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.)

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" »

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 jury ultimately found that Danbee Livestock's employee's lax trailer maintenance schedule and its failure to keep maintenance records were dispositive in deciding that only Danbee Livestock was at fault for the trailer's loss of its wheel.

CLAIMED INJURIES
According to Plaintiff: Plaintiff One sustained skull and facial fractures, permanent brain injury, primarily to his frontal lobe, a broken clavicle, fractures to all ribs on his right side, at least one collapsed lung, a diaphragm puncture, a lacerated kidney, right elbow fracture, and a fractured pelvis. He had to be airlifted from the accident scene to HIJ Hospital in Sacramento. His elbow and pelvic fractures were beyond the capabilities of HIJ orthopedists, and he was only stable enough for transfer to a hospital where these surgeries could be performed three weeks after the accident. His pelvic and elbow injuries have rendered him permanently totally disabled, and his brain injury detrimentally affects his ability to function day to day. He requires future surgery for hardware removal and life-long moderate case management. Plaintiff Two sustained left shoulder fractures and a left rotator cuff tear which required surgery. He was rendered permanently partially disabled and cannot lift more than 5 lbs above his shoulder, more than 25 lbs off the ground, or push/pull more than 50 lbs. Other than some trigger point injections, further treatment will not benefit him. He also sustained a mild-to-moderate head injury, which resulted in erratic behavior and irritability and for which he requires limited neuropsychological treatment. Plaintiff Two: Loss of consortium. Other than the defense claim that plaintiff One was solely at fault for his brain injuries due to his failure to wear an adequate helmet, and that plaintiff Two sustained no permanent brain injury, the nature and extent of plaintiffs' injuries was not contested.

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

Continue reading "Severe Brain Injury and Physical Impairments Result in Sacramento Lawsuit, Part 4 of 4" »

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.)

Danbee Livestock's trailer operator testified that he had possessed the trailer since it was new in 1993. He was responsible for all maintenance on it, but only kept maintenance records in his head. He took it to XYZ or D-2 when it needed work and told XYZ or D-2 personnel generally what parts of the trailer he wanted work performed on. Invoices presented at trial established that there was no regular maintenance program for the trailer. Before trial, and again after all evidence had been presented, plaintiffs sought a judicial determination that Danbee Livestock could not delegate its duty to maintain the trailer and its wheel bearings to XYZ and/or D-2. The court declined to so rule. The court also declined to apply res ipsa loquitur against Danbee Livestock. The court instead instructed the jury on presumption of negligence per se under CACI Instruction 418 and Vehicle Code § 24002(a).

The only documented work on the trailer's wheel bearings was performed by D-2 in 2002 and 2004 and by XYZ in 2005 when it repacked the trailer's wheel bearings while doing brake replacement. Plaintiffs and defendant Danbee Livestock contended, through the testimony of plaintiffs' expert Dame and Danbee Livestock's experts Curt and Williamson, that XYZ improperly cleaned the wheel bearings prior to their inspection, thereby rendering inspection ineffective, and that the cleaning method used, wiping with shop rags and pumping new grease into the bearings with a “bearing packer,” left dirt and grit which caused rapid wear.

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

Continue reading "Two Motorcyclists Injured in Sacramento; Severe Brain Injury in One Plaintiff, Part 3 of 4" »

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 One was wearing a non-DOT-approved helmet, characterized by the defense as a “novelty helmet,” when his accident occurred. Defense expert Ramieen Kalzi testified that the “novelty helmet” afforded One no protection from head injury. Kalzi based his opinion solely on standardized testing he did on exemplar helmets and made no effort to either replicate the accident or determine what forces would render a DOT-approved helmet ineffective. Plaintiffs' neurosurgeon Dr. Jim Iman testified that One could have sustained permanent brain injury from several causes, including inadequate brain oxygenation over a period of time, and that it was impossible to isolate the actual cause. Defense neurologist Dr. Jeff Samson testified that One’s brain injury was caused solely by forces which had been transmitted through the helmet. All experts agreed that One’s extensive orthopedic injuries were unaffected by the type of helmet he wore.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Accident Results in Brain Damage and Personal Injury, Part 2 of 4" »