Sacramento Brain 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.

Third, evidence or argument regarding brain damage would be highly prejudicial to Defendants and misleading or confusing to the jury. Cal. Evid. Code § 352 (excluding evidence that is more prejudicial, confusing, or misleading than probative). The presentation of such evidence could plausibly lead the jury to believe that brain damage is at issue in the case, when in fact it is not.

Fourth, allowing such evidence would unnecessarily consume trial time. Cal. Evid. Code § 352. If Plaintiffs allowed Dr. X. to testify about whether the amount of water consumed during the contest could or would be expected to cause brain damage, Defendants would not only have to present rebuttal expert testimony, but would have to spend time attempting to explain to the jury that despite the fact that such testimony was presented to them, it has no bearing on the claims at issue.

Continue reading "Three Injured Sacramento Men Sue Radio Station For Deadly Contest, Part 4 of 4" »

(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.

Despite the Smith Plaintiffs' withdrawal of any brain injury claim, it appears that Plaintiffs' counsel aims to improperly prejudice and confuse the jury by nonetheless presenting Dr. X.'s testimony that the volume of water consumed during the Hold Your Wee for a Wii contest possibly could be expected to cause brain damage.

ARGUMENT

Evidence regarding whether the amount of water consumed during the Hold Your Wee for a Wii contest could or would be expected to cause brain damage would be irrelevant, highly prejudicial, confusing to the jury, and time consuming.

First, evidence or argument regarding brain damage is not relevant. Cal. Evid. Code § 210 (irrelevant evidence inadmissible). The evidence does not prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. Cal. Evid. Code § 210 (defining relevant evidence). The Smith Plaintiffs do not claim that any of them have actually suffered brain damage. Furthermore, it is not disputed that Sherrie Johnson died as a result of pulmonary edema stemming from hyponatremia. While impaired brain function probably was involved in her death, there is no evidence or claim that she suffered from brain damage. Any discussion of whether the amount of water consumed by Jennifer Strange (the second-place finisher) could or would be expected to cause brain damage would be nothing more than a back-door attempt to argue that the amount of water consumed by Lucy Davidson (the contest winner) could or would be expected to cause brain damage. This is particularly concerning because before the Smith Plaintiffs withdrew their brain damage claim, they focused heavily on Paul Smith's possible injuries.

Continue reading "Sacramento-Area Radio Station Sued For Contestant's Death/Brain Injury, Part 3 of 4" »

(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..

Continue reading "Radio Contestants From Sacramento Suffer Possible Brain Injuries, Part 2 of 4" »

(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.

Defendant Radio Roseville's Motion in Limine No. 3: to Exclude Evidence or Argument Regarding Whether the Volume of Water Consumed at the Radio Contest Could or Would be Expected to Cause Brain Damage

INTRODUCTION
As the court is aware, the lawsuit brought by Sherrie Johnson’s family has been consolidated with a lawsuit brought by three other contestants, Paul Smith, Steven Davis, and Mike Jones (the Smith Plaintiffs). The Smith Plaintiffs seeks recovery for injuries they say were caused by the Hold Your Wee for a Wii contest, allegedly consisting of feeling nauseated after the contest in addition to feeling emotional distress.

In both 2007 and 2008 (long after the contest had concluded), each of the Smith Plaintiffs stated under oath that they sought recovery solely for emotional distress. The Smith Plaintiffs pursued these claims despite the fact that they sought no treatment for emotional distress between March of 2007 and the spring of 2009 (in fact, Steven Davis did not see a therapist at all in the months following the contest). In March of 2009, the Smith Plaintiffs changed counsel to be represented by Dewey, Cheatham and Howe, which also represents the Johnson family.

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Dies From Brain Injury, Part 1 of 4" »