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/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case present such issues to the court.
“These men [the Smith Plaintiffs] had symptoms of increased intracranial pressure that did not cause unconsciousness or seizures; nevertheless their brains were subjected to compression with the potential for loss of neurons that may have subsequent effects on these individuals.” (Declaration of Ken X., M.D., Ph.D., in Opposition to Defendant Geary’s Motion for Summary Adjudication.)
If the body is able to excrete water fast enough to avoid lethal brain swelling, sodium balance is gradually re-established. As that happens, symptoms gradually subside, although this does not mean that permanent damage, especially brain damage, has not already occurred due to swelling. (Id. at 7:17-24 (emphasis added).)
“Given the significant amount of water she [Paul Smith] consumed, it would be expected that he sustained some degree of permanent brain damage.” (Id. at 8:10-11) To support this brain injury claim, the Smith Plaintiffs also designated an expert allegedly specializing in brain injury, Dr. Monica Y..
However, when Defendants objected to this late and speculative claim and requested their own medical examination of the Smith Plaintiffs, the Smith Plaintiffs withdrew any claim of brain damage and withdrew Dr. Y. as a designated expert. They did not, however, amend or withdraw the speculative declaration of Dr. X., but instead let it stand in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (See Part 3 of 4.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.