Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Accident Experts Battle In Sacramento Brain Injury Lawsuit, Part 4 of 6

December 12, 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.)

LAW AND ARGUMENT cont.
EXPERT WITNESS QUALIFICATIONS ARE NOT BASED UPON RIGID CLASSIFICATIONS, BUT RATHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

Mr. Goldberg’s 1,500-plus hours of specialized training include, without limitation, topics such as Injury Biomechanics & Occupant Kinematics, Biomechanics of Accidents, Biomechanics of Impact Trauma – Limits of Human Tolerance. (Exhibit 1, pp. 1-2) In fact, Mr. Goldberg’s specialized training in biomechanics and accident reconstruction has accumulated steadily since he received his undergraduate degree in 1986, and his experience includes is over twenty-seven years with the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department as a traffic accident investigator. (Exhibit 1.) Finally, Mr. Goldberg has testified in over 150 trials. (Exhibit 1, p. 8.) Under these circumstances, defendants’ assertions that Mr. Goldberg has no value as an expert witness due to his lack of formal education and/or his lack of experience with boimechanical issues fall flat.

Based on Mr. Goldberg’s special knowledge, skill, experience, and training accumulated over his lifetime of working and studying in these areas, he has the qualifications necessary to testify as an expert about liability, accident reconstruction and biomechanics.

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

Sacramento Orthopaedic Patient Seeks Damages In Medical Malpractice Case, Part 4 of 5

December 11, 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.)

7. Defendant’s expert radiologist, Dr. Greene, who opined that casting did not prevent injury once the breakage of bones started, was not a qualified expert in orthopedics. Additionally, she was a non-treating radiologist whose opinion was discredited at trial when she testified that she did not know, in forming her opinion, if the patients whose x-rays she reviewed had been casted. Consequently, her testimony is legally insufficient to rebut the testimony of Plaintiffs expert orthopedic surgeon.

8. Based on the evidence at trial, including the testimony of the experts, and the x-rays, there can be no cause for Plaintiffs 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.

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

Sacramento Man Suffers Elder Abuse At Local Skilled Nursing Facility, Part 3 of 7

December 9, 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.)

The Evidence of Understaffing

Plaintiffs’ evidence of understaffing is based primarily on Key Factor Reports prepared each day by ABC’s facilities at the express direction of ABC Healthcare, LLC. ABC’s witnesses have uniformly testified that the Key Factor Report is the only document kept by the facilities that tracks on a daily basis whether they are in compliance with state law. These Key Factor Reports show more than 10,900 days under 3.2 PPD. An additional 550 violations are confirmed in deficiencies and citations issued by the Department of Public Health (previously DHS). This evidence is corroborated through defendants’ admissions in deposition testimony and email.

In addition, ABC destroyed and/or refused to produce Key Factor Reports for roughly 9,250 days. Because defendants admittedly destroyed and have refused to produce these Key Factor Reports, the Court should deem ABC to have failed to provide adequate staffing for each of the days for which no Key Factor Report was produced.

On November 17, 2010, ABC produced, for the first time, its own revised “PPD Analysis.” This analysis has apparently been a work in progress for months (if not years).

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

Automobile Accident Victim From Sacramento Files Lawsuit For Spinal Injuries, Part 3 of 4

December 6, 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.)

PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL DAMAGES cont.

Ms. Johnson’s August 19, 2009 lumbar MRI revealed a 3mm right paracentral hernation at L1-2, 2mm annular bulge at L4-5, 3mm central/right paracentral contained hernation at L2-17 and abroad 2mm posterior herniation at L5-S1. Because of the persistent nature of Ms. Johnson’s symptoms, Dr. White referred her to orthopedic surgeon, Edward Long, M.D., and pain management specialist, Roy Greene, M.D., for further evaluation.

Ms. Johnson presented to Dr. Long on November 11, 2009, reporting increased back pain with radiation into her upper and lower extremities and continued headaches and vertigo. Examination revealed tenderness to palpation, decreased range of motion, diminished sensation in the right L5-S 1 dermatome, and positive straight leg test. He diagnosed Ms. Johnson with cervical strain and right lumher radiculitis.

Treatment recomendations following examination included lumber epidural steroid injections and possible lumbar discography.

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

Doctors At Sacramento Hospital Cause Catastrophic Birth Injuries, Part 3 of 5

December 6, 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.)

If anything, after plaintiffs experts testify regarding the matters relied upon by them from Dr. Smith and Ms. Lee’s report, the defense can certainly request a jury instruction that evidence from those reports only be received for that limited purpose, specifically as part of the information upon which those experts base their opinion. In fact, that was specifically what was done in the Kelley case.

Additionally, defendant’s reliance upon the case of Mosesian v. Pennwalt Corporation (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 851 is misplaced. (In defendant’s Motion this case is incorrectly cited as Mossman v. Pennant Corporation) In fact, the Mosesian facts are radically different than presented here. In Mosesian, a defense expert specifically testified as to the verbal hearsay opinions of six outside experts regarding the very specific conclusion that that expert was testifying to. This is not remotely close to the issues presented here. Additionally, the facts in Mosesian did not involve a medical issue with physicians relying on reports or studies and/or testing done by other medical experts.

In fact, the court in Mosesian acknowledged the rule and holding of Kelley v. Bailey. The court states:

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

Sacramento Orthopedic Physicians Commit Medical Malpractice, Part 3 of 5

December 5, 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.)

2. In evaluating testimony, the standard of medical care can be proven only through expert testimony. Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410. The expert orthopedic surgeon called by Plaintiff, Dr. Morgan Lee, was the only expert witness qualified by his practice to present testimony regarding the treatment of Charcot Foot, except Dr. Lopez, Mrs. Johnson’s treating doctor, who agreed that the only way to prevent ongoing collapse of the bones in the foot was by placing the foot in a cast.

3. Dr. Lee testified that the negligence of the University doctors in failing to timely cast, boot and otherwise protect Plaintiff’s left foot during the acute phase of Charcot’s, directly caused the injuries she suffered while an inpatient at the University Medical Center Hospital in May 2009. This testimony was uncontroverted.

4. Dr. Lee explained the time limited process of Charcot Foot, and the absolute necessity of casting/booting the foot during the acute phase when the bones are subject to fractures and dislocations or subluxations. This testimony was uncontroverted.

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

Auto Accident Leaves Sacramento Man With Catastrophic Brain Injuries, Part 3 of 6

December 5, 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 traumatic brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

LAW AND ARGUMENT
EXPERT WITNESS QUALIFICATIONS ARE NOT BASED UPON RIGID CLASSIFICATIONS, BUT RATHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

It is well established that a witness with special knowledge and expertise in a field can offer expert testimony. Evid. Code § 720; People v. Brown (2001) 96 Cal.App.4th Supp.l, 36-37 (Expertise is “not subject to rigid classification according to formal education or certification.”) Evidence Code section 720(a) refers to the necessary qualifications of an expert witness in the disjunctive: “A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates.” Further, a trial court need only determine the qualifications of an expert, and then the degree of his knowledge is a matter affecting the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility. Los Altos El Granada Investors v. City of Capitola (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 629, 658.

In this case, plaintiffs designated David Goldberg as an expert witness to testify about issues pertaining to liability, accident reconstruction and biomechanics. Defendants only challenge plaintiffs’ expert David Goldberg’s qualifications to testify as a biomechanics expert on the claim he “lacks the special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education sufficient to qualify him as a biomechanical expert.”

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

Sacramento Family Sues Nursing Home For Elder Abuse, Part 2 of 7

December 4, 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’ Section 1430(b) Claim
Legal Background

Section 1430(b) creates a private right of action for residents of ABC nursing facilities to recover up to $500 for each facility’s violation of any state or federal law or regulation. Under plaintiffs’ single enterprise allegations, all defendants are jointly and severally liable for their violations of Section 1430(b) and the other claims asserted.

Plaintiffs’ Section 1430(b) claim is predicated on defendants’ violations of both (1) Health & Safety Code section 1276.5, which requires each facility to provide a minimum of 3.2 nursing hours per patient (3.2 PPD), and (2) Health & Safety Code section 1599.1, which imposes the additional obligation to employ an adequate number of qualified personnel (including nursing personnel) to carry out all of the functions of the facility.

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

Negligent Orthopaedic Care Results In Catastrophic Injury To Sacramento Woman, Part 3 of 5

December 3, 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.)

Plaintiff presents the following specific arguments and facts in support of her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict:

1. On June 8, 2011, the jury found that two physicians employed by defendant Regents of the University of California were negligent in their medical treatment of Plaintiff during her May 2009 hospitalization at the University Medical Center Hospital for her Charcot Foot (“Charcot’s”).

2. In evaluating testimony, the standard of medical care can be proven only through expert testimony. Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399,410. The expert orthopedic surgeon called by Plaintiff, Dr. Morgan Lee, was the only expert witness qualified by his practice to present testimony regarding the treatment of Charcot Foot, except Dr. Lopez who agreed that the only way to prevent ongoing collapse of the bones in the foot was by placing the foot in case.

3. Dr. Lee testified that the negligence of the University doctors in failing to timely cast, boot and otherwise protect Plaintiff’s left foot during the acute phase of Charcot’s, directly caused the injuries she suffered while an inpatient at the University Medical Center Hospital in May 2009. This testimony was uncontroverted.

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

Sacramento Skilled Nursing Facilities Part Of Elder Abuse Lawsuit, Part 1 of 7

December 1, 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’ TRIAL BRIEF
OVERVIEW OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS

This class-action lawsuit concerns chronic understaffing at twenty-two California skilled nursing facilities operated by ABC Healthcare, LLC and its parent company, ABC Healthcare Group, Inc (hereinafter “ABC”). Plaintiffs are current and former residents of ABC’s nursing homes (Resident Class) and family members that paid money to place residents at those facilities (Family Member Class). Several of these facilities are located in Sacramento.

Plaintiffs allege that ABC failed to meet California’s minimum staffing requirements and concealed from the consuming public the fact that its facilities were understaffed. These and related allegations support plaintiffs’ four causes of action based on violations of: (1) Health and Safety Code section 1430(b); (2) the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (3) unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200 et seq.); and (4) California’s False Advertising Law (FAL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17500 et seq.).

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