Huge Medical Costs Result From Brain Injury To Sacramento Woman In Boating Accident, Part 7 of 8

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. 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.

It Is not anticipated that there will be any defense as to what physical injuries actually occurred. The parties may disagree regarding the value of the injuries, but not what the injuries actually are. This should assist with an expeditious presentation of the damages issues.

4. Since the time of the motion to designate this case as complex litigation, Plaintiffs have engaged In a continuing evaluation of both the liability and damages aspects of this case. The estimates contained in those moving papers accurately set forth Plaintiffs’ thoughts and intentions at that time. Before, during, and after the pendency of that complex litigation motion, Plaintiffs have been carefully reviewing the list of physicians and other medical professionals who will be needed at trial. Plaintiffs now believe that the damages issues can be presented in 3-5 days. Presentation of the liability facts — involving multiple factual and other disputes between the parties — will take far longer.

5. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s practice with regard to expert witnesses is to err on the side of caution by over-disclosing physicians. It is an unfortunate aspect of the modern medical practice that trauma centers and hospitals often employ young physicians who are somewhat transient. Given the passage of time involved (the subject incident occurred in July of 2006), Plaintiffs’ counsel was well aware that many of the disclosed physicians may not even be in the area at this time. Counsel has in fact had to confront such logistical problems in multiple other cases. Further, physicians’ practices often involve emergencies. Scheduling physicians into available court days is challenging at best and aggravating to all concerned, at worst. Counsel’s practice of over-disclosing Is based upon the anticipated need to substitute physicians for others in order to cover the key issues, and based on scheduling issues. One can imagine the reaction of the Court and defense counsel if Plaintiffs tried to substitute undisclosed physicians for disclosed physicians based on scheduling. (See Part 8 of 8.)

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

Contact Information