Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Sacramento Woman Severely Injured In Car Accident, Part 1 of 4

November 22, 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 TRIAL BRIEF
PARTIES

Plaintiff Monica Johnson is represented by the XYZ Law Group. Defendants Theresa Black and James Black are represented by ABC Law Group.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

This action arises out of injuries that Monica Johnson suffered in an automobile vs. automobile accident that occurred on March 31, 2009. At the time of the accident, Ms. Johnson was driving her 1998 Toyota Camry eastbound on Highway 50 just east of Watt Avenue in the city of Sacramento, California. Defendant, James Black was driving his 2007 BMW X-5, failed to stop for traffic and struck Ms. Johnson’s vehicle from behind in a heavy impact. A copy of the Traffic Collision Report is attached hereto and it indicates Mr. Black was clearly at fault. Ms. Johnson’s vehicle was totaled as a result of the accident. Photographs of the damage to Ms. Johnson’s Camry and a copy of the repair estimate are attached.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTION

Liability is not an issue.

PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL DAMAGES

Despite being properly restrained, Ms. Johnson struck her head on the interior of the vehicle during the accident and experienced neck and back pain.

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

Botched Sacramento Knee Replacement Surgery Subject Of Medical Malpractice Action, Part 6 of 9

November 21, 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.)

Dr. Wong examined plaintiff on December 8, 2009. He noted a problem with lateral tracking of the patella. Plaintiff complained of pain in the anterolateral and lateral aspect of the left knee and lateral aspect of the left leg. He recommended studies including a standing long leg alignment from hip to ankle of both legs, merchant views of both knees, and possibly a CT scan of both hip and distal femur. It should be noted that an x-ray taken on January 1, 2005 shows the patella sitting fine and in good position.

On January 20, 2005, Dr. Wong saw plaintiff for a follow-up consultation. Dr. Wong’s diagnosis was instability and maltracking of the patella. Dr. Wong equated this to a mechanical or soft tissue problem. He again recommended that plaintiff obtain a study of a weight-bearing alignment film from hip to ankle and merchant views of both knees. After obtaining weight-bearing films on February 3, 2005, his diagnosis was directed toward the dislocation being due to soft tissue problems on the lateral side. Dr. Wong did not chart any changes in the rotational alignment of the components. He recommended that plaintiff consider a revision surgery to the patellar component.

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

Sacramento Family Files Lawsuit For Child’s Birth Injuries, Part 1 of 5

November 20, 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.)

Plaintiff, David Greene’s, Opposition to Defendant, Robert Johnson, M.D.’s, Motion in Limine No. 10

Plaintiff, David Greene, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Owen Greene, hereby opposes defendant, Robert Johnson, M.D.’s, Motion in Limine No. 10 for order precluding plaintiff from introducing all reports, data, opinions, etc., of speech therapist, Hadley Smith, Ph.D., and physical therapist, Cynthia Lee, P.T., and from allowing all experts from testifying and relying on their testing materials.

This Opposition is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION

As a result of defendant, Robert Johnson, M.D.’s, negligence, minor child David Greene suffers from two separate and distinct injuries; a brachial plexus/ Erb’s palsy to the right upper extremity and an hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy resulting in residual brain injury, behavioral, cognitive and speech deficits.

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

Sacramento Family’s Prized Horse Dies After Veterinary Malpractice, Part 2 of 4

November 20, 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 veterinary medical malpractice lawsuit and its proceedings.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

This action involves allegations of professional negligence against a veterinarian and a veterinary clinic. As with any other professional negligence claim, plaintiff’s prima facie case must include a showing that there exists an accepted standard of care and that the Veterinary Defendants’ conduct fell below that standard. The law is well settled that such a prima facie case can only be made by the introduction of appropriate expert testimony:

Ordinarily, where a professional person is accused of negligence in failing to adhere to accepted standards within his profession, the accepted standards must be established only by qualified expert testimony unless the standard is a matter of common knowledge.Osborne v. Irwin Memorial Blood Bank, 5 Cal.App.4th 234, 277 (1992); see also Wilson v. Irwin Memorial Blood Bank, 14 Cal.App.4th 1315 (1993). This rule has been explicitly held to apply to claims against veterinarians. Williamson v. Prida, 75 Cal.App.4th 1417, 1424-1425 (1999).

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

Sacramento Family Files Lawsuit For Car Accident-Related Brain Injuries, Part 1 of 6

November 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 traumatic brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine #6 to Limit Testimony of Plaintiffs’ Expert Witness David Goldberg; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof in this Traumatic Brain Injury and Car Accident Case.

Plaintiffs Samuel Smith and Linda Smith hereby oppose defendants’ motion in limine to limit the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert witness, David Goldberg. This opposition is based on the ground that Mr. Goldberg’s qualifications as an expert witness to testify about liability, accident reconstruction and biomechanics are clearly set forth in his curriculum vitae, as well as the fact that California statutory and case law establish that the degree of an expert’s knowledge is a matter affecting the weight of his testimony, not the admissibility of his testimony. Further, the definitive criteria in determining whether a witness qualifies as an expert rest on the witness’s occupational experience, not on the existence of any specific degree as claimed by the defendants’ motion.

Importantly, defendants do not challenge the need for expert testimony to assist the jury in understanding the biomechanics of this case, including the forces involved in the accident, the movements of the plaintiff’s body and the threshold for injury based upon the load exerted on plaintiff’s body.

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

Sacramento Doctor Sued For Malpractice After Surgical Complications, Part 5 of 9

November 17, 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.)

The plaintiff returned one week later on August 23, 2009, complaining of severe left knee pain. Dr. Hall did not observe any bruising, gaps or tears in the muscle, or bogginess like after the November 14 surgery, but instead noted that plaintiff had good range of motion and strong quadriceps. Dr. Hall advised plaintiff to follow up in three to four weeks.

When the plaintiff returned on September 13, 2009, she complained to a physician assistant that she could not walk without discomfort. However, Dr. Hall examined plaintiff while she was walking and observed her gait to be normal with no pain. Plaintiff described a feeling of insecurity with the patella. Dr. Hall noted plaintiffs quadriceps were intact with good tone and power. Range of motion was normal and she could perform SLR. He prescribed a stabilizing brace because he observed that the patella seemed to be off and told her to follow up in four weeks.

Plaintiff returned on October 6, 2009 complaining of severe pain and a burning sensation in her left knee. Dr. Hall found plaintiff’s quadriceps continuing to improve and had good strength, extension, and flexion. The x-rays were satisfactory with some lateral subluxation, but clinically, Dr. Hall felt plaintiff was doing well.

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

Sacramento Woman Files Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Against Hospital, Part 1 of 5

November 17, 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’s Notice of Motion and Motion for New Trial; Memorandum of Points and Authorities
Plaintiff, Billie Johnson, will, pursuant to her previously filed Notice of Intent to Move for New Trial, and does hereby, move the Court for an order to vacate and set aside the verdict of the jury and judgment entered pursuant thereto in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff Johnson, and to grant Plaintiff a new trial on each of her claims against Defendant for professional negligence pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §657 and §657.6 in particular.

This motion will be based on this Notice; the evidence presented at trial; all pleadings, papers and records in this action; the minutes of the Court; and this memorandum of points and authorities; and such additional argument as the Court may permit Plaintiffs to present.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Prefatory Statement

A new trial is proper upon a showing that due to procedural or legal error, an issue of fact requires re-examination after trial by jury, court or referee. Civ. Proc. Code §656. The error must result in a miscarriage of justice. Cal. Const. Art. VI, §13. Upon proper showing, the jury’s verdict and subsequent judgment may be vacated … and a new and further trial granted on all or part of the issues, on application of the party aggrieved … Civ. Proc. Code §657.

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

Medical Malpractice Action Filed Against Sacramento Doctors, Part 1 of 5

November 17, 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 BILLIE JOHNSON hereby moves for an Order for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and submits the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of her Motion.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE A MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED HAD A PREVIOUS MOTION BEEN MADE AND BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR REASONABLE INFERENCES DRAWN THEREFROM TO SUPPORT A VERDICT IN THE DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR
A. Statutory and Case Authority for Granting Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict

Before the expiration of its power to rule on a motion for new trial, the court, on motion of a party against whom a verdict has been rendered, must render judgment in favor of an aggrieved party notwithstanding the verdict whenever a motion for directed verdict for the aggrieved party should have been granted had a previous motion been made. Code of Civil Procedure §629. The grounds for granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict are the same as for granting a motion for directed verdict. See Wright v. City of Los Angeles (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 318, 343, 268 Cal.Rptr. 309; Trammell v. Western Union Tel. Co. (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 538, 556, 129 Cal.Rptr. 361.

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

Experts Battle In Sacramento Veterinary Medical Malpractice Case, Part 1 of 4

November 15, 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 veterinary medical malpractice lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiff’s Expert Witness from Expressing Personal Opinions re Mode of Treatment

Defendants Donald Brown, DVM, and the Valley Equine Group, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as Veterinary Defendants ) hereby move this court in limine for the following ruling and instructions:

That any and all testimony and any questions which would lead to or elicit a response thereto, call for plaintiff’s expert witness to express personal opinions or preferences relating to the care and treatment of horses or other animals, or from stating what that witness “would do in any particular medical circumstance” as opposed to stating what the operative “standard of care” for reputable veterinarians would be in that same circumstance, be excluded.

Said motion is made pursuant to and in accordance with Evidence Code Sections 350 and 351, on the grounds that such evidence is not relevant to any issue herein and that the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the probability that such evidence will prejudice. confuse, or mislead the jury.

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

Detached Patella Complications Lead To Malpractice Suit By Sacramento Woman, Part 4 of 9

November 14, 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.)

On March 24, 2009, plaintiff returned to Dr. Hall for a follow-up visit. Plaintiff complained of pain when trying to walk without a splint. Dr. Hall noted an extensor lag when plaintiff attempted a SLR and also noted maltracking of the patella. Clinically, her knee was locking. Dr. Hall’s impression was patellar instability with subluxation. X-rays showed slipping of the prosthetic patellar component onto the lateral side. He advised plaintiff that unless her knee showed improvement, she should undergo a patellar revision and quadriceps repair.

Plaintiff next presented for a follow-up visit on April 14, 2009, complaining that her patella had drifted laterally. Dr. Hall recommended a revision patellar arthroplasty, and discussed with plaintiff the risks and benefits of the procedure. Plaintiff elected surgery.

On May 28, 2009, Dr. Hall, with Dr. White assisting, performed a quadricepsplasty and quadriceps realignment of the left quadriceps. A complete lateral release was carried out from the tibia proximally on the lateral aspect, which helped to control the mild tracking and subluxing, but did not completely settle the patella in its groove. The lateral tibial patellar tendon was detached distally and woven through the patellar tendon into the medical tissues. The quadriceps repair was done with Ethibond and a double breasting, overlapping procedure, which was performed to tighten the medial structures. Dr. Hall noted this procedure “may solve the patellar instability and its subluxation.”

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