Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Class-Action Lawsuit Filed On Behalf Of Sacramento Elder Abuse Victims And Families, Part 6 of 7

December 21, 2011 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 elder abuse lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiffs’ Equitable Claims Under the UCL and FAL Statutes
Legal Background

The UCL prohibits unlawful, fraudulent, or unfair business practices. Because the UCL statute is written in the disjunctive, liability can be established under any of these three prongs. (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180.) Plaintiffs’ UCL claim is based on all three prongs of the UCL statute. Plaintiffs also seek recovery for defendants’ false advertising under the FAL. Because the UCL and FAL claims are equitable claims, they are tried to the Court, not the jury.

Plaintiffs’ unlawful practices claim is based on ABC’s violations of the underlying staffing requirements, including Health and Safety Code sections 1276.5 and 1599.1.

Plaintiffs’ fraudulent practices claim is based on ABC’s statements and conduct that were likely to deceive the public into believing that ABC provides adequate nursing staff and complies with the state-mandated minimum of 3.2 PPD. The same evidence of misrepresentations and omissions under plaintiffs’ CLRA claim provides an independent basis for liability under the fraudulent practice prong.

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

Sacramento Physician’s Negligence Causes Child’s Birth Injuries, Part 5 of 5

December 19, 2011 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 and brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

All of defendant’s experts have reviewed the videotapes they complain of in their Motion in Limine. Not only have the experts reviewed and looked at the videotapes, but defense counsel’s own experts have stated under oath that these tapes form the basis, in part, of their own opinions regarding the nature of injury and prognosis of this child. Never at any time prior to plaintiffs receipt of this Motion in Limine has the defense ever requested in any way to depose or question Dr. Smith or Cynthia Lee. Never at any time prior to plaintiffs receipt of defendant’s Motion in Limine has defense counsel expressed a desire to supplemently designate their own experts in these particular areas. Consequently, it is disingenuous at best, and intentionally misleading at worst, for them to state in their Motion: Therefore, Dr. Johnson was unable to depose them to assess whether they are qualified or to assess what was done during the testing. Further, because these alleged experts were not designated as such, Dr. Johnson was unable to supplemently designate his own experts in this area.

As stated previously, the defense has known for over a year regarding the reliance upon these reports by plaintiffs experts. If any side is engaged in gamesmanship, it is the defense who waits until the last moment to make these spurious allegations.

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

New Trial Sought By Sacramento Woman After Negligent Medical Treatment, Part 5 of 5

December 19, 2011 | 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.)

In sum, the facts presented at trial, which were not rebutted by any substantial evidence, showed that Plaintiff entered the hospital with an intact foot in which all the bones and joints, except for the navicular, were free of fractures and dislocations. The admitting x-ray established this. After a week of hospitalization under the exclusive care of Defendants, Plaintiff’s foot was destroyed with many fractures and joint dislocations. Trial testimony confirmed that any attempt to surgically repair Plaintiff’s foot carries a high risk of amputation.

Based on the evidence, Plaintiff, an elderly woman who must care for herself, personally suffered great physical and mental injuries, and financial loss due to those injuries. Future medical expenses, surgeries, and home care will be required to correct Plaintiff’s medical condition. As the evidence showed at trial, defendant, the Regents, is responsible for Plaintiff’s catastrophic injuries, and past and future physical and mental pain and suffering. For these reasons, the Court should grant Plaintiff a new trial based on the fact that there is insufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury.

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented at trial, each of the Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Regents was proven by a preponderance of the evidence. No other reasonable conclusion can be legally deductible from the evidence.

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

Sacramento Woman Demands New Trial In Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, Part 5 of 5

December 19, 2011 | 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.)

10. Plaintiff asserts that the jury failed to understand the medical issues here. The Charcot process is time limited, and during the acute phase the foot must be protected from bone fractures and joint dislocations by casting or booting. After the process quiets down and the bones harden again, when the cast is removed a properly treated foot is preserved in its original state, without injury. This is precisely why Plaintiff’s expert orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Lee, testified that in order to avoid the catastrophic injuries which Plaintiff now suffers, a foot presenting as Plaintiffs did must be casted or booted. This explanation, provided by Plaintiffs expert, was also uncontroverted.

In sum, the facts presented at trial, which were not rebutted by any substantial evidence, showed that Plaintiff entered the hospital with an intact foot in which all the bones and joints, except for the navicular, were free of fractures and dislocations. The admitting x-ray established this. After a week of hospitalization under the exclusive care of Defendants, Plaintiffs foot was destroyed with many fractures and joint dislocations. Trial testimony confirmed that any attempt to surgically repair Plaintiffs foot carries a high risk of amputation.

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

Defendants Challenge Sacramento Brain Injury Victim’s Trial Experts, Part 5 of 6

December 18, 2011 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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.)

DEFENDANTS DO NOT CHALLENGE THE NEED FOR EXPERT TESTIMONY AS TO BIOMECHANICAL ISSUES

An expert witness’s testimony is that which is “[r]elated to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact,” and “based on matter (including his special knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education) perceived by or personally known to the witness or made known to him at or before the hearing … ” Evid. Code § 801(a)-(b). On direct examination an expert witness may state the reasons for his opinion and the matter, including his special knowledge, skill, experience, training and education. Evid. Code § 802.

Defendants will have every opportunity to question Mr. Goldberg about his expertise and training, and the jury will have every opportunity to weigh his testimony in light of that evidence. California’s Evidence Code provides for adequate mechanisms by which defendants’ concerns regarding the lack of Mr. Goldberg’s official degree can be addressed. Therefore, defendants’ motion should be denied.

COURT HAS BROAD DISCRETION TO ALLOW EXPERT TESTIMONY

The California Supreme Court has explained that trial courts have broad discretion in determining the qualifications of expert witnesses. People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133,1175. In another decision, the Court indicated trial courts have considerable latitude in determining an expert’s qualifications. People v. Davenport (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1171, 1207.

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

Chronic Elder Abuse At Sacramento Facilities Leads To Lawsuit, Part 5 of 7

December 17, 2011 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 elder abuse lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiffs’ CLRA Claim

The CLRA prohibits unfair practices in transactions involving consumers, including representing that defendants’ services have characteristics which they do not have or are of a particular standard or quality when they are of another. (Civil Code § 1770(a)(5) and (7).) While the CLRA requires proof of actual damages to recover, that element is easily met for all class members who paid money for services. (The specific number of private pay class members will be confirmed in deposition discovery later this month.) Even if a class member did not pay money, evidence of transactional or lost opportunity costs will suffice. (Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 634, 640-41, n.1.).

Non-disclosures are actionable under the CLRA. (Falk v. General Motors Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2007) 496 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1094; see Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 824, 834-35.) Here, defendants both failed to disclose and actively concealed their understaffing, as evidenced by their manipulation of time records, failure to posting actual staffing numbers, and submittal of inflated nursing PPD numbers to the State of California.

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

Wrongful Deaths At Sacramento Nursing Homes Prompt Class Action Lawsuit, Part 4 of 7

December 14, 2011 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 elder abuse lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Statutory Damages Under Section 1430(b)

Section 1430(b) entitles each affected resident to recover up to $500 for each violation. Each day that a facility fails to meet the minimum and/or adequate nurse staffing requirements constitutes a separate violation for each resident in the facility on the understaffed day. For days when the facility failed to provide at least 3.2 PPD, plaintiffs will ask the jury to find a single violation for each patient in the facility, as opposed to two violations for failing to provide adequate staffing (§1599.1) and minimum staffing (§1276.5).

Although plaintiffs need not prove personal injury or actual harm to recover under Section 1430(b), that does not mean that defendants’ understaffing resulted in only hypothetical harm, as defendants contend. Through testimony from class members, current and former employees, and expert witnesses, plaintiffs will show that understaffing results in real and tangible consequences.

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

Sacramento Boy Suffers Birth And Brain Injuries, Part 4 of 5

December 13, 2011 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 and brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Here, Stefan Hall, M.D., is a pediatric neurologist. He has seen this child on three occasions and along the way has provided the child with recommendations for treatment and has reached a prognosis and opinions relative to future care needs of this child. Even outside of the forensic realm, pediatric neurologists always review outside tests done by physical therapists and speech therapists in an effort to more finitely define the specific delays and issues in those areas. There can be no question that these reports are quite specifically the type of reports and findings that pediatric neurologists always, even outside the realm of legal testimony, rely on in order to assist, prognose and make appropriate recommendations.

Sally Jackson is a registered nurse specializing in case management, rehabilitation and life care planning. Her entire profession is based upon review of outside physicians, physical and speech therapists. In her area of expertise inevitably and in every situation she relies upon the specific types of studies and testing performed by Dr. Hadley Smith and Ms. Cynthia Lee.

All of plaintiffs experts have indicated specifically that in part they relied upon these specific reports and the video in order to assist them in formulating their opinions.

Notwithstanding whether the reports themselves can be introduced into evidence, there can be no question based upon the above authority that plaintiffs experts can rely upon the findings and reports and make known their reliance upon same and the contents therein.

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

Sacramento Car Accident Victim Incurs Major Medical Expenses, Part 4 of 4

December 13, 2011 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 automobile accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Ms. Johnson returned for a follow-up examination with Dr. Greene on March 17, 2009. She reported little improvement in her low back pain and continued to experience weakness and pain radiating into the right lower extremity. Dr. Greene recommended a lumbar discography from L1-2 through L5-S1 based on his review of her lumbar spine MRI and symptomatology. He further noted Ms. Johnson would be a candidate for surgical discectomy depending on the results of her lumbar discography.

On June 16, 2009, Ms. Johnson underwent lumbar discography which proved positive for 112 10/10 severe pain at L4-5 and positive for 8/10 concordant pain at L2-3. Ms. Johnson was then admitted for right percutaneous discectomy with automated nucleotome and pitutitary rongeur under fluoroscopic monitoring at L4-5.

As a direct and proximate result of the injuries that Ms. Johnson suffered due to defendant Black’s negligence, she incurred the following medical expenses:

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

Sacramento Woman Fights Improper Jury Verdict In Medical Malpractice Case, Part 4 of 5

December 12, 2011 | 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.)

8. Based on the evidence at trial, including the testimony of the experts, and the x-rays, there can be no cause for Plaintiff’s injuries other than the negligent care she received during her May 2009 hospitalization at defendant Regents hospital. The admitting x-ray was misread, and the early acute phase of Charcot clearly visible in the navicular bone, was missed. Therefore, the medically necessary treatment of protecting the foot until the time limited Charcot process quieted down was not provided. Compounding these errors, Plaintiff was told by defendant doctors and other defendant Regents’ employees to walk the long corridor on an unprotected foot during the acute phase. With each step, more bones were breaking and joints were dislocating. These facts, supported by substantial testimony, were uncontroverted.

9. Plaintiff was under the exclusive care and control of defendants at the time of the injuries. There were no intervening causes. In this case, it is not possible to separate the negligence from the cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. It is apparent that the jury improperly speculated about some other unnamed and unknown cause that was not part of the evidence presented at trial.

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