Sacramento Brain Injury Lawyer Blog

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the pre-trial stage of civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of briefing 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 case and its proceedings.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION

Summary of Facts:

In this case, Plaintiff Wayne Smith is seeking personal injury damages for head injuries he suffered on December 14, 2006, when a 10" Crescent wrench fell approximately 12 to 15 feet from scaffolding above and struck him on the head while he was attending a Christmas play produced by the co-defendants at their Sacramento church. Medical evidence shows that plaintiff has a traumatic brain injury. However, defendants dispute that plaintiffs brain injury was caused by the wrench striking him on the head and claim that all or a substantial portion of plaintiffs brain injury was pre-existing. Thus, the central issue of this case is the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries caused by the incident. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Subject of Defense Medical Expert Opinions:

The parties exchanged their designations of experts pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2034.210 et seq. (All subsequent references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.) The defendants jointly designated as medical experts Mike Hall, M.D. and Rupert Jones, M.D.. As to each of these defense experts, Section 2034.260(c) requires a declaration of counsel that contains: (1) a brief narrative statement of the qualifications of each expert ; and (2) A brief narrative statement of the general substance of the testimony the expert is expected to give.

Continue reading "Man Seeks Damages Against Sacramento Church For Brain Injury, Part 2 of 5" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the pre-trial stage of civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of briefing 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 case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff Wayne Smith’s Opposition to Defendants Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Opinion Testimony of Paul Brown, M.D.; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Plaintiff Wayne Smith hereby opposes defendants Universal Fellowship and Randall White’s motion in limine to exclude plaintiff from offering the expert medical opinion testimony of plaintiffs designated expert, Paul Brown, M.D., on the grounds that plaintiff's supplemental designation of Dr. Brown was proper and timely because:

1) Dr. Brown was properly and timely designated to express an opinion on a subject to be covered by defendants designated experts, Mike Hall, M.D. and Rupert Jones, M.D., in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure S 2034.280. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

2) Both Dr. Brown and defendants’ expert Mike Hall, M.D., are members of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and therefore have a common basis for the proffered opinions.

Continue reading "Sacramento Man Suffers Traumatic Brain Injury At Church, Part 1 of 5" »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this brain injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

NIED Factual Pleading cont.

43. Plaintiff Ethan Lee was present at the scene of the injury to his child when it occurred and at that time and place and had contemporaneous sensory awareness of the causal connection between the negligent conduct of the Defendants and was reasonably certain that his child was being injured from negligent medical care during labor and delivery, as herein alleged.

44. Plaintiff Thomas Lee was present in the labor room during the labor and delivery his son and witnessed thick meconium during the labor, and knew that the meconium was impeding his son's breathing, and causing a lack of perfusion of blood and oxygen to this child's brain.
45. Plaintiff Thomas Lee also witness his son's heart rate decrease, and knew at the time that the decreased fetal heart rate meant that this son was not receiving enough blood and oxygen to his brain, and was thereby being damaged from the lack of blood and oxygen. When Ethan Lee was born his father witnessed his son to be lifeless and in severe distress, and Thomas Lee understood that his son was suffering brain damage at the time.

46. Said Defendants in disregard of the probability that their actions, in failing to provide the necessary medical treatment to Ethan Lee, were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff Thomas Lee to suffer severe emotional distress. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Father Witnesses Son's Negligent, Catastrophic Hospital Delivery, Part 4 of 4" »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this brain injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

CACI (California Civil Jury Instructions) or BAJI (Book of Approved Jury Instructions) is a checklist of the substantive law in the civil actions covered thereby. These instructions indicate the elements that plaintiff must prove at trial to recover and these are usually the same elements plaintiff must plead to state a cause of action. Rutter Group: California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, Chapter 6 Pleadings.

The "facts" to be pleaded are those upon which liability depends -- the facts constituting the cause of action. These are commonly referred to as "ultimate facts." Doe v. City of Los Angeles, (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, stating that the complaint will be upheld so long as it gives notice of the issues sufficient to enable preparation of a defense. Id. 549-550. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

A complaint must allege the ultimate facts necessary to the statement of an actionable claim. It is both improper and insufficient for a plaintiff to simply plead the evidence by which he hopes to prove such ultimate facts. Careau & Co. v. Security Pac. Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1390.

B. Plaintiff's Complaint Includes Each of the Elements Required In CACI 1621:

The 4th Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress by Plaintiff Thomas Lee states:

Continue reading "Doctors' Malpractice Cause Sacramento Child's Brain Injury, Part 3 of 4" »