Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Car Accident and Hospital Negligence Brings about Sacramento Lawsuit in Brain Injury Case, Part 2 of 2

March 6, 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.)

Plaintiff’s counsel also claimed that the airbag in question did not deploy, either due to a design or manufacturing defect caused by GM, or because it was disconnected during a previous repair at Rango’s dealership.

GM has since filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and made Annie an unsecured creditor through bankruptcy court.

Rango’s motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction was granted and he was dismissed from the case.

The county denied the plaintiff’s allegations, and contended that Annie suffered a traumatic brain injury from the car accident, which caused her permanent injuries and cognitive effects. The county claimed that Annie’s treatment at SMC did not cause her serious injury, and that there was no negligence on the part of the staff.

Annie claimed that she sustained a traumatic brain injury due to the negligence of SMC’s staff, which caused her permanent cognitive residuals. She claimed she suffers from severe memory loss and that she often forgets what she is told and where she lives. She said she needs people to write things down so she can remember and that she requires special education with specific accommodations and extra time for work and examinations.

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

Woman Bring Sacramento Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Record Company, Part 3 of 3

March 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.)

Darroll pleaded no contest to criminal charges for vandalism and trespass on March 26, 2008, in regard to breaking Hirsch’s TV and end tables. She paid a $2,000 fine and served probation. The criminal charges were subsequently expunged.

Hirsch contended that he did not fire Darroll because of her gender or because she would not continue to be his girlfriend, and hence, he wasn’t liable for wrongful termination. He claimed that she was an insubordinate employee. He further claimed that he hired the private investigator for his own safety after Darroll vandalized his office.

Hirsch denied the rest of Darroll’s accusations, claiming that he had nothing to do with the damage inflicted on her and her cousin’s cars, and that he was not responsible for the defamatory remark on the Internet.

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

Understaffing and Negligence Result in Sacramento Birth Injury, Part 3 of 3

March 1, 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.)

Later the same night, the attending nurse changed the times in the progress notes. The nurses and the obstetrician falsely wrote in the delivery record that the fetal heart monitor had been “reassuring” before the birth.

The next day, the obstetrician sat down with the patient on her hospital bed and cried with her over what happened to the baby. Two days later, the obstetrician met with the hospital’s risk manager.

Individually and as the guardian of M.T.’s estate, Sarah joined her husband in a lawsuit filed Sacramento County Superior Court against Sacramento Hospital, Dolores Stein, Sacramento Women’s Care, Randy Hyle, and Pediatrix Medical Group. Stein, the obstetrician, worked for Sacramento Women’s Care. Hyle, a neonatologist who participated in the birth, worked for Pediatrix Medical Group.

The Travises alleged the healthcare professionals and institutions were negligent and failed to possess and exercise the requisite level of care and skill in their care of Sarah and M.T. The hospital was further negligent by failing to select and train competent employees, failing to adopt and comply with necessary policies and procedures, failing to provide and monitor equipment properly, and failing to intervene in Sarah and M.T.’s treatment in a timely and effective manner.

Sarah sought damages on behalf of her daughter for permanent and disabling physical, mental and psychological injuries; physical and emotional pain, anguish, injury, suffering and harm; and impaired earning ability. On their own behalf, Sarah and Erik sought damages for destruction of the parent-child relationship, loss of companionship and support from M.T., and past and future medical and care expenses.

Sacramento Hospital denied the allegations directed at it. By way of affirmative defense, it argued the Travises caused their own damages and should share a proportion of fault, and that they failed to mitigate their damages.

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

Kaiser Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Results From Man Suffering Aneurysm Wrong Diagnosis, Part 3 of 3

March 1, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog is provided as an example of a Kaiser medical malpractice lawsuit to aid potential clients in how a lawsuit is examined and conduced. 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 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.)

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants breached the standard of care by failing to treat John Doe as an individual patient and instead focused only on his Grade 5 status. Satals failed to recognize that the aneurysm and not the AVM had bled, thus leaving John Doe at high risk for re-bleed. The appropriate treatment was to clip the aneurysm. Moreover, respondents sent John Doe to the Protector with an unclipped aneurysm, which one expert neurologist called a ‘ticking time bomb.‘ The risks of catastrophe were great. Nevertheless, respondents failed to provide appropriate follow-up neurological and diagnostic care at the Protector, essentially letting nature take its course. The inevitable happened and John Doe’s aneurysm re-bled. Before the second bleed, John Doe was making remarkable progress. According to plaintiffs’ experts, it is likely he would have recovered to the point where he could have returned to work. He may have had some difficulty walking but would not have the severe ataxia he has now. He would not require the tracheostomy. He would not require 24-hour care. His cognitive functions remain intact; however, he cannot speak because of the trach. He communicates using an alphabet board and sign language. He has lost tongue control as well as his swallowing ability due to the second bleed.

Defendants denied all of plaintiffs’ allegations and contended that they acted within the standard of care by not clipping plaintiff patient’s aneurysm. As a Grade 5, plaintiff was at increased risk of death or serious injury from surgery to clip the aneurysm. Defendants also contended that they appropriately monitored plaintiff patient at the Protector by having him examined by Kaiser internist Taimes and scheduling him for a follow-up neurosurgical examination four weeks after admission to the Protector. Defendants denied that the second bleed caused plaintiff any significant injuries and that his present disabilities were caused by the first bleed.

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

Young Girl Suffers Permanent Brain Damage After School Delays Treatment, Part 1 of 2

March 1, 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 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.

Misdiagnosis in San Jose Medical Malpractice Suit Results in Breast Cancer Spread, Part 1 of 2

March 1, 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.)

INJURIES: The plaintiff was diagnosed with an intermediate-grade, infiltrating ductal carcinoma in her left breast.

Facts:
In August 2003, the plaintiff, 47, a long-haul truck driver, underwent a screening mammogram that showed an area of suspicion in her left breast. An ultrasound was done and read as “highly suspicious” and indicative of a solid nodule in the left breast.

On Sept. 21, the plaintiff underwent a biopsy. The pathologist reported the results as representative of a papilloma, also known as a benign tumor. On May 31, she underwent another screening mammogram, which her radiologist read as normal.

On May 20, 2004, the plaintiff underwent her annual mammogram, which again revealed an area of suspicion in her left breast. She followed up with an ultrasound and biopsy, which led to a breast cancer diagnosis.

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

Sacramento Car Crash Leave Man with Spinal Injuries, Part 2 of 2

March 1, 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.)

The plaintiff sought $300,000 in past medical bills, 80,000 in past lost earnings, $300,000 in future lost earnings and pain and suffering.

The defense argued that Wallace had little more than whiplash and standard soft-tissue injuries. Counsel claimed that anything else was related to pre-existing, asymptomatic, degenerative disc disease and the defendant was liable only for a temporary aggravation of pre-existing conditions.

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

Sacramento Boy Suffers Brain Damage After Medical Device Fires, Part 1 of 2

February 29, 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.)

Summary of Facts:

INJURIES: Aaron alleged carbon monoxide poisoning, severe lung injuries and lifelong brain damage. Gregory alleged that these injures were a direct result of the airway fire.

Facts:

On April 18, 2002, plaintiff Aaron Gregory, age 8, underwent a tonsilectomy at San Jose Medical Center. Treating physician Dan Parrish used a hand-held electrode that was powered by an electrosurgical unit and was manufactured by Medical Corporation to perform the tonsilectomy. While the electrode was in Andrew’s mouth, an airway fire occurred.

Andrew’s Protector and father sued Parrish for medical malpractice. He sued Medical, alleging negligent design and failure to warn in connection with its electrosurgical unit.

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

Two Motorcyclist Killed In Sacramento Injury Lawsuit, Part 1 of 2

February 28, 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.)

INJURIES: The plaintiffs sought damages for loss of care, comfort and society.

Facts:

In Nov. 2005, the plaintiffs’ decedents, both in their 20s, were killed in a motorcycle accident on the Highway, just south of the Harry’s Fish restaurant. The two had been riding a motorcycle along the road when a vehicle exited the restaurant’s parking lot and attempted to make a U-turn across traffic lanes. During the turn, the vehicle collided with the motorcycle. The motorcycle driver was killed instantly; the passenger survived impact, but died later at Sacramento Hospital.

The parents of the driver and passenger sued the vehicle driver, who settled for $2.2 million.

The parents then sued the California Department of Transportation, the city of Sacramento, the county of Sacramento, Standard Parking Corporation and Sea View Restaurants, operating as Harry’s Fish, for negligence.

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

Sacramento Car Accident Results in Permanent Brain Damage, Part 1 of 2

February 28, 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: 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.