| 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. 2 to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiff’s Disputes with ABC Comprehensive Medical Group; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Plaintiff, Donald Hall, hereby moves this Court for an order to exclude any evidence of plaintiff’s disputes with ABC Comprehensive Medical Group; 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 plaintiff’s disputes with any employees, doctors, members, physical therapists or office staff of ABC Comprehensive Medical Group.

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 to plaintiff.

Further, 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 ›

| 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.)

PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT

At the time of the incident, the plaintiff was in the course and scope of her employment with Target. Her trip began at the Target store on Madison in Sacramento. She was on her way to the Target Store in Sacramento.

Approximately six months before the accident, in early 2008, plaintiff became a support manager with Target. She wanted to become a supervisor.

As support manager, she was responsible for trouble shooting all departmental positions. She did computer work and generally worked from the middle afternoon until 11:00 p.m. when the store closed.

At the time of the accident, Ms. Anderson was earning $9.80 per hour. She wanted to enter the Assistant Manager Training Program. If she successfully completed that program, she testified that she would earn $14.00 per hour.

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.)

4. The subject boat was defectively designed to accommodate the capacity of persons advertised as foreseeable and appropriate for use. There were inadequate and insufficient warning stickers and/or informational signs alerting consumers to the dangers of sitting in the bow of the boat. The product liability defendants knew of the boat’s propensity to take on water under certain conditions, and took no affirmative steps to warn, caution or advise prospective users. To the contrary, the boat was marketed by the manufacturer and the retailer as capable of safely carrying large numbers of people during normal operations.

5. The product liability defendants both failed to properly train, notify, educate, advise or otherwise communicate to prospective purchasers and users the risks inherent in the design of the boat.

6. Despite all of their knowledge, the product liability defendants failed to do any safety testing or load testing to determine the accurate and appropriate maximum number of passengers on the boat.

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.)

ARGUMENT

Dr. Lee’s opinions about the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s medical bills must be excluded, California Evidence Code § 803, because they are not based on special knowledge, skill, experience, training, education, or matters perceived by, or personally known or made known to him, that are if a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming such opinions, California Evidence Code § 801(b).

In his deposition, Dr. Lee admitted that he had no access or exposure to Plaintiff’s medical bills or any other relevant information, Naples Restaurant, Inc. v Coberly Ford (1968) 259 Cal App 2d 881, 66 Cal Rptr 835, that his opinions are based solely on irrelevant, conjectural and speculative data, Roscoe Moss Co. v. Jenkins (1942) 55 Cal. App.2d 369, 130 P.2d 477; Hyatt v Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal App 3d 325, 145 Cal Rptr 47, Stephen v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 134 Cal App 4th 1363, 37 Cal Rptr 3d 9, and that he has no experience or expertise in the relevant subject matter, Maatuk v. Guttman (2009) 173 Cal App 4th 1191, 93 Cal Rptr 3d 381.

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.)

1. Defendant National not only manufactured the subject boat, but designed, marketed and distributed it to retailers across the nation. National was wholly responsible for decisions relating to the types of warnings, cautionary signs and advisories posted in the boat, and for information distributed to boat purchasers in the boat’s Owner’s Manual.

2. Defendant National, Inc. operated a number of retail sales outlets, and was an authorized dealer in National products. National personnel sold the boat to Defendant White based on his representations about what type of boat he wanted and the uses for that boat. National personnel were also responsible for acquainting Mr. White with the boat, including a basic review of how to operate the boat. National personnel also attended training conducted by National regarding general knowledge of the boat and ways to market the boat. National personnel also advised customers as standard operating procedure that the capacity signs posted in the subject boat were informational only, and that so long as there were sufficient life jackets on board, the operator was not limited to the number of passengers displayed on those capacity signs. National personnel and employees of the National Marine Manufacturers Association, the organization that “certified” the subject boat’s occupancy, have also testified that the occupancy stickers were not warning labels, but informational only.

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.)

DR. LEE SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM EXPRESSING OPINIONS ABOUT THE REASONABLENESS OF PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL BILLS BECAUSE INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENTS ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE DETERMINATION OF REASONABLENESS, AND THOSE OPINIONS ARE INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE

A plaintiff may introduce evidence of the amounts billed by health care providers, because they reflect on the nature and extent of his or her injuries, help jurors assess overall general damages, and give them an accurate picture of the extent of the plaintiffs injuries Hanif v. Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635; Nishihama v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 93 Cal.App.4th 298; Greer v. Hossam Ali Buzgheia, (2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 1150; 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 780; Katiuzhinsky v. Perry (2007) 152 Cal App 4th 1288.

On the other hand, it is reversible error to allow a defendant to admit collateral source cash payments into evidence, limit Plaintiffs’ recovery of special damages for medical expenses to the amounts paid by a financial services company to purchase the accounts from medical providers, or prevent the plaintiff from arguing to the jury that the full amounts billed represent the reasonable value of the medicals services provided, Olsen v. Reid, (2008) 164 Cal.App. 4th 200; Katiuzhinsky v. Perry (2007) 152 Cal.App. 4th 1288.

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.)

TRIAL BRIEF

Trial Brief of Defendant, Universal Transit, Inc.

THE PLEADINGS
Plaintiff, Robyn Anderson, filed her complaint on August 10, 2009. The complaint contains two causes of action, but they are basically the same. The first is labeled as one for motor vehicle, while the second is labeled as one for negligence. Plaintiff simply asserts that Universal Transit, Inc., is responsible for her injuries and damages because Ellen White operated her school bus in a negligent fashion so as to cause an accident on October 17, 2008.

Universal and Ms. White answered the complaint on September 19, 2009.

FACTS OF THE ACCIDENT

This case arises out of an accident that occurred on Monday, October 17, 2008 at approximately 3:00 p.m., in Sacramento, California. The accident involved a collision between a Universal school bus and a 1997 Ford Taurus automobile which was being driven by plaintiff, Robyn Anderson. Ms. Anderson had a passenger with her at the time, a co-worker by the name of Joanne Li. Ms. Anderson was in the course and scope of her employment with Target at the time of the accident. Consequently, she filed a Workers’ Compensation action as well as this personal injury action.

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.)

DR. LEE SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM EXPRESSING OPINIONS ABOUT THE REASONABLENESS OF PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL BILLS, BECAUSE THOSE OPINIONS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN PROBATIVE.

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 consumption of time, or

(b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury, California Evidence Code § 352.

A trial judge must balance the probative value of the proffered evidence against its prejudicial effect in the context of the case before the court, considering materiality, the strength of the relationship to the issue on which it is offered, and whether it is necessary to prove the proponent’s case or merely cumulative to other available and sufficient proof, Burke v. Almaden Vineyards, Inc. (1978) 86 Cal App 3d 768, 150 Cal Rptr 419. Evidence should be excluded as unduly prejudicial, when it is of such nature as to inflame the emotions of the jury, and motivate them to use the information to reward or punish one side, rather than logically evaluate the point upon which it is relevant, Vorse v. Sarasy (1997) 53 Cal App 4th 998, 62 Cal Rptr 2d 164.

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 boating accident/brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

THERE WILL BE A DAMAGES TRIAL REGARDING DEFENDANT WHITE

Irrespective of Mr. White’s Insurance situation the fact is that Mr. White remains a defendant, and the jury will in all likelihood find him liable to some extent. This guarantees a damages trial no matter what happens with the product liability defendants.

There will therefore be two trials under any circumstances. Another factor to consider is that there will be additional time necessary to prepare for and begin a second trial on damages, even if it is only as to Defendant White. Plaintiffs obviously do not know in advance when the jury will complete deliberations, and therefore will not be able to schedule their physicians and other damages experts to appear at the drop of a hat. Most of the damages trial witnesses are physicians and other professionals whose calendars will need to be consulted in order to arrange the proper order of witnesses. This process will certainly increase the time needed to try this matter to conclusion, rather than saving any time.

THERE WILL VERY LIKELY BE A DAMAGES TRIAL AS TO THE PRODUCT LIABILITY DEFENDANTS

Plaintiffs allege defects in manufacture and design of the subject boat, including failure to warn, as to Defendants National. The subject boat was defectively designed, in that it specifically allowed users to carry 18 persons on board, which was clearly excessive.

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.)

DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL BECAUSE HE DID NOT READ DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION LACKS MERIT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE IS MOOT

Dr. Hill did not have the opportunity to read defendant, Dr. Li’s deposition, because it was taken three days prior to Dr. Hill’s deposition and was not available for him to review. Plaintiff asserts that the fact that Dr. Hill did not review defendant’s deposition is of no consequence because defendant claims that 5 plaintiff’s allegations, in terms of how the adjustment occurred and the fact that she did not give consent for the adjustment, never occurred. If defendants believe that it is an important point that Dr. Hill did not read defendant’s deposition then they are welcome to cross-examine him on it at the time of trial. But this does not serve as a basis to exclude him as an expert.

DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM TESTIFY AT TRIAL BECAUSE HE WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH THE DEPOSITIONS OF THE SUBSEQUENT TREATERS ALSO LACKS MERIT

Following her treatment with defendants on May 25, 2007, plaintiff underwent arthroscopic surgery by a Dr. Gray for a meniscal tear.

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

Continue Reading ›