Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this slip and fall/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
ABC HOTEL DISPUTES THE EXTENT OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMED INJURY AND DAMAGES
Expert discovery has not been completed for good reason. The parties have continued to work together to obtain all of the records from University Medical Center where plaintiff not only sought a second opinion and underwent additional surgery and treatment, but where she continued to participate in physical therapy for her hand and wrist. Although some records were obtained from UMC (after months of delay), those records referenced additional records that were not produced by the Medical Center. Consequently, an additional subpoena was required.
These records are critical from the defense perspective since they will provide insights into how plaintiff is progressing with the use and function of her left wrist and hand, particularly given her new claim that she can never again work as a dental hygienist. Moreover, both plaintiff’s and ABC Hotel’s experts will rely on the additional records requested from University Medical Center, and therefore, expert depositions cannot take place before those records are obtained.
However, subject to expert testimony, ABC Hotel anticipates that it will dispute the extent of the injuries and damages alleged by plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s Claimed Residual Pain Is Not the Result of the Injury She Sustained in Her September 2005 Fall
Following surgery to repair her broken wrist, plaintiff’s fracture was well healed. As a result, her subjective complaints of residual pain and discomfort are unusual based on the proper repair and healing of this type of fracture and lack of objective findings. Indeed, there is no record of swelling and no redness in the area of the fracture. In addition, there is no need for further treatment, and plaintiff’s symptoms should resolve with the passage of time.
The Evidence Does Not Support Plaintiff’s Claimed Inability to Work
In addition to the evidence that demonstrates that her residual pain is not the result of her September 2005 accident, plaintiff participated in rehabilitation for her wrist and hand for only about three (3) months. She returned to work within six (6) months of her fall in February 2007, and worked through June 2008, before she stopped work to undergo the additional treatment at University Medical Center. Even assuming she can no longer work as a dental hygienist, plaintiff, a 42 year-old college graduate, has not only the obligation, but the ability to mitigate her damages and find new comparable employment. (See Part 8 of 8.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.