain damage.

Via his wife, Clemmens sued the hospital’s operator, The Regents of the University of California, for medical malpractice. Clemmens’s counsel claimed that given knowledge of the plaintiff’s head injury, the stenting procedure was contraindicated and an unacceptable risk. The lawyer claimed that the danger from the plaintiff’s clogged coronary artery was not life threatening.

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.

Side Impact Car Collision Brings Neck Injury Claim

April 30, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a car accident lawsuit might follow. Reviewing this kind of case 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.)

INJURIES: Gregory claimed injuries to her neck, as well as persistent headaches. She claimed that she sustained three 2mm cervical disc bulges. She testified that she evaluated her pain level at an 8 or 9 at the scene of the accident.

Facts:

On Sept. 3, 2004, plaintiff Jackie Gonzales, 19, was traveling southbound in her sports car in Placerville when she struck a sedan traveling westbound driven by Jasmine Kiniky.

Gregory sued Kiniky, and the owner of the car she was driving, Jermaine Kiniky, claiming motor vehicle negligence.

The plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert testified that Gregory merged over to the left as the signs mandated, and she was traveling in the number two lane southbound when the accident occurred. Gregory denied there was any stopped traffic prior to the accident.

Kiniky offered the testimony of her passenger, a co-worker who stated that there were two lanes of stopped traffic. Kiniky inched up between lanes of traffic, and Gregory struck her car.

Gregory sought treatment one week after the accident with orthopedist Steven Goll. Goll took X-rays of Gregory’ neck on Sept. 10, 2004 which was in normal limits. Gregory was then referred for an MRI which revealed disc dissection at C3-4, C4-5 and C5-6 and 2mm diffuse annular posterior disc bulges.

Goll recommended physical therapy. Gregory stated that the therapy resulted in no improvement. She then began a course of treatment with chiropractor Gennie Tamin. Tamin’ treatment did not offer any relief to Gregory either.

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

San Francisco Injury Lawsuit Arises After Big-Rig Accident, Part 3 of 3

April 27, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an 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 big rig accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Defendants contested the wrongful death claim as to the parents, and the jury ultimately determined that they were not financially dependent and rejected their wrongful death claim. On the wrongful death claim for the family members, there was a claim for loss of support and loss of household services based upon the industrious nature of decedent. Additionally, there was a claim for loss of financial support in terms of loss of medical insurance benefits. The claim for economic damages was approximately $3 million. Defendants contested the nature and extent of the economic losses, and, through their expert, claimed that the economic losses, once the present cash value analysis by their expert was applied, would result in economic losses of about $1.2 million.

CLAIMED DAMAGES

According to Plaintiff: $3 million economic damages.

SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS

According to Plaintiff: The matter went through multiple mediations and settlement conferences. Defendant ABC Group, which was insured by XYZ, refused to acknowledge that it had a higher percentage of responsibility than defendant ABC Produce. This insurer insisted on a 50/50 split on any type of allocation, and, therefore, offers being made to plaintiffs. All defendants contested the wrongful death claim of the parents. Plaintiffs filed a statutory demand on the wrongful death case in the amount of $9.9 million as to ABC Group in response to the settlement position taken by defendants. The last settlement offer made by ABC Produce was $750,000. The initial offer made by ABC Group was $1 million and ultimately was increased to $2 million, but that was the last offer ever made by ABC Group. As a result, the statutory demand was made. As to plaintiff Barron Yemming, defendants made a combined offer of $125,000. In response to that, da statutory demand was made as to ABC Group in the amount of $250,000 and as to ABC Produce for $125,000. Both statutory demands were exceeded.

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