| by

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth injury 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 Jones, the plaintiff sued her former attorney for legal malpractice after her ex-husband stopped paying marital support. At the plaintiff’s expert’s deposition, the expert testified that he believed the defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of care when he negotiated the underlying divorce settlement and judgment. When asked whether he believed the defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of care in other areas of his representation, the expert testified Not that I’m prepared to testify to at this time. Jones, at 563. When asked whether he anticipated arriving at any other opinions, the expert testified, No, but if I do, you will be notified well in advance, so as to be able to properly exercise your discovery rights. Id.

At trial, the expert testified that the defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of care when he failed to properly secure the source of plaintiff’s marital support income, a task unrelated to his negotiation of the underlying settlement and judgment. The trial court excluded the pinion, holding that it “would be grossly unfair and prejudicial to permit the expert to offer additional pinions at trial” after he had made affirmative representations that he would not do so at deposition. Id. at 564-565.

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

Continue Reading ›

| by

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.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S DISPUTE WITH ANY EMPLOYEES, DOCTORS, MEMBERS, PHYSICAL THERAPISTS OR OFFICE STAFF OF ABC COMPREHENSIVE MEDICAL GROUP IS INADMISSIBLE AND WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 352

Evidence Code Section 352 provides:

The Court, in its discretion, may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its its admission will:

a. necessitate undue compensation of time, or,

b. create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.

In the instant case, the probative value of this evidence is non existent, as there is no relevant reason to admit any evidence of plaintiff’s minor disputes over scheduling of times for and of treatments with any employees, doctors, members, physical therapists or office staff of ABC Comprehensive Medical Group to the jury.

On the other hand, the prejudice inherent in the admission of such evidence is substantial to the plaintiff, as it would confuse the issues present in this case, and/or mislead the jury with respect to the material issues in this case.

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

Continue Reading ›

| by

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.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S DISPUTE WITH ANY EMPLOYEES. DOCTORS, MEMBERS, OR OFFICE STAFF OF NATIONAL CENTER FOR SPORTS EXCELLENCE IS INADMISSIBLE AND WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 352

Evidence Code Section 352 provides:

The Court, in its discretion, may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will:

a. necessitate undue compensation of time, or,

b. create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.

In the instant case, the probative value of this evidence is non existent, as there is no relevant reason to admit any evidence of plaintiffs minor disputes with any employees, doctors, members, or office staff of Center for Orthopedic and Sports Excellence to the jury.

On the other hand, the prejudice inherent in the admission of such evidence is substantial to the plaintiff, as it would confuse the issues present in this case, and/or mislead the jury with respect to the material issues in this case.

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

Continue Reading ›

| by

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.)

Hips:

Because of the pain and problems in her right ankle and right knee, she started to walk with an unnatural gait. This created pain in her hips. Now, however, she concentrates on walking with an appropriate gait, and the pain in her hips is going away.

Neck Pain:

The plaintiff experiences neck pain every hour of every day. The more active she is, the greater the pain. Sometimes it is a sharp pain, and other times it is a dull ache.

Headaches:

Plaintiffs neck pain seems to be associated with headaches. She has constant headaches dispersed throughout her head. The back of her head adjacent to her neck aches, but she also gets headaches toward the front and top of her head as well. For a while, doctors tried her on migraine medications, but they did not help. She claims that the migraine medication caused severe side affects that actually made things worse.

Vision Problems:

When plaintiff was first deposed in October of 2008, she described incidents where she would lose sight in both eyes as if a black curtain was descending over her eyeballs. In 2010, she described the problems with her vision a little differently.

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

Continue Reading ›

| by

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/boating accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

MOVING PARTY’S CONCERN ABOUT PREJUDICE RESTS ON THE FAULTY ASSUMPTION THE JURY WILL NOT FOLLOW ITS INSTRUCTIONS

Moving Defendant cites no authority, statistics, or evidence of any kind for its claim that it will be deprived of “fair and unbiased deliberations on the issue of liability” simply because the jury will learn of the Injuries. This argument is counter-intuitive, in that it assumes that every case Involving disputed liability and significant damages will result in a plaintiff’s verdict simply because of the damages. This is both contrary to everyday experience with these kinds of cases, and also insulting to the jury.

1. Moving Defendant does not explain what it is about this case, as opposed to any other brain damage case, or perhaps a spinal cord injury case, that will cause the jury to ignore its oath and decide liability purely out of sympathy. The jury will be instructed pursuant to CACI 5000 as follows: You must not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence your decision. Plaintiffs respectfully submit it would be inappropriate to assume that a properly-instructed jury will not follow the law.

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

Continue Reading ›

| by

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.)

The right knee operation was performed on February 2, 2009, at Sacramento Orthopedic Center. An arthroscopy of her right knee was performed. She had a torn medial meniscus and chondromalacia. An MRI of her right knee had been performed on December 7, 2008, and showed a 1.5 centimeter horizontal tear of the posterior horn to the medial meniscus.

It was Dr. Hank Gold who recommended that plaintiff have surgery on her left knee. This recommendation was made by way of an agreed medical examination performed on August 23,2008. Even with that, however, surgery was not performed until two years later on October 9, 2009. On that date, Dr. Paul Brown of XYZ Surgery Center in Sacramento performed an arthroscopic repair to a meniscal tear of plaintiffs left knee. It is this surgery which defendants contend does not relate to the subject accident.

PLAINTIFF’S OTHER COMPLAINTS

Plaintiff was last deposed on January 12, 2010. In that deposition, she set forth her injuries as follows:

Left Knee:

As indicated above, plaintiff underwent surgery on her left knee on October 9, 2009. Plaintiff claims that the left knee is completely numb, and she cannot feel anything in it.

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

Continue Reading ›

| by

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.)

Plaintiffs John and Anna Greene’s Motion in Limine Number1 to Exclude Testimony of Bill Hall
INTRODUCTION

Defendants have designated Bill Hall, as an expert witness, who intends to give opinions on matters that are far beyond his qualifications and far beyond his expertise. Mr. Hall has no formal education beyond high school, and had worked as a police officer for the city of Sacramento for 15 years. Although Mr. Hall has taken some courses in accident reconstruction, there are no accident reconstruction issues in this case. This case involves a very clear rear end impact to a stopped vehicle. Extracts from Mr. Hall’s deposition relating to his lack of qualifications are referenced herein.

Mr. Hall intends to give unqualified opinions in the following areas:

1. An engineering analysis, that calculates the speed of the two vehicles involved in the collision, based upon vehicle damage photographs that he reviewed months after the collision and engineering formulae and concepts that he is not qualified to analyze; and,
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

| by

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/boating accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

THE DAMAGES PHASE WILL NOT BE AS EXTENSIVE AS PLAINTIFFS BELIEVED AT THE TIME OF THE MOTION TO DESIGNATE THIS CASE AS COMPLEX LITIGATION

1. While Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries and damages are extensive, the fact is that the medical details of the injuries are essentially conceded. The boat propeller of the subject boat struck Ms. Hall in the head five to six times: she has suffered the loss of an eye, has undergone over a dozen surgeries to date, and sustained significant, permanent brain damage. Based upon materials received to date, it does not appear that the nature and extent of the injuries will be disputed.

2. There may well be a dispute as to Ms. Hall’s future medical and care needs, but this controversy will occupy the testimony of maybe 2-3 physicians / psychologists at trial, as well as two life care planners and two economists. This testimony regarding future medical needs will occupy one day, at most.

3. The same propeller struck Plaintiff Black in the lower body, causing three separate, deep lacerations of her left buttock and three strikes on her left elbow. As with Plaintiff Hall, these injuries are objective and easily-documented.

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

Continue Reading ›

| by

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth injury 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.)

Opposition of Defendants National Healthcare Corporation and Memorial Hospital, Inc., to Plaintiffs Jermaine and William Hills’ Motion in Limine #3 to Exclude Opinion of Jeffrey White, M.D., on Decedent’s Life Expectancy
THE INSTANT CIRCUMSTANCES DIFFER FROM THE CASES RELIED UPON BY PLAINTIFF

Plaintiffs rely on the cases of Jones v. Moore (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 557 [95 Cal.Rtpr.2d 216] and Kennemur v. State of California (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907 [184 Cal.Rtpr. 393] in support of their position that Dr. White’s opinion relative to decedent’s life expectancy should be excluded at trial because he did not offer this opinion at his deposition. However, this case differs from those matters.

In Kennemur, the plaintiff attempted to call an expert to testify about causation at trial. However, in three depositions prior to trial, the expert testified that he had no opinion to offer on causation. Kennemur, at 912-913. On that basis, the trial court did not allow the expert to testify on causation, holding that the plaintiff was required to give the defendant notice of the general substance of the testimony that his expert was expected to give at trial either in his witness list or that this information must be disclosed during the expert’s deposition itself. Id. at 919.

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

Continue Reading ›

| by

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 Donald Hall’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiff’s Disputes with National Center for Sports Excellence; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Plaintiff, Donald Hall, hereby moves this Court for an order to exclude any evidence of plaintiff’s disputes with National Center for Sports Excellence; and an order directing all parties, their counsel, witnesses and other persons participating in the trial to refrain from any reference, mention of, or allusion to plaintiffs disputes with any employees, doctors, members, or office staff of National Center for Sports Excellence.

This motion is made on the grounds that said evidence is inadmissible pursuant to Evidence Code Sections 350, 351, and 352, as its probative value is outweighed by the probability of undue prejudice against this plaintiff. Any comment or attempted introduction of the above evidence would be improper and highly prejudicial. Even if the court sustained an objection to the evidence at trial and instructed the jury to disregard it, the evidence would be so prejudicial that plaintiff could not receive a fair trial.

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

Continue Reading ›