Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

All-Terrain Vehicle Accident Leaves Sacramento Boy With Traumatic Brain Injury, Part 2 of 4

October 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 traumatic brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF BROWNE’S ACADEMIC SUSPENSION IN EXTREMELY PROBATIVE TO THE ISSUES OF DAMAGES AND FUTURE DAMAGES

Plaintiff contends that his traumatic brain injury has caused him severe memory and cognitive deficits, and attributes many of the post-accident occurrences in his life to those injuries. He has not been able to complete his high-school education. His academic success at school, after the accident, was poor and as a result he was not eligible for baseball or other athletics. He attributes these academic struggles solely to the 2008 subject accident, irrespective of pre-accident academic difficulties.

In his mediation brief, plaintiff alleges that his medical experts believe the 2010 gun-incident is directly derived and related to the traumatic brain injury. Dr. Randall Hill has opined that plaintiff “did not have the executive functions needed to keep in mind that he had left the rifle in his car, although now attending school, or that his action in doing so would have consequences.” Similarly, Dr. Li was also called upon to opine whether or not the gun and knife expulsion incident was related to his TBI.

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

Sacramento Child Severely Infected Due To Medical Malpractice, Part 2 of 6

October 21, 2011 | by Moseley Collins

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical negligence 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.)

These allegations have nothing to do with the claim by plaintiff Gillian Smith for negligence. Gillian Smith is seeking to recover damages for the loss of her daughter’s consortium. Recovery of such damages is precluded by Baxter v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 461. If plaintiff Gillian Smith is trying to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a bystander witness of the injuries allegedly suffered by her daughter, she has not alleged any facts showing that she had a contemporaneous awareness of any injury at the time it was occurring as required under Thing v. LaChusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644, 667-668 and Bird v. Saenz (2002) 28 Cal.4th 910, 920-921.

It is not clear from the opposition to the motion to strike what position Gillian Smith is taking. The opposition states that the first and second causes of action are properly pled and that, therefore, the motion to strike should be denied. However, the motion to strike is not directed at either the first or second causes of action, it is limited to certain allegations set forth in paragraph 12 regarding Gillian Smith allegedly exposing her family, including her daughter, plaintiff Natalie Smith, to the allegedly contagious infectious disease. Gillian Smith cannot recover for loss of her daughter’s consortium or for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a bystander witness. The motion to strike should be granted.

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

Sacramento Woman Suffers Traumatic Brain Injury In Collision With Bus, Part 6 of 7

October 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 car versus bus accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

DEFENSE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

Because of plaintiffs spectacular litany of injuries, she was sent for a neurological examination in March of 2009, and an orthopedic examination in April of 2009. The results of those examinations are set forth below.

Neurologic Exam:

The first examination was performed by orthopedist, Dr. Daniel Stein, at University Health Care. When he examined the plaintiff, she exhibited decreased touch along her right arm and hand. Due to the pattern of claimed sensory loss, Dr. Stein felt that the plaintiff had a credibility issue in this regard. He also had very serious concerns about her claims of cognitive loss. She told Dr. Stein that she had a photographic memory for her entire life, and she went on to describe the various cognitive problems she was having. Dr. Stein felt that the complaints were not credible.

Such devastating symptomatology could be characterized in severe traumatic brain injury cases, but even then, the features described by the plaintiff would be unexpected. It was the opinion of Dr. Stein that her brain injury claims are unreasonable in relation to this particular event and that her cognitive issues are not associated with brain trauma or head trauma.

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

Sacramento Woman Files Medical Malpractice Suit After Botched Knee Surgery, Part 1 of 4

October 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.)

Defendant Jonathan Black, M.D.’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Defendant’s Bankruptcy Becomes Issue In Sacramento Medical Malpractice Case, Part 1 of 3

October 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.)

Motion in Limine of Defendant Ian Hall to Exclude Any Reference to or Mention of Ian Hall’s Personal Bankruptcy By Plaintiff Kenneth Lee

Defendant Ian Hall, before introduction of evidence, hereby moves this Court for an Order precluding plaintiff, plaintiff’s counsel, any other party or their respective counsel, or any other witness from introducing any evidence of or reference to defendant Ian Hall’s 2008 personal bankruptcy, which was filed on April 9, 2008 and discharged on August 11, 2008, in this Sacramento medical malpractice lawsuit.

This motion is made on the grounds that such references and evidence are irrelevant, prejudicial, and will prove to be confusing and misleading to the jury. Any reference to Ian Hall’s bankruptcy will lead to widespread speculation of the jury, as to nature and extent of that bankruptcy and who it covers. In order to avoid such confusion, and risk of mistrial if jurors make assumptions based on their bankruptcy speculation only, Defendant Ian Hall seeks an order from the Court to preclude any reference or evidence of his personal bankruptcy.

INTRODUCTION

On April 9, 2008, defendant Ian Hall filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Plaintiffs and several co-defendants were listed as creditors in the bankruptcy.

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

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

October 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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff Deborah Hill’s Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs

Plaintiff will move this court for an order striking and/or taxing the following items of cost set forth in Defendants Memorandum of Costs filed in this matter.

Per code Plaintiff is only required to pay Defendant’s post-CCP 998 offer costs the court finds reasonable. Defendant’s CCP §998 offer was served on March 16, 2010 and expired April 16, 2010. Thus the only recoverable costs are those incurred after April 16, 2010.

(1) Regarding Item No. 1, “Filing and Motion Fees” Items a, b, and c, wrongfully included in CCP §998 offer, therefore not entitled to a reimbursement of these costs;

(2) Regarding Item No. 8, “Expert Fees,” wrongfully seeks $25,643.75 because it is much too expensive for the services provided and is therefore unjustified and unreasonable thus preventing Defendants from getting a reimbursement for these costs.

Plaintiff seeks an order taxing these costs pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5.

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

Sacramento Family Files Medical Malpractice Suit Against Hospital, Part 1 of 6

October 17, 2011 | by Moseley Collins

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical negligence 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.)

Reply of Defendant Universal Medical Center (Also Sued as Universal Health System) to Plaintiffs Gillian and Natalie Smiths’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint

Defendant Universal Medical Center (also sued as Universal Health System) files this reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition to defendant’s motion to strike.

INTRODUCTION

This action is premised on care rendered to plaintiff Gillian Smith. Gillian Smith contends that Universal and the other defendants provided negligent care to her regarding a bump on her left hand. Gillian Smith alleges that she was negligently notified that she did not test positive for a highly contagious strain of staphylococcus (“MRSA”), causing her to fail to take precautionary measures and to “unknowingly expose her family, including her daughter, the minor plaintiff, Natalie Smith, to the MRSA, resulting in the daughter’s hospitalization. The first cause of action is asserted by Gillian Smith relating to the care she received at Universal. Universal moves, under Code of Civil Procedure sections 435 and 436, to strike from paragraph 12 of the first cause of action, page 3:27 to page 4:2, of the complaint:

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

Car Accident Victim From Sacramento Suffers Catastrophic Injuries, Part 5 of 7

October 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 car versus bus accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Back Pain:

Plaintiff claims pain throughout her entire back. The pain is there all the time. Only the degree of pain varies.

Again, plaintiff believes that all of her back pain is as the result of the subject accident. The pain is concentrated in her upper back and in her lower back, but they both radiate into her midback.

Hearing Problems:

Plaintiff wears a hearing aide in her left ear. She believes her level of hearing has decreased as a result of the accident. She has tinnitus in her left ear.

Sleep Problems:

Plaintiff does not claim a problem going to sleep, but she wakes up almost every night for one of two reasons. First, she often experiences cramping which can affect her back, her hips or her legs. When that happens, she has to get up and walk around, and the cramping is alleviated. Other times she is awakened by nightmares associated with the collision of October 17, 2008.

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

Sacramento Boy Suffers Traumatic Brain Injury, Part 1 of 4

October 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 traumatic brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Defendant Blaine White hereby provides its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Academic and Criminal Charges.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
This matter arises out of a roll-over accident involving a Yamaha Rhino 4×4 off-road vehicle at a dirt track event, which occurred on November 21, 2008. The event took place over the course of the weekend at the Motocross Park (MX) in Sacramento, California. Plaintiffs have filed suit against John and Catherine White, amongst numerous other defendants, alleging that they negligently entrusted the Rhino to their daughter Dylan White and her friend, Jane Small. No other causes of action have been asserted or alleged against Blaine White or Linda White.

Plaintiff Robert Browne claims multiple injuries, including a broken left arm and a traumatic brain injury. As a result of his brain injury, plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Randall Hill concludes that he has multiple deficits with respect to memory and executive functioning.

Plaintiffs’ instant Motion references an incident that took place in February of 2010, wherein plaintiff Browne was expelled from National High School after admitting that he brought his loaded .22 hunting rifle and skinning knife onto school property (in his pickup truck).

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

Experts Battle In Sacramento Man’s Car Accident Trial, Part 2 of 2

October 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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

DISCUSSION

California Evidence Code Section 720 requires that an expert must have “special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates.”

Mr. Hall has no education, experience or other qualifications as an engineer, and does not otherwise qualify to determine impact speeds, vehicle speeds, change in velocity of the vehicles, or the forces involved in the collision. Mr. Hall did not examine the accident scene, nor is there a police report in this case that would have provided him with physical evidence at the scene of the accident. His methodology for computing speeds was to look at photographs of the damage to the respective vehicles, use a magnifying glass to estimate the amount of inches of damage, and then utilize a formula on a preprinted form entitled “Low Speed Collsion (sic) Worksheet”; however, the formula begins with an estimated value of .25 for a coefficient of restitution, which he supplied based upon his memory of having read such a value on a NHTSA website for 2001-2006 Honda Civic automobiles.

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