Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Two Teenage Girls Bring Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Company and Its Recruiters, Part 1 of 3

January 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.)

INJURIES: The two plaintiffs suffered from emotional distress and shame at having been coerced into believing that they needed to have sex with the recruiters in order to gain entrance into the ABC Company. Counsel further argued that Dallas lost her virginity to Damon while she was intoxicated at the recruiting office and that Damon had infected her with Chlamydia. According to counsel, when Dallas told Damon that he had given her the disease, Damon responded by exclaiming, “I should have used a condom with your dirty ass.”
Facts:

In the fall of 2003, plaintiff Jane Dallas, a Sacramento high school student, was contacted by an ABC Company recruiter, Phil Damon, about the potential for her to embark on a career in the ABC Company. By the end of January 2004, the two would have sex on three occasions. On the last occasion, Dallas was accompanied by her friend, Martha Rice, who claimed that she had sex with Damon’s fellow recruiter, Ben Fallows at the Sacramento recruiting office.

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

Sacramento Birth Injury Lawsuit Brought Against Doctor, Part 3 of 3

January 24, 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.)

Instead of attending to her patient as she had promised, defendant Brady kept her vacation plans at that time without properly transferring plaintiff’s care to another doctor. Plaintiff said she felt alone, frightened, and abandoned. During defendant Brady’s absence, plaintiff was examined by an on-call perinatologist covering at the hospital that weekend, Dr. Grady. Grady testified that he was asked by someone to see the patient, but that defendant Brady never conferred with him over the next three days.

Mercy Hospital’s attending perinatologist, Dr. Herman, saw plaintiff on October 22, 2004. Although defendant Brady was still plaintiff’s physician, plaintiffs said, she was not caring for or communicating with her patient. When Dr. Herman took over plaintiff’s care, he observed through vaginal ultrasound that defendant Brady had performed the cerclage improperly and had used the wrong procedure. The cerclage failed as a result. By the time plaintiff was informed about her true condition and Dr. Herman explained her options to receive an abdominal cerclage to try to rescue the babies, it was too late. Plaintiff’s lower, exposed twin (minor plaintiff #1) had developed IAIS-Intra-Amniotic Infection Syndrome, which set off a series of events. The option for an abdominal, rescue cerclage was no longer available. The infection necessitated a lengthy hospital stay, and ultimately, when it spread from twin #1 to the upper twin (minor plaintiff #2), the babies had to be delivered by Cesarean Section at 24 weeks gestation.

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

Man Claimed to Have Been Killed From Asbestos in Sacramento Injury Lawsuit, Part 3 of 4

January 24, 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 wrongful death lawsuit and its proceedings.)

During the time decedent performed the various jobs described, and while working on his own personal automobiles, decedent worked on and/or worked around others working on disc brakes, drum brakes, and manual transmissions. Plaintiffs alleged that decedent and his co-workers routinely replaced, maintained, and performed brake repairs and clutch repairs. Specifically, decedent testified to working on the brake assemblies on automobiles, big rig trucks, delivery trucks, and school buses, which included preparing the wheel wells to replace worn and used brakes and sanding, grinding, and arcing brake shoes for a proper fit to the brake drums. Plaintiffs also alleged that decedent blew dust out of the brake drum, as well as cleaning the brakes using his hands and brushes and/or blowing out the dust in the brakes. Decedent additionally testified to preparing clutches for installation and cleaning out the clutch assemblies with either his hands or an air hose in preparation for replacement. Moreover, after such work was performed, decedent and his co-workers would sweep up. Upon information and belief, this work with asbestos-containing friction products caused decedent to be exposed to airborne asbestos fibers.

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

Boat Malfunctions Cause Young Girl Serious Brain Injury in Accident, Part 3 of 3

January 24, 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.)

SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS

According to Plaintiff One: Demand: $6 million in December 2008. Prior to trial commencing, the demand was $8 million, and during trial the demand went to $14 million. Offer: XYZ made no offers in response to the statutory demands. XYZ then made a statutory offer before trial for $1.5 million. The time to accept that offer expired before trial. At the time of trial, XYZ indicated that was the extent of its offer. During settlement conversations during trial, XYZ never came off of its $1.5 million offer. Defendant tendered his $1 million policy prior to trial. The tender was not accepted. Plaintiff Two Demand: Plaintiff Two made a demand for $200,000 in December 2008.

EXPERT TESTIMONY

According to Plaintiff: Plaintiffs’ liability engineering experts, Kim Lyle and Evan French, opined that there was no rational basis from an architectural/engineering perspective for these design features and that the risks of the design had no cognizable benefits. Plaintiffs’ warning expert, Bob Kalma, testified that XYZ failed to provide warnings of any kind to the operator or passengers about proper weight distribution or the risks of overloading the bow. Plaintiffs’ experts Lyle and biomechanical engineer Dr. Ted Hamm also testified that the expanded bow lacked sufficient handrails to provide a chance of preventing being washed overboard; no handrail was within reach of Plaintiff One, who was seated at the very front of the vessel. Defendant’s expert Ryan Thomas admitted that the capacity number provided by XYZ Company was incorrect and should have been 16 people or 2,224 pounds.

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

Sacramento Kaiser Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Due to Inaccurate Oral Intake, Part 3 of 4

January 18, 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.)

Shortly before 7:00 a.m., a phlebotomist who had come to the infant’s room to draw blood noted that he was not breathing. He was then taken to the well-baby nursery, where a bedside glucose check revealed a level of 15 (severely low). The infant was transferred to the special-care nursery at around 7:10 a.m. At 7:15 a.m., seizure activity was observed. Further blood glucose testing indicated that his level had dropped as low as 7. An MRI of his brain showed bilateral occipital infarction, primarily toward the back of the brain, a lesion that is commonly associated with severe hypoglycemia.

The infant was discharged from Kaiser on August 24, 2005. Since that time, he has not developed normally. At the time of the arbitration, he was two-years, 10-months old. He cannot walk, crawl, or use his arms, legs, or hands purposefully. He has no speech. He experiences seizures on a daily basis, despite being on significant doses of anti-seizure medications. Because of his inability to swallow safely, he had a gastrostomy tube placed approximately one year ago and now takes all of his feeding via the tube. He continues to live at home with his parents.

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

Delayed Diagnosis Causes Serious Damages in Sacramento Personal Injury Case, Part 1 of 2

January 18, 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.)

INJURIES: Plaintiff claimed he sustained cauda equina syndrome, chronic pain syndrome, loss of a leg due to amputation, bowel/bladder incontinence, and loss of sexual function. He said he suffers from intense pain on a daily basis and continues to have decreased sensation of lower extremities described as a “dead” leg below the knee. He uses a walker to ambulate short distances, cannot walk on his own and cannot drive.

Facts:

In August 2006, Plaintiff, 64, a retiree, presented to the ABC Hospital complaining of lower back pain and left leg pain, which he said was worse with activity. A decision was made to perform an L4-5 and L5-S1 laminectomy with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at L4-5. A preoperative examination of Plaintiff revealed no weakness with, and he did not have problems with, bowel function, urination or sexual function or any difficulty walking.

On August 19, Plaintiff underwent the recommended back surgery. The next day, a nurse noted that Plaintiff complained of numbness in the scrotum, inability to feel sensation and a dull sensation in his right leg. The symptoms persisted and worsened. By that evening,

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

Sacramento Personal Injury Case Involves Collision Between Two Trucks, Part 3 of 3

January 18, 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.)

CLAIMED INJURIES

According to Plaintiff: Severe head injuries as well as non-life threatening physical injuries; originally conscious after being airlifted to Sacramento County Medical Center; lapsed into vegetative state one week after brain surgery and lingered in that condition for 13 months before death.

CLAIMED DAMAGES

According to Plaintiff: $775,079 medical specials; $342,825 lost income and household services.

COMMENTS

According to Plaintiff: Initial evaluation of the case by accident reconstructionists concluded that it was impossible to tell in which lane the initial impact between Merry’s pickup and the Travis rig occurred. There was no question that the second impact between the pickup and the second ABC truck occurred in the westbound lane of traffic.

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

Medical Malpractice Case Settled in Birth Injury Resulting in Cerebral Palsy, Part 3 of 4

January 18, 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.)

Plaintiff’s counsel also claimed that there was inadequate supervision of the nurse trainee on October 14 and 15.

San Francisco Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Arises From Failure To Treat, Part 2 of 3

January 17, 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.)

At the February 16 appointment, plaintiff’s foot was unwrapped and was found to be infected and necrotic. Plaintiff went immediately to Clovis Community Hospital, where he was diagnosed with a Staph infection and placed on IV antibiotics. He remained at Clovis for one day before being transferred to the Fresno Heart and Surgical Hospital.

When he arrived at Fresno Heart, he came under the care of vascular surgeon Amy Parish, M.D. Dr. Parish immediately realized plaintiff was septic and that his infected left lower limb would have to be amputated. She explained to plaintiffs that plaintiff would die of sepsis within a few days if the foot/leg were not amputated, and they consented to the surgery, which took place that same night, February 17, 2008.

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

Sacramento Woman Sexually Harassed Brings Lawsuit Against Company, Part 2 of 2

January 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.)

Plaintiff said defendant XYZ then only offered her assignments during the day when it knew she could not accept such assignments because she was going to school. Ultimately, plaintiff took medical leave, but when plaintiff’s doctor released her to return to work, defendant XYZ delayed her return for months. Plaintiff said when she was allowed to return, defendant XYZ assigned her to the DFS Division, but continued its campaign of harassment, intending to force her to quit or to create a pretext to fire her.

Defendant Amos was the defendant EHS employee responsible for supervising the security guards assigned to the EHS Fleet Services Division. Before plaintiff could be assigned to the Fleet Services Division, defendant Amos had to interview plaintiff and approve her assignment. He then acted as her site supervisor. After initially defending her against defendant XYZ’s continuing harassment, defendant Amos informed plaintiff that she “owed” him. Defendant Amos used his supervisory position, and threats to have her fired, to force plaintiff to perform oral sex on him on the job. He insisted on going to her house during work hours, where he threatened to have her fired if she refused to have sex with him. Within days, defendant Amos requested that plaintiff be removed from the EHS contract, which defendant XYZ used as a pretext to fire plaintiff.

Defendants Amos and EHS settled with plaintiff.

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