Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Sexual Harassment Case Results in Multi-Million Dollar Verdict, Part 2 of 3

February 24, 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 sued Hirsch and his personal assistant, Wendy Linares. She brought causes of action for sexual harassment, wrongful termination, stalking, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Hirsch; and causes of action for stalking, intentional infliction of emotional distress and conspiracy against Linares.

Darroll contended that after breaking up with Hirsch, he attempted several times to reconcile and took retaliatory actions when Darroll refused. She claimed that Hirsch wrongfully terminated her from her job at the salon, and that his ongoing campaign that ensued served as sexual harassment, stalking, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She claimed Hirsch continued to send letters about getting back together, which coincided with the incidents and acts taken against her.

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

Sacramento Birth Injury Case Brought After Hospital Failed to Staff Adequately, Part 2 of 3

February 23, 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.)

The nurse left Travis and her husband, Evan Travis, alone in the labor and delivery room. In the meantime, other labor and delivery nurses let the obstetrician go home to dinner without telling her about Sarah’s symptoms or admission.

Sacramento Hospital is a Level 3 hospital specializing in high-risk deliveries. It was delivering 4,300 babies per year and had one charge nurse to cover 49 rooms on two hospital floors. The hospital allows only obstetricians to perform Caesarian sections. It had an anesthesiologist and a neonatologist available to start the anesthesia and resuscitate the baby, but it did not have an obstetrician available to perform the surgery

after the attending physician went home to dinner.

When the nurses let the obstetrician go home, there were 33 pregnant women and 16 newborns in the labor and delivery unit.

The attending nurse went back to the Travis’ room and figured out the baby’s heart rate was dropping on the monitor, so she had the charge nurse call the obstetrician at home to tell her to come back to the hospital. The nurses knew the baby was being asphyxiated, but they did not transfer the mother to the operating room. They did not want the patient and her husband to be waiting in the operating room until the obstetrician arrived, because the couple would then know there was no physician available to deliver the baby.

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

Sacramento Medical Malpractice Case Against Kaiser Results After Misdiagnosis, Part 2 of 3

February 23, 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.)

On September 10, 1999 Satals performed a craniotomy to remove four ccs of blood in the cerebellar pontine angle and also placed a tracheostomy. Despite placing the patient under general anesthesia and drilling holes in his skull, Satals did not clip the aneurysm. He also did not discuss with the family the risks and benefits of clipping the aneurysm. Aneurysms have a high risk of re-bleed, which has potentially devastating consequences. Later, Satals told Jane Doe that he did not want to sentence John Doe to life in a nursing home and sometimes doctors have to make those kinds of decisions.

John Doe was transferred from Kaiser to the Protector, a skilled nursing facility in Elk Grove, on September 24, 1999. At the Protector, the patient showed remarkable improvement. He came out of his coma, moved his limbs, squeezed his hands, tracked with his eyes and communicated using various methods. He started being weaned off his trach and tolerated several hours without the trach, breathing on his own. At the time of discharge on September 24, Kaiser had scheduled a follow-up appointment for one month. This was Kaiser’s routine appointment time for a patient transferred to a nursing home. At the Protector, Kaiser made no effort to have the patient examined by a neurologist or neurosurgeon. Instead, Kaiser placed Roger Taimes, an internist and gerontologist, in charge of plaintiff patient’s care. Taimes saw him only two times: September 30 and October 8. Taimes noted that John Doe would be brought back to Kaiser to have his aneurysm clipped if he showed significant improvement. By the time of his last examination, Taimes had noted many improvements. Nevertheless, Taimes never communicated with Satals or Phillips or anyone else at Kaiser Sacramento regarding these improvements and made no effort to have the patient evaluated by a neurologist or neurosurgeon. In fact, Taimes admitted that he has never recommended a patient have an aneurysm clipped.

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

Car Runs Stop Sign in Sacramento Resulting in Multi-Million Dollar Lawsuit, Part 2 of 2

February 23, 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.)

CLAIMED INJURIES

According to Plaintiff: After the accident, plaintiff complained of a head laceration, neck pain, right flank and hip pain and bruising, right shoulder pain, back pain, and a possible loss of consciousness. He was taken to an emergency room. Initial x-rays of his right hip found no fracture; however, due to persistent pain, an MRI was performed, which revealed acute fractures of the right sacral ala, superior and inferior rami, and public fractures. A CT scan of his head was reported to show no acute findings. He was diagnosed with right sacral and pelvic fractures and lumbar and sacral tenderness. On August 3, 2008, plaintiff reported feeling numbness in his left leg. An examination found palpable tenderness in the right groin over the ramus and in the posterior right sacral region. On August 6, 2008, he was examined by another doctor and he reported continued morning headaches. X-rays of his right ribs taken on August 10, 2008 revealed a non-displaced fracture of the anterior segment of the eighth rib. By September 3, 2008, plaintiff’s headaches were becoming more severe, with confusion, altered mental status, blurred vision, lower extremity tremors, and numbness. A CT scan revealed a 2.5 cm hematoma on the left cerebral hemisphere and midline shift. He was admitted to a hospital, and burr holes were done for drainage. The following day, a CT scan found more hemorrhage and a craniotomy was performed. He was discharged on September 14, 2008. Plaintiff was subsequently diagnosed with disc bulges at L3-L4 and L4-L5, severe spinal stenosis at L4-L5, and L5-S1 facet hypertrophy. He underwent physical therapy from April 14, 2009 until May 25, 2009, and he underwent an epidural injection on January 14, 2010. He underwent a surgery at L4-L5. Plaintiff claimed that he had cognitive deficits and experiences memory loss, confusion, and right arm tremor. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that plaintiff’s relationship with his wife and his quality of life had been affected by his injuries. He suffers from depression and a personality change, with him being more aggressive and argumentative with a shorter temper. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that this was an effect of the closed-head injury. Defense counsel disputed the traumatic brain injury claims and the need for back surgery.

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

Teen in Vegetative State After San Jose Doctor Operates Negligently in Medical Malpractice Case, Part 2 of 2

February 23, 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.)

Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the VP shunt was not worked up at admission because of miscommunication. The lawyers also argued that the neurosurgeon performed the craniectomy instead of addressing the possible VP shunt malfunction. Despite evidence of increased intracranial pressure caused by excessive CSF, the neurosurgeon opened the “drum tight dura” and a portion of the child’s brain stem herniated through the incision under considerable force.

The health care providers did not bill for the majority of services that the teen required post-surgery during his hospitalization. The health care liens were settled for $80,000.

The plaintiff experienced developmental delays, microcephaly and periodic seizures prior to the incident. At the time of the incident, he was receiving special education classes. He was functioning on a first-to-second-grade level. He was fluent in Spanish and English, very sociable and interacted appropriately with his peers, according to plaintiff’s counsel. He was independent in dressing, bathing, preparing simple meals, obtaining his own drinks, and feeding himself.

The child’s wage loss contentions were limited due to his level of pre-occurrence cognitive deficiencies.

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

Sacramento Car Accident Results in Million Dollar Settlement, Part 1 of 2

February 23, 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: Wallace sustained right (dominant) shoulder impingement syndrome as well as radiculopathy in his neck. After the accident, he was taken to an emergency room, where he was treated and released. He underwent several months of conservative treatment, including chiropractic care, physical therapy, pain medication and epidural and facet injections.

Facts:
On Jan. 5, 2006, plaintiff Sam Wallace, 57, an office manager, was reportedly rear-ended at 35 mph by Ronald German on the 605 Freeway in Sacramento.

Wallace sued German and his employer ABC Electrical Contractors Inc., for motor vehicle negligence and vicarious liability. Wallace asserted that the accident resulted from German’s inattentiveness.

Wallace underwent arthroscopic surgery on his right shoulder and an anterior cervical decompression and fusion at C5-7 with right structural iliac crest autograft instrumentation on Sept. 5, 2006. The fusion alleviated the radiculopathy, but did not cure the severe, ongoing headaches.

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

Medical Malpractice Case Brought Against Sacramento Doctor For Negligence in Operation, Part 2 of 2

February 22, 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:

Nevins filed a lawsuit against Sacramento health in the Sacramento County Superior Court. The plaintiff alleged Sacramento health and its employees were negligent and violated the standard of care. The plaintiff alleged Oliver acted within the scope of his employment when he performed the procedure.

The plaintiff sought damages for her medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, lost earnings and loss of earning capacity.

The defendant denied the allegations of negligence and asserted the plaintiff’s failure to mitigate her damages as an affirmative defense. Sacramento health claimed Nevins’s hypoglossal nerve was in an unexpected anatomical position never before encountered by Oliver or reported in the medical literature. It further claimed Oliver immediately disclosed to the plaintiff after the surgery that he had cut her hypoglossal nerve and apologized for the incident.

Severe Brain Injury and Physical Impairments Result in Sacramento Lawsuit, Part 4 of 4

February 21, 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.)

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.

Sacramento Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Brought Against Ex-Boyfriend and Company Owner, Part 1 of 3

February 17, 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: Darroll asked the jury for $135,850.36 in special damages for lost wages, property damage and therapy costs for her emotional distress. She also sought $3 million for her pain and suffering, as well as $2.5 million in punitive damages.

Facts:

In 2002, plaintiff Kerry Darroll, 25, began a romantic relationship with Ben Hirsch, owner of XYZ Records. Hirsch signed Darroll to be a recording artist, and she appeared on the soundtrack for the film “Whoohoo.” In 2004, Darroll began to pursue a career as a hair stylist, and the following year, she began working at a salon in Folsom. In November 2006, Darroll’s relationship with Hirsch ended, and she moved out of his home in Sacramento.

Darroll claimed that between November and December 2006, Hirsch began a campaign of harassment, defamation and vandalism against her. She alleged that in an attempt to bring back their relationship, Hirsch purchased the salon where she had been working for more than a year. She claimed that when she agreed to work for Hirsch but refused to return to the relationship, Hirsch fired her on Dec. 18. The following day, Darroll then went to Hirsch’s office when he wasn’t there and destroyed a television set and some end tables with a baseball bat.

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

Sacramento Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Results After Secretary and Co-Worker Are Fired, Part 2 of 2

February 16, 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.)

Both Patricia Jennings and Mollusk contended that the defendants defamed them at several meetings after they were terminated, making false accusations about them stealing from the school while still under its employ.

The defendants denied all of the plaintiffs’ accusations. They claimed that Mollusk was fired for mismanaging the school, and that Jennings was fired for an incident in which she refused to allow a member of the Board of Directors to enter the school grounds. They claimed that Jennings told him to get the hell out of the school and pretended that she was afraid of him.

The defendants filed cross-complaints against the plaintiffs for conversion and negligence, which, on motions by the plaintiffs, were dismissed by the judge after the defense’s case in chief.

Mollusk sought damages for past and future lost earnings, as well as pain and suffering.

Harry Jennings sought damages for a loss of consortium.

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