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 brain injury case and its proceedings.)
Mr. Santoro’s Damages are Straightforward and Largely Undisputed
Defendants suggest that plaintiffs damages evidence will be highly complex and note that there were numerous doctors who treated plaintiff during the months he was hospitalized at Sacramento Medical Center, Mercy and the rehabilitation facilities. However, plaintiff’s damages evidence will be streamlined, straightforward and largely undisputed.
First, as noted above, plaintiff intends to call only one doctor from Sacramento Medical Center and one from Mercy, each of whom will explain the nature and extent of Mr. Santoro’s head injury and the surgical procedures they performed. A third doctor, Dr. X from Children’s Hospital, will explain the tendon release he performed on Mr. Santoro’s legs. This is a very straightforward procedure. None on this testimony will be lengthy. While Mr. Santoro’s injury was severe, none of the testimony about the injury or his treatment is particularly complex or difficult to understand. And, as noted, there is little dispute about the nature and extent of Mr. Santoro’s injury – it is pretty clear cut. There is little disagreement among the parties’ medical experts. The only other medical experts will be a neurologist, a neuropsychologist and a life care planner.
Thus, defendants’ concern about complexity or an extensive number of witnesses regarding damages will not materialize in reality. A single trial will be efficient and take far less court and juror time than a two-phase trial.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court should deny defendants’ motion to bifurcate as untimely CCP § 598 and should decline to order bifurcation on its own motion.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.