Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
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.)
DEFENSE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
Because of plaintiffs spectacular litany of injuries, she was sent for a neurological examination in March of 2009, and an orthopedic examination in April of 2009. The results of those examinations are set forth below.
Neurologic Exam:
The first examination was performed by orthopedist, Dr. Daniel Stein, at University Health Care. When he examined the plaintiff, she exhibited decreased touch along her right arm and hand. Due to the pattern of claimed sensory loss, Dr. Stein felt that the plaintiff had a credibility issue in this regard. He also had very serious concerns about her claims of cognitive loss. She told Dr. Stein that she had a photographic memory for her entire life, and she went on to describe the various cognitive problems she was having. Dr. Stein felt that the complaints were not credible.
Such devastating symptomatology could be characterized in severe traumatic brain injury cases, but even then, the features described by the plaintiff would be unexpected. It was the opinion of Dr. Stein that her brain injury claims are unreasonable in relation to this particular event and that her cognitive issues are not associated with brain trauma or head trauma.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
It would not surprise Dr. Stein if the plaintiff was suffering from depression. She suffered from depression prior to the accident. She took Prozac for several years and had anxiety attacks prior to the accident as well. Considering that the plaintiff did not suffer a brain injury or a head injury, Dr. Stein was confused as to the mechanism for any hearing loss. There has been no traumatic event that could explain her claimed hearing loss. He believes that she might be experiencing the same hearing loss that everyone experiences as they grow older.
Dr. Stein accepts that the plaintiff may have suffered from some type of vertigo, although medical records in this regard are not clear. It is possible that she has a benign positional vertigo syndrome. However, this is a benign and self-limited phenomena that can be managed through repositioning maneuvers. The vertigo as described by the plaintiff should have resolved itself within a matter of a few weeks after the accident.
Dr. Stein also considered the plaintiffs claimed bilateral vision loss. Her vision loss description was most typical for a migraine phenomena that would have nothing to do with the subject accident.
Dr. Stein noted that the plaintiff had some neuropsychological testing where a doctor appeared to interpret a mild cognitive deficit to a traumatic brain injury. Dr. Stein felt that such a response was inappropriate. However, that prior doctor accepted at face value plaintiffs claims that she was brilliant before the accident and had a photographic memory. (See Part 7 of 7.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.