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.)

Plaintiff remained in the hospital for two days but said she was never told that her cervix tore or that defendant Brady had encountered complications with the procedure. Defendant Brady also failed to monitor the cerclage after the procedure through ultrasound. Plaintiff was sent home with limited instructions for bed rest. Despite knowing that she had encountered complications with the procedure, the doctor assured plaintiffs and plaintiff’s mother, that the operation had been a complete success and that there was “no way” that the cerclage would come undone. After returning home, plaintiff complied with her doctor’s orders and stayed off her feet as much as possible. Two weeks later, she experienced a loss of fluid and sought an emergency appointment with her doctor, who was again unavailable for several days. After plaintiff, her husband, and her mother all called defendant Brady’s office without success in reaching the doctor, plaintiff finally spoke to an after-hours on-call physician, who advised her she could wait to see her doctor until the next morning. The next day, October 18, 2004, defendant Brady was gone to a conference, so plaintiff was seen by defendant Brady’s nurse practitioner, who observed that she was now up to 4 cm dilated with the membranes of the lower twin presenting through the cervix. Colleen was rushed to the hospital by fire department paramedics.

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

Continue Reading ›

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.)

Defendants also contended that plaintiffs had previously blamed the U.S. Navy and several other entities. They contended that decedent was exposed to various asbestos-containing equipment, products, or auxiliary equipment while serving on board ships in the U.S. Navy, including, but not limited to: C Company (C valves); GS Technologies LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to G Inc. (G gaskets and packing); OMI Industries Inc., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to DLS Turbine Company (DL pumps and turbines); and Y Corporation (Y steam traps and valves).

Plaintiffs had also previously alleged that decedent was also exposed to asbestos fibers, particles, and/or dust from the work with (including installation, maintenance, overhaul, replacement, repair, and/or removal), or supply of, asbestos-containing products or materials from the following defendant contractors: MS and Associates Inc., TD Engineering Company Inc., and TAM Shop Inc. Moreover, upon information and belief, none of the above-mentioned contractor/supplier defendants provided decedent with any warning about the dangers of asbestos or provided him with a mask to protect him from such exposures. As a result, decedent was unaware of his need for any type of safety devices to specifically reduce his possible exposure to, or inhalation of, asbestos fibers, particles and/or dust, and did not use any such devices.

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

Continue Reading ›

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.)

XYZ argued that Defendant allowed too many passengers on board (there were 19 on board, who had a combined weight of 2,830 lbs, which was under the weight capacity number at the time on the incident), too many people in the bow, and that he failed to shift the throttle to neutral once water started swamping the bow. XYZ argued that none of these acts were foreseeable and attributed 100 percent of the responsibility for the incident to Defendant.

Although Defendant had been drinking before the incident, he registered a blood-alcohol level of 0.05 percent 45 minutes after the event, below the legal limit. He was arrested at the scene and later pleaded no contest to negligent operation of a watercraft. Defendant testified that he was aware of the capacity limits but believed the boat could operate at maximum capacity.

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

Continue Reading ›

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.)

At 22 hours of life, the infant was weighed and found to have lost 7.8 percent of his birth weight. This loss is considered significantly greater than normal. Kaiser had a policy and procedure in place such that, if there was a weight loss of 7 percent, supplemental feedings should be given under a variety of circumstances, including the baby being lethargic and not nursing vigorously enough to empty the breast. The records indicated that, on August 11, 2005 at 6:00 a.m., Plaintiff reported that the infant did not want to breast-feed. The infant was supplemented with formula at 1:00 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. on August 11, 2005.

Several notations were made on the nursing flow sheet for August 11, 2005, reflecting time spent by the infant at his mother’s breasts. The records indicated satisfactory initiation of breast-feeding on a number of occasions. However, Plaintiff specifically recalled that the infant was not breast-feeding effectively at any time from birth through and including the morning of August 12, 2005. Her breasts became blistered and painful from the unsuccessful feeding attempts.

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

Continue Reading ›

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.)

Plaintiff made a claim for subluxation of his C7-8 vertebrae leaving him an incomplete quadriplegia from nipples down, acute respiratory distress syndrome, leukocytosis, thrombocytosis, dysphagia, polydipsia, anxiety, nyponatremia, hypokalemia, acute renal failure, post-trauma pulmonary insufficiency, hyposmolality, pneumonia, post hemorrhagic anemia, constipation, neuogenic bladder and bowel, abnormal glucose, cardiac dysrhythmias and autonomic dysreflexia, hyperglycemia, C3-C4 and C4-C5 disc protrusion, UTIs, insomnia, depression, blisters and ulcers, $947,000 in past medical expenses, $2 million to 5 million in future medical expenses, $120,000 in past lost income, $1.7 million in future lost wages, reduced life expectancy and lost enjoyment of life.

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.)

Immediately after injection, Serreno developed difficulty breathing, had a stroke and was then intubated. The central line was then placed on a pressure transducer, which indicated that it was arterially placed. The central line was then discontinued, and an MRI revealed that Serreno had a serious brain injury.

Serreno sued the County, which controlled ABC Regional and its county employees, accusing Emmerson of medical malpractice, specifically negligent injection.

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

Continue Reading ›

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.)

Plaintiffs alleged that Travis’ testimony that the initial impact involved Merry’s pickup striking his cab behind the driver’s door demonstrated that he did not see the beginning of the accident because it did not account for the damage to the headlight, front quarter panel and front wheel of his cab. Human factors analysis demonstrated that Travis’ description of the accident—Merry’s pickup turning sharply, crossing the centerline and striking him behind the driver’s door–was contrary to anticipated driver behavior; drivers do not turn sharply into oncoming traffic. Plaintiffs alleged that the impact Travis described would not have resulted in the pickup moving from that impact into the path of the second truck.

Contrastingly, accident reconstruction established that what actually happened was that Travis allowed his rig to drift over the centerline. In response, Merry attempted to steer sharply to the right to avoid the oncoming truck but was struck by the front of the cab behind the driver’s door of the pickup, causing the pickup truck to then spin into the path of the oncoming second truck and trailer.

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

Continue Reading ›

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.)

On October 15 at 1:30 a.m., the patient began to push. At 2 a.m., the OB-GYN arrived, and at 3:14 a.m., the baby was delivered with APGAR scores of one at one minute, three at five minutes, and four at 10 minutes. The first blood gas showed significant metabolic acidosis with a pH level of 7.16 and a base excess of minus 20. Seizures were noted in the neo-natal ICU, and the baby was diagnosed with cerebral palsy.

The infant, through her grandmother as guardian ad litem, sued the hospital, the OB-GYN and the nurses for medical malpractice. Her attorney asserted that the fetus was asphyxiating in utero and she should have been taken out via caesarean section hours before the natural birth.

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

Continue Reading ›

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.)

TEXT:
CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS

According to Plaintiff: Plaintiff, a 52-year-old Operations Manager, presented at defendant Physician’s office on February 7, 2008 with pain in his left foot, due to having taken a misstep a day or so before. Plaintiff had Type-II diabetes and had been treating with defendant since June 2006 for diabetic foot care relating to his right foot.

On February 7, defendant diagnosed a Lisfranc fracture, with possible Charcot, placed him in a walking boot and sent him home, telling him to stay off the foot as much as possible.

On February 12, plaintiff returned on an urgent basis because of greatly increased pain in the foot. Defendant removed the walking boot and found a large blister covering the entire top of his foot. She drained and debrided the entire blister, creating a 2.5″ x 3.5″ open wound on the dorsum of the foot.

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

Continue Reading ›

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.)

CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS

According to court records: On May 2, 2002, plaintiff went to work for ABC Company, which had a contract with California Department of General Services (“EHS”) to provide security services at state facilities in Sacramento, California. In August 2001, defendant XYZ Inc. took over the ABC contract with EHS, and plaintiff was hired by defendant XYZ on September 18, 2001. At the time plaintiff was hired by defendant XYZ, she informed them that she was going to school, but was available to work evening or night shifts.

In the fall of 2001, Johnson, a janitorial supervisor working at the B Building where plaintiff was assigned began subjecting plaintiff to inappropriate sexual comments and unwelcome sexual advances. Plaintiff said she made it clear that she did not welcome the sexual advances, and Johnson began retaliating against her. Plaintiff was reluctant to report Johnson’s conduct because her assignment accommodated her schedule and was close to home. Plaintiff said her manager promised her that her shift would not be changed and she would not be transferred.

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

Continue Reading ›

Contact Information