Sacramento Brain Injury Lawyer Blog

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

On August 3, 2009, plaintiff reported feeling numbness in his left leg. An examination found palpable tenderness in the right groin over the ramus and in the posterior right sacral region. On August 6, 2009, he was examined by another doctor and he reported continued morning headaches. X-rays of his right ribs taken on August 10, 2009 revealed a non-displaced fracture of the anterior segment of the eighth rib. By September 3, 2009, plaintiff's headaches were becoming more severe, with confusion, altered mental status, blurred vision, lower extremity tremors, and numbness. A CT scan revealed a 2.5 cm hematoma on the left cerebral hemisphere and midline shift. He was admitted to a hospital, and burr holes were done for drainage. The following day, a CT scan found more hemorrhage and a craniotomy was performed. He was discharged on September 14, 2009. Plaintiff was subsequently diagnosed with disc bulges at L3-L4 and L4-L5, severe spinal stenosis at L4-L5, and L5-S1 facet hypertrophy. He underwent physical therapy from April 14, 2010 until May 25, 2010, and he underwent an epidural injection on January 14, 2011. He underwent a surgery at L4-L5. Plaintiff claimed that he had cognitive deficits and experiences memory loss, confusion, and right arm tremor. Plaintiff's counsel argued that plaintiff's relationship with his wife and his quality of life had been affected by his injuries. He suffers from depression and a personality change, with him being more aggressive and argumentative with a shorter temper. Plaintiff's counsel argued that this was an effect of the closed-head injury. Defense counsel disputed the traumatic brain injury claims and the need for back surgery.

CLAIMED DAMAGES
According to Plaintiff: $214,261 past medical; $39,390 future medical; $1,500,000 past pain and suffering; $2,000,000 future pain and suffering.

SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS
According to Plaintiff: Demand: $2,195,000 (CCP § 998); Offer: $50,000 at time of trial.

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

Continue reading " Man Suffers From Severe Brain Injury After Car Runs Stop Sign, Part 2 of 2 " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to Plaintiff: On June 24, 2009, plaintiff Mark Matt, a 74-year-old farmer, was driving a truck southbound on G Avenue when he came to a stop at the intersection with S Avenue and then began to proceed through the intersection. He was struck by a truck driven by defendant Reid Murphy, who was traveling eastbound on S Avenue making a delivery for his employer, HIS Services, to XYZ Services Inc. Murphy did not stop at a stop sign at the intersection.

Plaintiff sued Murphy, his employer, IHS, and XYZ, alleging that Murphy was negligent in the operation of the vehicle, while IHS and Sears were vicariously liable. Defendants filed a cross-complaint against Jim Marion for indemnification and apportionment of fault.
Plaintiff's counsel argued that Murphy was not paying attention and was speaking to his assistant at the time of the accident. Plaintiff's counsel argued that plaintiff stopped, looked both ways, and then proceeded into the intersection at 5 mph.

Murphy claimed that he could not see the stop sign because a freightliner truck owned and operated by Jim Marion was blocking his view.

Defense counsel argued that plaintiff was a substantial factor in the cause of the accident.
Plaintiff's counsel argued that there were a number of warning signs to Murphy that a stop was coming.

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

Continue reading " Driver Injured In Intersection Collision, Sustains Brain Injury, Part 1 of 2 " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to Plaintiff: On February 10, 2011, plaintiff Renee Camp was walking across H Avenue within the south pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection with P Street in Sacramento, California. While she was lawfully within the crosswalk she was struck by defendant Merrel Lance, who was driving a full-size Toyota pickup. As a result of the impact, plaintiff's body was thrown approximately 20-50 feet into the air, landing on the pavement, suffering severe traumatic brain injuries, and leaving plaintiff incoherent and permanently blind. Plaintiff has undergone two brain surgeries and now requires around-the-clock attendant care, which she will need for the rest of her life.

Plaintiff, through her Guardian ad Litem, Danelle Vant, alleged that defendant negligently operated his vehicle such that he struck plaintiff while she was walking in a designated crosswalk.

Defendant accepted liability; however, defendant questioned plaintiff's loss of future earnings, the level of necessary future medical care, as well as the level of daily around-the-clock care necessary.

CLAIMED INJURIES
According to Plaintiff: Plaintiff was taken from the incident scene by ambulance to Sacramento Hospital Medical Center for emergency treatment. Her condition rapidly deteriorated, and due to rising pressure in her brain as a result of the traumatic brain injury, she had two brain surgeries, which included a partial frontal lobectomy with bilateral craniectomy. After an extended stay at Rehabilitation Hospital, plaintiff was discharged to the care of her sisters on April 5, 2011, one of whom she now lives with. Plaintiff requires around-the-clock attendant care, including assistance with dressing, feeding, ambulating, all of her bathroom needs, and making sure she does not wander off.

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

Continue reading " Woman Suffers Major Brain Injury After Car Hits Her In Crosswalk " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to court records: On June 29, 2008, plaintiff Emerson Adword drove a vehicle owned by plaintiff Cynthia Adword east on Garden Grove Boulevard through an intersection in Los Angeles. Defendant Ralph Merick drove south on the street.
Plaintiff alleged defendant Merick drove over the speed limit and entered the intersection on a red light. Plaintiff also claimed defendant Merick was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident.

Defendant Merick's vehicle was owned by the County of Los Angeles and defendant Merick was allegedly working in the course and scope of his employment with the sheriff's department at the time of the collision.

Plaintiff alleged defendants Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and County of Los Angeles negligently trained, supervised, hired, controlled, operated, and dispatched defendant.

Defendants contended it was disputed who proceeded into the intersection against a red signal. Defendants Merick and County of Los Angeles cross-complained against plaintiffs for comparative indemnity.

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

Continue reading " Brain Injury Sustained After Car Collision With Sheriff Deputy " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to court records: On June 28, 2002, in Elk Grove, California, defendant Jerry Curt failed to stop for a red light at a signal intersection and collided with plaintiffs Curt Flemmings and Ryan Walter's vehicle. Both plaintiffs were rendered incompetent. Walter was the adult son of Reese Walter. Flemmings was the husband of Martha Flemmings.
Reese Walter was appointed the guardian ad litem for Ryan Walter and Martha Flemmings was appointed the guardian ad litem for Curt Flemmings.

ABC Towing & Storage were also named as defendants.

Plaintiffs alleged defendants were negligent in case.

Further, plaintiff Martha Flemmings filed a separate case, for loss of consortium. Following trial in the first case, plaintiffs sued Interstate Insurance in Sacramento Superior Court, for bad faith.

CLAIMED INJURIES
According to court records:
Plaintiff Flemmings: extensive internal injuries; head injury that has led to progressive dementia; chronic pain; multiple surgeries; diminished immune system. Plaintiff Walter: brain injury, rendering him permanently childlike in personality and behavior; 24/7 professional supervision.

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

Continue reading " Two Men Sustained Traumatic Brain Injuries in Sacramento Car Accident " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

When he returned his attention to the road, he became aware that the traffic had already stopped. He panicked, steered left towards the center divider and improperly slammed on his rear brake. His actions were entirely contrary to proper motorcycle operation, which requires that riders steer straight and use both the front and rear brakes in an emergency braking situation. Welming's actions caused the rear wheel to lock up and sent the motorcycle into a 73-foot skid toward the center divider. He then let off the brake, steered right, and improperly applied only the rear brake again, which locked the rear wheel a second time and caused the motorcycle to skid toward the number 2 lane for 116 feet. During the second skid, Welming lost control of the motorcycle. At this point, Janice Welming was thrown from the rear of the motorcycle.

CLAIMED INJURIES
According to court records:
Janice Welming: severe traumatic brain injury; aphasia; cognitive deficits; memory lapses; skull fracture; craniotomy; closed-head injury; intracranial hemorrhage fractures of the facial bone; three rib fractures; multiple pulmonary contusions; fractured right scapula; complex regional pain syndrome; brachial plexopathy; ear laceration; vision loss; abrasions.
Jerry Welming: minor bruises.

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

Continue reading " Severe Brain Injury Sustained Following Motorcycle Crash in Sacramento, Part 3 of 3 " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiffs claimed that the accident was the result of misrepresentations made by both the dealer who sold them the motorcycle and the manufacturer of the motorcycle.

Plaintiffs claimed negligent misrepresentation against defendant Harley of Sacramento and its employee Temple and claimed strict products liability against defendants Harley-Davidson and Harley of Sacramento based on theories of a design defect and failure to warn related to the braking systems and indicator lights of the motorcycle. Even though plaintiffs' motorcycle did not have ABS brakes, Harley-Davidson designed the non-ABS-equipped motorcycle with an ABS icon on the tachometer as if the motorcycle had ABS installed on it. Additionally, they alleged, Harley-Davidson intentionally designed its ABS-equipped motorcycles so that the ABS components were concealed.

Plaintiffs claimed that had their motorcycle been equipped with ABS brakes as they reasonably believed based on the representations of the dealer and the appearance of the motorcycle, which indicated to them that their motorcycle had ABS brakes, either the accident would not have occurred or Janice Welming's injuries would not have been as severe. Plaintiffs also claimed that the accident would have been avoided had defendants warned them that their motorcycle was not equipped with ABS brakes because Welming would have operated the brakes differently.

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Motorcycle Accident Leaves Passenger With Major Brain Injury, Part 2 of 3 " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to court records: On January 12, 2008, plaintiffs Jamie Lynn and Jerry Welming purchased a 2008 Harley-Davidson Road Glide motorcycle from Harley-Davidson of Elk Grove, California, which is owned by Harley-Davidson of Sacramento Inc. During the sales transaction, Greg Temple, a Harley of Sacramento sales associate, represented to plaintiffs that the motorcycle they were purchasing had ABS brakes, though it had only standard brakes. In discussing ABS brakes, Temple never mentioned that ABS brakes were an option or that they came at an additional cost.

On April 11, 2009, plaintiff Janice Welming and Jerry Welming, an experienced motorcyclist, were riding their motorcycle on Highway 99 during a road trip as they had done almost every weekend since purchasing the motorcycle a year earlier. Jerry Welming was getting ready to exit the highway, so he briefly checked his side mirrors to avoid cutting off another motorcyclist who had been traveling nearby for several miles. When he looked up from the mirrors, he saw the sudden emergency of a wall of traffic about a couple hundred feet ahead.

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

Continue reading " Passenger Suffers Severe Brain Injury After Sacramento Motorcycle Accident, Part 1 of 3 " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

The cyclist sought compensation for his injuries, medical expenses, pain and suffering, emotional distress, lost income, and loss of future earning capacity. The plaintiff also requested damages for Cliff's loss of services and support, as well as loss of love and companionship, thus, affecting his relationship with his child.

The defendants asserted that Cliff was negligent and failed to mitigate his damages.
The city contended that Cliff was nearly in the middle of the roadway and was not using the available shoulder at impact. It also argued that the city had no obligation to retain bicycle-friendly shoulders since there was no law mandating it, and that the plaintiff's claimed injuries were caused by a third person for whom the city was not responsible. It also contested the plaintiff's claim of damages relating to Cliff's relationship with his child and his ability to work, as a prior accident had also caused a brain injury, which prevented him from working.

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

Continue reading " Traumatic Brain Injury Occurs When Sacramento Car Hits Boy on Bicycle, Part 2 of 2 " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

General Injury: Cerebral subdural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, fractured skull, sternal fracture, fractures of 3 thoracic vertebrae, pneumothorax, brain damage, motor deficits with resulting locomotion ataxia, speech and language difficulties, memory deficits, impairment to executive function, social and emotional deficits including impulsivity; medical expenses; lost income; loss of future earning capacity.

Summary of Facts:
Cliff Hinkle was riding his recumbent bicycle west on Elk Grove Avenue in Sacramento, CA, June 11, 2005. According to Hinkle, he proceeded partly in the lane and partly on the shoulder. The road shoulder allegedly had a steep ditch on its right, and the shoulder reduced in size through the block. Hinkle was on the block between 23rd Street near 25th Street Northeast when he was allegedly struck from behind by a vehicle driven by Greg Devlin.

Hinkle reportedly suffered a cerebral subdural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, fractured skull, sternal fracture, fractures of 3 thoracic vertebrae, and pneumothorax as a result of the accident. According to Hinkle, he was left with brain damage, motor deficits, including locomotion ataxia, speech and language difficulties, memory deficits, and social and emotional deficits including impulsivity and behavior problems.

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Brain Injury Caused When Car Hits Bicyclist, Part 1 of 2 " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff's counsel also claimed that the airbag in question did not deploy, either due to a design or manufacturing defect caused by GM, or because it was disconnected during a previous repair at Rango's dealership.

GM has since filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and made Annie an unsecured creditor through bankruptcy court.

Rango's motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction was granted and he was dismissed from the case.

The county denied the plaintiff's allegations, and contended that Annie suffered a traumatic brain injury from the car accident, which caused her permanent injuries and cognitive effects. The county claimed that Annie's treatment at SMC did not cause her serious injury, and that there was no negligence on the part of the staff.

Annie claimed that she sustained a traumatic brain injury due to the negligence of SMC's staff, which caused her permanent cognitive residuals. She claimed she suffers from severe memory loss and that she often forgets what she is told and where she lives. She said she needs people to write things down so she can remember and that she requires special education with specific accommodations and extra time for work and examinations.

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

Continue reading " Car Accident and Hospital Negligence Brings about Sacramento Lawsuit in Brain Injury Case, Part 2 of 2 " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

INJURIES: Annie was extricated from her car and then taken by ambulance to the emergency room. She was placed in the intensive care unit, having sustained multiple fractures to her arms and legs, and underwent open reduction, internal fixation surgery, with the insertion of screws, pins and plates.

Facts:
On Nov. 28, 2007, plaintiff Annie Darius, 16, a high school student, was driving a Chevy Cobalt on Folsom Drive in Sacramento, CA. After losing consciousness due to a hypoglycemic episode, Annie veered off the road and crashed into a tree. Her airbag didn't deploy, and she eventually sustained a permanent brain injury.

Laura Gerald, individually, and as guardian ad litem for Annie, sued the county of Sacramento, General Motors (GM), and Dan Rango, of Dan Rango Chevrolet, where the Cobalt was purchased.

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Car Accident Results in Permanent Brain Damage, Part 1 of 2 " »