Sacramento Brain Injury Lawyer Blog

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.)

Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief on Issues Arising During the Current Pendency of Trial

The issues are:

1. The court allowed Defendant to inquire of the standard of care as to the staff of ABC Skilled Nursing Facility (“ABC”) over the objections of counsel for Plaintiffs.

2. The court allowed Defendant to inquire about certain regulatory materials, i.e. the Code of Federal Regulations and the California Administrative Code of Regulations over the objections of counsel for Plaintiffs.

Neither of these lines of questioning were appropriate, material or relevant to this matter. Plaintiffs, with the filing of this brief, will renew their objections and request that the court strike the testimony and instruct the jury to ignore it. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The bases for the requests are as follows:

Standard of Care at ABC

Dr. Brown was designated solely as an expert on the issue of the negligence of Andrew Lee, M.D. Tamara White was Plaintiffs’ expert on the issue of the negligence of ABC. Ms. White was withdrawn and not deposed at the demand of Defendant Lee after the good faith settlement with ABC.

Continue reading "Complex Issues In Sacramento Malpractice Case Due To Brain Injury, Part 1 of 3" »

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.)

The seminal case of Delaney v. Baker 20 Cal.App.4th 23, is cited extensively by Defendant. Unfortunately, it does not support Defendant. The decision specifically holds that medical malpractice and Elder Abuse are separate causes of action. After holding that the statute is ambiguous, the court held that if the neglect is reckless' or done with oppression, fraud or malice, then the action falls within the scope of section 15657 and as such cannot be considered simply based on ... professional negligence within the meaning of section 15657.2. Delaney, at 28. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff has pled that the failure to restrain and the failure to treat decedent in this matter was at least reckless. The pleading standard has been met, and defendants would like the court to make a factual determination that the actions were not "reckless" at the pleading stage which is an improper request. Delaney is not a case that interprets the scope of pleadings. It is a decision that interprets the scope of the statute. Delaney cannot be cited as setting forth pleading requirements as Defendant attempts in the Demurrer.

The result is relatively simple. Plaintiff is entitled to and does state a cause of action for Elder Abuse, and whether the proof presented at trial is sufficient to take the damages outside of the scope of ordinary negligence (15610.57) and into the scope of enhanced damages (15657 and 15657.2) is a separate issue. However, Plaintiffs submit that sufficient facts have been pled to meet the pleading standards as to this damage issue.

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice At Sacramento Facility Results In Woman's Brain Injury And Death, 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.)

THE MISINTERPRETATION OF THE COMPLAINT

Defendant argues that since there is insufficient pleading in Paragraphs 18-20 of the Complaint, the complaint must fail. This is the underpinning of the whole of the Demurrer and is wholly without merit. Defendant fails to cite Paragraph 17 of the Second Cause of Action which incorporates all of the facts plead in the first 16 Paragraphs. The argument is specious at best and justifies the court overruling the Demurrer without further consideration. The elements plead including the course of the care prior to death are provided in the earlier paragraphs.

STATUTORY ANALYSIS

Defendant bases the argument on Welfare and Institutions Code §§15657 and 15657.2 and ignore §15610 et seq. which define Elder Abuse itself. Plaintiff has met the pleading requirements of pleading Elder Abuse as defined by the code. Defendant is mixing an argument that the damages portion of the claim cannot be made on the facts plead and, further, attempts to insert a requirement for pleading specificity as required if there was a claim for Punitive damages. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

No such damages claim has been made at this time, as the interplay between C.C.P. §425.13 and the Elder Abuse statutes has not been litigated or established.

Continue reading "Elder Abuse At Sacramento Nursing Facility Leads To Patient's Catastrophic Brain Injury, Part 3 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.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs' decedent suffered a stroke in 2003. She was hospitalized through February 19, 2004 when she was transferred to Defendant ABC Skilled Nursing Facility in Sacramento with orders that Posey restraints be used in view of the loss of use of one side of her body and confusion which could result in injury. Defendant chose to ignore the orders and on plaintiff's first night in the SNF decedent got out of bed apparently not remembering that she could not walk normally, fell and hit her head. A staff person for Defendant SNF heard her fall and eventually went to check on her. She was found on the floor with a bruise/abrasion on her forehead. She was anti-coagulated to prevent further strokes and presented a clear risk of developing a sub-dural hematoma, a common secondary response. The facility chose to do nothing until she was checked at about 7:00 in the morning and pronounced good. Finally at about noon when she started to present with severe problems showing loss of mental faculties Defendant decided that she should be sent to the hospital to be examined.

It was too late, the sub-dural hematoma had grown to the point where it was not operable by the time decedent arrived at the hospital. defendant's inadequate, delayed response proved costly for plaintiff. Decedent was, at the time, a strong-willed person and managed to hold on at home in a severely debilitated state until her death on April 25, 2004. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Dies From Brain Injury Due To Malpractice, Part 2 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.)

Plaintiff Peter Greene’s Opposition to Demurrer of Defendant ABC Skilled Nursing Facility and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support

The Opposition will be based on the following:

1. Defendant has failed to properly deal with the content of the complaint in that the initial basis for the Demurrer is that Paragraphs 18-20 do not state sufficient facts. Defendant does not cite the court to Paragraph 17 which incorporates all of the facts stated in the First Cause of Action. Thus, no basis for the Demurrer has been stated.

2. Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts, including a 10-hour delay in treating a patient with a head injury who was on anticoagulant therapy, was aged, and had suffered a stroke. Further, Plaintiff has pled that Defendant ignored direct orders of the forwarding physician that decedent be restrained to prevent exactly the situation that occurred. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

3. Defendant has confused pleading and proof in the motion. At this time, Plaintiffs have not requested punitive damages in order to meet the requirements of C.C.P. §425.13 and need not meet the pleading requirements of C.C.P. §3294 until the motion to amend the complaint is heard. Thus, the pleading is more than sufficient in view of the pleading of the willful and intentional acts contained in the complaint.

Continue reading "Sacramento Skilled Nursing Facility Sued For Patient's Brain Injury, Part 1 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.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this 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 General, or Sutter Hospital.

ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, A BRAIN INJURY EXPERT MAY BE CROSS-EXAMINED REGARDING MATTERS THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED AS RELIABLE AUTHORITIES

Evidence Code §721(b) provides as follows:

(b) If a witness testifying as an expert testifies in the form of an opinion, he or she may not be cross-examined in regard to the content or tenor of any scientific, technical, or professional text, treatise, journal, or similar publication unless any of the following occurs:
(1) The witness referred to, considered, or relied upon such publication in arriving at or forming his or her opinion.
(2) The publication has been admitted in evidence.
(3) The publication has been established as a reliable authority by the testimony or admission of the witness or by other expert testimony or by judicial notice. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Pursuant to the said section, once the item of medical literature has been established as a reliable authority by the expert's testimony, that reliable authority may be utilized to cross-examine the defense expert.

Continue reading "Sacramento Man Files Lawsuit After Brain Injury, Part 2 of 2" »

(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.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this 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 General, or Sutter Hospital.

Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony Regarding Inadmissible Hearsay Evidence

AN EXPERT ON DIRECT EXAMINATION IS PERMITTED TO IDENTIFY THE BASIS FOR HIS OR HER OPINION

Evidence Code §801 permits an expert to base his or her opinion on matter "whether or not admissible," that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion upon the subject to which his testimony relates, unless an expert is precluded by law from using such matter as a basis for his opinion. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Thus, an expert may base his or her testimony on reliable medical authorities including such items as journal articles, books, and other similar reliable authorities that experts traditionally base their opinions on.

Plaintiff has no quarrel with the proposition that the actual content of such journal articles should not be recited by the expert on direct examination. However, the expert must be allowed to identify the medical journal articles upon which she has relied and also identify those medical journal articles that are reliable authorities. (See Part 2 of 2.)

Continue reading "Battle Over Medical Experts In Sacramento Brain Injury Case, Part 1 of 2" »

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 personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this wrongful death/brain injury case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff Must Join All Persons Necessary for Just Adjudication

A complaint shall state the names, if known to the pleader, of any person(s) who, by their absence, may leave the defendant subject to risk of incurring multiple or inconsistent obligations. If such persons are not joined as parties, the pleader must state in the complaint why they are not joined. C.C.P. §389(a) & (c).

If any person is allied in interest with plaintiff, but refuses to join as a co-plaintiff, he or she may be sued as a defendant. In such cases, the complaint must state the reasons why such person was so joined. C.C.P. §382. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The plaintiff clearly has at least one sibling, Paul White, who is listed as the son and next of kin of the decedent in the Coroner's report. It is unknown by defendant if the plaintiff has other siblings or if there are other persons with standing to bring suit in this wrongful death action.

In any event, the plaintiff should be ordered to identify all such persons who have standing to bring this wrongful death action. If such persons do not wish to join as plaintiffs, plaintiff Nancy White should be order to join the involuntary plaintiffs as defendants pursuant to C.C.P. §382.

Continue reading "Sacramento Physicians And Hospital Sued For Wrongful Death, Part 5 of 5" »

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 personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this wrongful death/brain injury case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff's Complaint is Uncertain Because the Facts Support Only a Cause of Action for Professional Negligence and Not for General Negligence

California Code of Civil Procedure §430.10 provides, in pertinent part:

The party against whom a complaint ... has been filed may object, by demurrer ... to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:

(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
(f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, uncertain includes ambiguous and unintelligible.

A demurrer may be taken to the entire complaint or to any of the causes of action stated in the complaint. Code Civ. Proc. §430.50. For the purposes of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer assumes all material facts alleged in the complaint to be true. Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591, cert denied, 432 U.S. 907. The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and it only raises questions of law. Banerian v. O'Malley (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 604, 611. A demurrer must be sustained if the complaint's cause of action is uncertain. Code of Civ. Proc. §§430.10(f).

Continue reading "Sacramento Physicians And Hospital Sued for Medical Negligence, Part 4 of 5" »

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 personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this wrongful death/brain injury case and its proceedings.)

LEGAL ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff's Complaint is Barred by the Statute of Limitations.

A complaint is subject to a demurrer under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subparagraph (e), if the facts alleged in the complaint and matters of which the court is entitled to take judicial notice show the action is barred by the statute of limitations. Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano & Hatch v. Berwald (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 990, 995; Basin Construction Corp. v. Department of Water & Power (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 819, 823. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims is set out in Code of Civil Procedure §340.5. It provides, in pertinent part:

In an action for injury or death by a health care provider based upon such person's alleged professional negligence, the time for the commencement of action shall be three years after the date of injury or one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury, whichever occurs first. C.C.P. §340.5.

The plaintiff's complaint does not specifically set forth the date of death of her mother; however, in each cause of action it is stated that the plaintiff was caused harm on September 27, 2007. The Coroner's Report states that Ms. Miller died on that date.

Continue reading "Family From Sacramento Files Action Against Hopsital For Wrongful Death, Part 3 of 5" »

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 personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this wrongful death/brain injury case and its proceedings.)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff Nancy White filed a complaint on April 27, 2009, alleging wrongful death relating to the treatment and care defendant provided to her mother and decedent, Alice Miller. According to plaintiff, defendant UMC's treatment at a cardiac catheterization laboratory and the patient's subsequent ICU admission to UMC resulted in plaintiff's mother's death on September 27, 2007.

Plaintiff alleges that she is the daughter of decedent. Plaintiff does not identify other heirs.

All five causes of action are titled "General Negligence," but based upon wrongful death allegations.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff's first cause of action alleges that UMC failed to provide the proper standard of care of surgical intervention and repair ; and that defendant failed to provide timely assistance to the medical emergency thereby not providing the proper standard of medical care for emergencies. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff's second cause of action sets forth additional theories. It is contended that UMC is legally obligated to provide adequate service providers, "and to provide adequate surgical staff to respond to STAT requests for assistance"; and to restrict the "permitted hours of operation to the times in which UMC has sufficient surgical staff to respond to STAT requests"; and that UMC's "surgical staff did not respond to three pages for STAT assistance in a timely fashion that meets [the] acceptable standard of care."

Continue reading "Wrongful Death Of Sacramento Woman Caused By Medical Negligence, Part 2 of 5" »

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 personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this wrongful death/brain injury case and its proceedings.)For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Defendant Universal Medical Center’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Its Demurrer To Plaintiff’s Complaint

INTRODUCTION

The demurrer of Universal Medical Center ("UMC") to plaintiff's complaint and its five causes of action should be sustained without leave to amend for the following reasons:

Plaintiff's decedent died on September 27, 2007. Plaintiff's complaint was filed on April 27, 2009. Plaintiff's complaint is thus outside the statute of limitations for wrongful death cases based upon medical negligence, as set forth in C.C.P. §340.5.

Plaintiff's complaint sets forth five causes of action, all of which seem to be alleging various theories supporting the same tort; i.e., all five causes of action appear to be restated causes of action for wrongful death based upon medical negligence. Yet, all five causes of action are set out on the Judicial Council forms for General Negligence. Plaintiff cannot claim general negligence under the circumstances presented by the facts of this case.

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Files Wrongful Death Suit Against Hospital, Part 1 of 5" »

(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.)

Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, is cited extensively by Defendant. Unfortunately, it does not support Defendant. The decision specifically holds that medical malpractice and Elder Abuse are separate causes of action. After holding that the statute is ambiguous, the court held that "if the neglect is 'reckless' or done with 'oppression, fraud or malice,'" then the action falls within the scope of section 15657 and as such cannot be considered simply "based on ... professional negligence" within the meaning of section 15657.2. (Delaney at 28.) Plaintiff has pleaded that the failure to restrain and the failure to treat decedent in this matter was at least reckless.

The pleading standard has been met and defendants would have the court make a factual determination that the actions were not "reckless" at the pleading stage which is an improper request. Delaney is not a case that interprets the scope of pleadings. It is a decision that interprets the scope of the statute. It cannot be cited as setting forth pleading requirements as Defendant attempts in the Demurrer.

The result is relatively simple. Plaintiff is entitled to and does state a cause of action for Elder Abuse, whether the proof presented at trial is sufficient to take the damages outside of the scope of ordinary negligence (15610.57) and into the scope of enhanced damages (15657 and 15657.2) is a separate issue. However, Plaintiffs submit that sufficient facts have been plead to meet the pleading standards as to this damage issue.

Continue reading "Reckless Conduct At Sacramento Nursing Facility Causes Woman's Death, 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 MISINTERPRETATION OF THE COMPLAINT

Defendant argues that since there is insufficient pleading in Paragraphs 18-20 of the Complaint, the complaint must fail. This is the underpinning of the whole of the Demurrer and is wholly without merit. Defendant fails to cite Paragraph 17 of the Second Cause of Action which incorporates all of the facts plead in the first 16 Paragraphs. The argument is specious at best and justifies the court overruling the Demurrer without further consideration. The elements plead including the course of the care prior to death are provided in the earlier paragraphs.

STATUTORY ANALYSIS

Defendant bases the argument on Welfare and Institutions Code §§15657 and 15657.2 and ignore §15610 et seq. which define Elder Abuse itself. Plaintiff has met the pleading requirements of pleading Elder Abuse as defined by the code. Defendant is mixing an argument that the damages portion of the claim cannot be made on the facts pleaded, and further, defendant attempts to insert a requirement for pleading specificity as if there was a claim for punitive damages.

No such claim has been here made at this time as the interplay between C.C.P. §425.13 and the Elder Abuse statutes has not been litigated or established. Plaintiff fully expects to conduct the appropriate discovery and when sufficient data has been gathered move this court for leave to file an Amended Complaint setting forth claims for punitive damages against the appropriate defendants. (See Part 4 of 4.)

Continue reading "Abuse And Neglect At Sacramento Nursing Home Results In Death, 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.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs' decedent suffered a stroke in 2001. She was hospitalized through February 19, 2002 when she was transferred to Defendant Nationwide Skilled Nursing Facility with orders that Posey restraints be used in view of the loss of use of one side of her body and confusion which could result in injury. Defendant chose to ignore the orders and on her first night in the SNF decedent got out of bed apparently not remembering that she could not walk normally, fell and hit her head.

A staff person for Defendant SNF heard her fall and eventually went to check on her. She was found on the floor with a bruise/abrasion on her forehead. She was anti-coagulated to prevent further strokes and presented a clear risk of developing a sub-dural hematoma, a la Chick Hearn of the L.A. Lakers. The facility chose to do nothing until she was checked at about 7:00 in the morning and pronounced good. Finally, at about noon, when she started to present with severe problems showing loss of mental facilities Defendant decided that she should be sent to the hospital to be checked out.

It was too late, the sub-dural hematoma had grown to the point where it was not operable by the time decedent arrived at the hospital. The barn door had been closed after the animals had escaped. Decedent was, however, a strong person and managed to hold on at home in a severely debilitated state through her death on April 25, 2002.

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Dies At Nursing Facility Due To Neglect, 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.)

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Demurrer of Defendant Nationwide Skilled Nursing Facility and Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Plaintiffs file their Opposition to Demurrer of Defendant Nationwide Skilled Nursing Facility to the Second Cause of Action in of Plaintiffs' Complaint currently set for hearing. The Opposition will be based on the following:

1. Defendant has failed to properly deal with the content of the Complaint in that the initial basis for the Demurrer is that Paragraphs 18-20 do not state sufficient facts. Defendant does not cite the court to Paragraph 17 which incorporates all of the facts stated in the First Cause of Action. Thus, no basis for the Demurrer has been stated.

2. Plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts, including a 10-hour delay in treating a patient with a head injury who was on anticoagulant therapy, was aged, and had suffered a stroke. Further, Plaintiff has pleaded that Defendant ignored direct orders of the forwarding physician that decedent be restrained to prevent exactly the situation that occurred.

Continue reading "Woman Suffers Brain Injury At Sacramento Nursing Facility, Part 1 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/automobile accident case and its proceedings.)

ITEMIZED LIST OF CLAIMED DAMAGES

MEDICAL SPECIALS TO DATE

(1) University Neuropsychology Group $ 5,500.00

(2) Suzanne Perry, Ph.D. (approx.) $ 5,000.00

(3) Medical Center $ 2,253.90

(4) Beverly Tower Imaging $ 3,055.00

(5) Michael Lee, D.C. $ 3,230.00

(6) Donna Green, M.D. $ 1,225.00

(7) Robert James, M.D. $ 1,950.00

(8) The Massage Place $ 994.00

(9) Joan John, M.D. $ 7,000.00

(10) A.U.D. (Audiology) $ 1,000.00

(11) Tim Jones, M.D. $ 550.00

(12) Matrix Group $ 775.00

(13) XYZ Hospital $ 1,646.00

TOTAL: $34,178.90

FUTURE MEDICAL SPECIALS

(Approx.) $50,000.00

LOSS OF EARNINGS

(1) Loss of Earnings to Date: $ 170,000.00

(2) Future Loss of Earnings: $ 500,000.00

STATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

The parties have had two sessions of mediation with a mediator from ADR Services. Plaintiff's lowest demand was $500,000.00,: Defendant's highest offer was $50,000.00.

Defendant Brown is covered by a $500,000.00 automobile insurance policy. Plaintiff had tendered a statutory offer to settle for the policy limits back in September 4, 2008. In turn, Mr. Brown tendered a statutory offer to settle for $50,000.00.

Plaintiff next tendered a statutory offer to settle for $250,000.00 on December 4, 2008. That offer has expired and in light of the significant ongoing difficulties plaintiff has suffered, her demand was once again for the full policy limits. That renewed offer to settle for the policy limits has expired.

Continue reading "Brain-Injured Sacramento Woman Battles To Return To Work After Car Accident, Part 5 of 5" »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/automobile accident case and its proceedings.)

SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S LOSS OF EARNINGS

At the time of the accident, Ms. Smith was working with LexisNexis. She initially took some time off from work after the car accident and then was able to return to work but at a lighter reduced schedule. Some difficulties arose at work with her inability to work full-time and her ongoing disability. As a result, Ms. Smith suffered additional ongoing stress from work environment.

Ms. Smith's pre-accident employment reviews were outstanding. She was clearly a star in the LexisNexis sales field. However, she suffered a severe inability to perform her job post-brain injury. She was eventually terminated by LexisNexis in March, 2008.

Ms. Smith is claiming loss of earnings as follows:

2006: $ 20,000.00

2007: $ 25,000.00

2008: $ 125,000.00

TOTAL: $ 170,000.00

Ms. Smith has been seen by Dean Black, a vocational rehabilitation expert. Mr. Andersen has projected a substantial loss of earnings. Comparing Ms. Smith's pre-incident loss of earnings to her potential post-incident loss of earnings, Ms. Smith can be anticipated to suffer loss of earnings in excess of $500,000.00.

Ms. Smith is optimistic that her condition will improve and that she will be able to return to some form of active employment.

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Loses Job After Car Accident, Part 4 of 5" »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/automobile accident case and its proceedings.)

Ms. Smith had been referred for a neuropsychological evaluation by Dr. Green but was unable to proceed because of the lack of finances. Subsequent, arrangements were made for her to have a neuropsychological evaluation which was recently completed. She was diagnosed as suffering from adjustment disorder (with depressed and anxious mood, moderate-severe). Significantly, the extensive testing established that there were no data to suggest that the patient is feigning or amplifying her current cognitive symptom presentation. In other words, “this patient is not malingering."

On referral from the neuropsychologist, Ms. Smith has recently been evaluated by neurologist, Robert James, M.D. Dr. James has diagnosed Ms. Smith as suffering from cerebral concussion; postconcussive syndrome; posttraumatic headaches; chronic cervical musculoligamentous strain; chronic thoracic musculoligamentous 2.5 strain; chronic lumbosacral musculoligamentous strain; bilateral lower extremity restless leg syndrome; PTSD; and post-traumatic insomnia.

Ms. Smith has also undergone an extensive work up for her ongoing traumatic brain injury symptomotology from Joan John, M.D. The bottom line from Dr. John's report is that Dr. John has established objective documentation to correlate Ms. Smith's symptoms with a post-concussion syndrome. Dr. John has also outlined a cognitive rehabilitation program specifically designed to correct Ms. Smith's cognitive and emotional deficits caused by the accident. This neurocognitive rehabilitation program will take approximately one year and a half to complete with Ms. Smith anticipated to make substantial recovery following completion of this extensive program.

Continue reading "Woman From Sacramento Brain-Injured In Automobile Collision, Part 3 of 5" »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/automobile accident case and its proceedings.)

NATURE AND EXTENT OF PLAINTIFF'S DAMAGES

SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S MEDICAL TREATMENT

Ms. Smith sought treatment with Lee Family Chiropractic on October 11, 2006. She reported that she could not stop crying since the accident. She was also complaining of left neck pain and stiffness, left shoulder pain, left lower back pain, knee pain, nervousness, irritability, depression, and was feeling weird. She also had bruises along both hips from the lap belt as well as bruises on her right knee and nose from the air bag deploying. Dr. Lee evaluated Ms. Smith and diagnosed her as suffering from a cervical spine sprain/strain; lumbar spine sprain/strain; sacroiliac sprain/strain; left shoulder sprain/strain; and knee sprain/strain.

Dr. Lee treated Ms. Smith on a regular basis through February 8, 2007, and discharged her with the expectation that she would have continued care. She has in fact continued to see Dr. Lee since her discharge.

Ms. Smith also sought medical attention from neurologist, Donna Green, M.D. She was first seen by Dr. Green on May 14, 2007. Ms. Smith reported that she had ongoing and progressive depressive symptoms. She also was unable to multitask. She also continued to have some neck discomfort as well as headaches.

Continue reading "Car Accident Leaves Sacramento Woman With Brain Injury, Part 2 of 5" »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/automobile accident case and its proceedings.)

PLAINTIFF'S TRIAL BRIEF

GENERAL STATEMENT OF CASE

This is an auto versus auto accident case occurring on October 10, 2006 at approximately 7:00 p.m. Plaintiff Sandy Smith was traveling northbound on University Avenue crossing the intersection with North Street when defendant Dan Brown, who had been traveling southbound on University Avenue, was making a left turn onto eastbound North Street. The signal at the intersection was green for northbound travel, but Mr. Brown made his turn when it was unsafe to do so. There were SUV vehicles in the no. 1 lane waiting to turn left onto westbound North Street from northbound University which blocked both Mr. Brown's view of Ms. Smith and Ms. Smith's view of Mr. Brown. However, Ms. Smith clearly had the right of way as she was heading straight through the intersection on a green light and Mr. Brown clearly had the duty to not make his turn until it was safe to do so.

Plaintiff thus submits that there is no dispute about liability for this accident.

Ms. Smith saw Mr. Brown when he was approximately 7 to 10 feet away. There was no time to avoid the accident at that point. She struck Mr. Brown and, as a result, her car turned 90 degrees to the right. Ms. Smith was knocked unconscious for about 30 to 90 seconds as a result of the accident.

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Suffers Brain Injury, Part 1 of 5" »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/car accident case and its proceedings.)

A camera is not the same as the human eye, and film is not the same as the retina of the eye. The limitations of the camera-film system as a simulator of human vision are particularly acute under low luminance conditions. William Hyzer has written extensively on this subject. Hyzer's criticisms have been relied upon by plaintiffs accident reconstructionist Miles Apuni in this case. As Hyzer notes, a principal difficulty is the limited dynamic luminance range of photography as compared with that of the eye.

Perceptual-cognitive issues also are often misleading with nighttime photographs. The normal field of view for humans is close to 180 degrees in all directions, but a camera only captures a small portion of the visual field, much less than the person who actually sees things the picture or video is trying to replicate. Thus, such photographs artificially concentrate the viewer into the restricted field and artificially enhance the visibility of the key object or condition being depicted.

A photograph is a static representation of a slice of time, whereas the accident sequence itself is very dynamic. The human eye is designed to optimally perform at high levels of illumination. Therefore, cameras and videos tend to make things brighter to allow people to see the target of the illustration. Also, in an auto accident, the driver does not expect the hazard to appear, but observers of a video which tries to replicate the accident know the hazard is coming and the animation or video artificially changes the viewer's perceptions in a way far different from what actually occurred in the field.

A photograph might be offered to show 200 feet from the intersection and so the person looking at it knows what to look for and scrutinizes what can or cannot be seen, but this is not at all what happens in reality. The driver never knows the hazard is coming, can see a much wider field, and is moving at the time. These problems, along with the camera's inability to replicate the human eye, all make the demonstration unrealistic and highly prejudicial.

Continue reading "Car Accident Victim From Sacramento Sues City For Traumatic Brain Injury, Part 8 of 8" »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/car accident case and its proceedings.)

Pictures in various forms (e.g., engineering drawings, artist's renderings, computer-generated displays, photographs) are commonly used in court. Photography is one of the most commonly used forms of visual presentation in court, because they assist the trier of fact in understanding injuries, the vehicles, the scene, when offered for that purpose. Jurors tend to believe that what they see in a photograph is what they would have seen had they been there themselves at the time the photograph was taken. And here, photographs and other depictions are central to issues in this auto accident case.

This belief is reinforced by their own experience, since most of them have probably taken photographs at one time or another. Unfortunately, most jurors have little knowledge about photography, hence little understanding of the possible problems and limitations.

Many experts now try to offer into evidence nighttime photographs, videos, and even computer-generated displays purporting to show the visibility available to an individual in a particular situation. Relative to verbal explanations of the results of a reenactment, these displays are regarded as a great improvement, but they present a number of problems that are seldom dealt with or even acknowledged by the individuals seeking to introduce this evidence.

Generally, daytime photographs will serve their purpose if they are sufficiently clear and are not distorted with the use of special lenses, filters, and arguments over such photographs are often not sufficient to keep them fairly out of evidence.

Continue reading "Police Officer Sued For Causing Brain Damage To Sacramento Car Accident Vcitim, Part 7 of 8" »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/car accident case and its proceedings.)

THE NIGHT TIME PHOTOGRAPHS AND VIDEOTAPING ARE MISLEADING AS TO THE ACTUAL LIGHTING, WHAT THE PARTIES COULD SEE AND NOT SEE, AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED BY THE JURY IN THIS BRAIN INJURY CASE.

Photographs submitted as evidence should never be accepted as true and accurate or substantially similar representations without subjecting them to critical examination. The legitimate manipulation of photographic imagery is as old as photography itself. Retouching and restoring photographs has been an art form for over a century. Special effects for image manipulation methods are used throughout the entertainment industry and in Hollywood.

Consequently, it is not unusual for an attorney to legitimately ask whether a photograph or video has been doctored "in some way," to emphasize certain details or subdue others. Photoshopping or eliminating images from photos or videos is a common art form now practiced by people on laptops with current software throughout society, especially with digitally recorded images.

Elements within an image can be fabricated, enhanced, distorted, shifted, cloned, erased or transferred quite easily, without a trace. The images can be "brightened up" or "darkened" with a turn of a knob, defying detection or scientific scrutiny. The camera never lies, or so it used to be.

Continue reading "Experts At Issue In Brain-Damaged Sacramento Woman's Accident Case, Part 6 of 8" »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/car accident case and its proceedings.)

Evidence Code § 402 allows the Court to hear and determine the question of the admissibility of evidence outside the presence or hearing of the jury. See, Mike v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. (1975) Cal.App.3d 436, 448. In addition to excluding highly prejudicial evidence, the Court may instruct opposing counsel to avoid mention of the evidence in question during trial or in argument to the jury; and to direct persons under their control (counsel's associates, clients, witnesses, etc.) likewise to avoid such mention. L.A. Sup.Ct. Rule 8.92; see, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 793, 174 Cal.Rptr. 348, 371.

Expert opinions are not proper when offered by a lay witness. Evidence Code § 800. See, Jambazian v. Borden (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 836, 848. Examples of inadmissible lay opinion evidence include testimony on causation [Stickel v. San Diego Elec. Ry. Co. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 157, 165], legal conclusions [Osborn v. Mission Ready Mix (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 104, 113-144] and matters beyond common experience [People v. Williams (1992) 3 cal.App.4th 1326, 1332-33].

This would include a statement by Black that the video or photographs of the auto collision "fairly and accurately depicted" what he saw that night, because they cannot. They do not substantially replicate the field of vision he had, where his focus was, or the lighting condition his eyes would have received. If allowed, through a witness or an expert, such evidence would be totally unfair to the brain-damaged plaintiff.

Continue reading "Jury Awards Huge Damages To Brain-Damaged Sacramento Woman After Collision, Part 5 of 8" »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/car accident case and its proceedings.)

THIS MOTION SEEKS TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY WHICH WOULD MISELEAD THE JURY. THE VIEOS AND ANIMATIONS AND NIGHTTIME PHOTOGRAPHY THE DEFENSE AND THEIR EXPERTS HAVE CONJURED UP IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE CONDITIONS ON THE NIGHT IN QUESTION, IS HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL, IS GROSSLY MISLEADING, AND LACKS FOUNDATION. IT MUST BE EXCLUDED

The Court has inherent power to grant a motion in limine to exclude "any kind of evidence" which could be objected to at trial, either as irrelevant or subject to discretionary exclusion as unduly prejudicial. Clemens v. American Warranty Corp. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 444, 451; Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 272, 288. Evidence Code § 350 states that "(n)o evidence is admissible except relevant evidence."

ONLY RELEVANT EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE

This Court must act in limine to exclude improper evidence to ensure a fair trial in this brain injury case.

Evidence Code § 352 states the court may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. A number of courts have approved of the use of Section 352 to exclude prejudicial, wasteful or confusing evidence. See, People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897, 904 (prejudicial evidence); People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.App.4th 475, 514 (undue consumption of time); People v. Wagner(1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 473, 481 (jury confusion).
(See Part 5 of 8.)

Continue reading "Sacramento Car Accident Victim Sues City For Her Brain Damage, Part 4 of 8" »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/car accident case and its proceedings.)

Ella Lee has been fully evaluated by many top independent medical experts to assess her brain injury, and has had a Life Care Plan assembled with the help of these experts by Patti Green, a highly respected life care planner. The future medical care costs for Ella Lee are in excess of $8,750,000. Her past medical bills are in excess of $430,000.

The defense experts estimate the cost of future care to be in the area of $5,000,000, but they have provided no life care plan through their experts. Instead, the defense takes the position that maybe Ella Lee is faking, and is a malingerer. However, their best expert on the subject acknowledges that her condition is just as likely to be quite real, and severe brain injury patients like Ella Lee often cannot control their emotions and make sense as accurate historians. Given Ella Lee's pre-existing condition with mental illness, as a result of the new and devastating overlay of significant brain trauma, she know non-functional and requires the help the experts contend is needed.

To sum up the case which will be presented at trial, Ella Lee is seeking economic damages only. She will prove that the auto accident is the fault, in whole or in part, of Sacramento Police Officer Paul Black. Therefore, he is jointly and severally responsible for her economic damages. The City of Sacramento will contend the accident was completely the fault of Mr. Choo, and further will contend that Plaintiff's injuries and economic damages claimed are overstated and not credible. Mr. Choo will contend, like Plaintiff, that the accident is in whole or in part the fault of S.P.D. Officer Paul Black. No one contends that Ella Lee is at all responsible for the accident or her damages. She was blame-free, stopped behind the Choo vehicle, minding her own business when the crash occurred.

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Suffers Catastrophic Brain Trauma After Collision With Police Officer, Part 3 of 8" »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/car accident case and its proceedings.)

Choo froze, bringing his vehicle to a stop as it straddled the #2 lane (slow lane) on the Highway 160 westbound, directly in the path of travel of Officer Black. Black then slammed on the brakes and tried to steer away from the vehicle in his path by turning his wheel to the right, skidding. He left two skid marks which are parallel, consistent with a braking skid, and inconsistent with a simple steer (yaw) as the City's expert contends occurred.

In any event, Black swerved and braked to avoid Choo' s Malibu and he slammed directly into the side of Ms. Lee's 1992 Toyota Camry. The impact was so severe, it crushed the vehicle to the midline of the occupant compartment when she was hit at 30-40 m.p.h. at impact. Only five inches of metal on the side of her vehicle stood between her and the oncoming battering ram of the front end of the police vehicle.

As a result of the impact severity, Ms. Lee was knocked to the other side of the vehicle, despite her use of the passive restraint system within the vehicle. She was rendered unconscious and was in a coma for many days following the crash. She suffered a severe brain injury, cracked hip bones, a cracked skull and subdural hematoma, large lacerations on her head, a ruptured spleen, and many other related serious and life threatening injuries.

Continue reading "Police Officer Responsible For Auto Collision That Left Sacramento Woman Brain-Damaged, Part 2 of 8" »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/car accident case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff offers the following Motion in Limine No. 3, regarding the following topics:
Expert witnesses for the defense trying to offer and discuss wholly misleading and not substantially similar:
(1) night-time photographs;
(2) night-time videos;
(3) animations.

Under the Evidence Code and California case law, it is clear that these topics should not be addressed by any witness at the time of trial of this brain injury case.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On September 9, 2005, a completely avoidable high-speed collision occurred on Highway 160 at the intersection of Royal Oaks Avenue shortly before midnight between two vehicles. Sacramento Police Officer Paul Black was rocketing down the road, eastbound, with two county probation officers in his vehicle, returning from a police matter in Roseville.

Black was either heading back to the S.P.D. station where he worked, or was responding to an officer-involved shooting matter in that general direction at 57th Street. He was not authorized to be speeding, and he testified he had no right to be doing so. According to Black, he was not driving in any emergency fashion. Therefore, it is undisputed that he had, at all times relevant, an obligation to adhere to the same rules of the road as a motor vehicle operator as any other citizen.

Continue reading "Brain-Damaged Sacramento Woman Wins Huge Damage Award, Part 1 of 8" »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/auto accident case and its proceedings.)

Archie weighed approximately 125 lbs at the time of the incident and after being discharged from the hospital dropped to a mere 95 lbs. Archie was a ghost of his prior self. Archie suffers from post-traumatic stress and depression and was diagnosed with anorexia. Even the defense neuropsychologist Sian Green agrees that Archie 's anorexia was caused by the incident. Archie lost a significant amount of muscle mass, is fatigued easily, has lost stamina and overall energy, feels physically weak and is not the same person he was before the incident.

Due in large measure to the traumatic brain injury, Archie 's personality has changed. He has lost spontaneity, is very fretful, overly apologetic, more irritable and less animated. Archie is a shadow of his former self; he does not engage with the world like he did before the incident in terms of what he is willing to undertake, his intellectual ambition, his social ambition and his career ambition. Archie is more dependent on his family to take care of his daily needs. Archie is fearful and anxious; he is uncertain of his future and whether he will return to a state of independence, that of normal twenty three year old male, which he would have had, but for defendant's negligence.

Anorexia is a life threatening illness and Archie will require future care and treatment for the remainder of his lifetime. (See Dr. Patt's report below.) Archie requires further psychiatric treatment that will exceed costs of $100,000. In light of his orthopedic injuries, plaintiff will never be able to walk or run as he used to before the incident. Archie 's hip has started to undergo arthritic changes and even the defense orthopedist agrees that Archie will indeed need two to three hip replacements in the future at $50,000 per surgery. (See Dr. Schwartz's deposition testimony below.) Archie 's future medical expenses will be in the several hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Continue reading "Bicyclist From Sacramento Suffers Brain Injury In Car Accident, 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/auto accident case and its proceedings.)

Here, defendant and two independent witnesses, Cathy and Frank Bennett, testified that defendant was stopped at the stop sign. Therefore, Archie, who was lawfully riding his bicycle in the bike lane of San Vicente Boulevard, would have observed that defendant was stopped and had a right to assume that she would stay stopped as he passed directly in front of her. Defendant had a duty to obey the stop sign and Archie had a right to assume that defendant would carry out her duty and obey the stop sign and not enter the intersection until it was safe to do so. Accordingly, there can be no comparative fault as a matter of law.

Further, defendants' argument that plaintiff could have averted the incident is completely without merit. Defendant's BMW accelerates much faster than Archie pedaling on his bicycle and the impact occurred when Archie was directly in front of defendant's BMW. Thus, in the moments before the impact, Archie was almost in front of defendant's vehicle. Based on the speed that the BMW was accelerating, Archie did not have enough time to react and take action to avoid the collision. This incident is unquestionably 100% defendants' fault.

INJURIES AND DAMAGES

Archie suffered severe and life threatening injuries and extensive damages as a result of defendant's negligence. Archie suffered a litany of devastating injuries. Archie 's right femur was pushed through the pelvic bone causing a right acetabular fracture and dislocation of the hip. Archie suffered pelvic fractures, a ruptured bladder, rib fractures, moderate brain injury with subdural hematoma and seizure, memory loss, nerve damage and significant soft tissue bruising and abrasions. Archie 's doctors told his family that they were not sure if they could save him.

Continue reading "Automobile Accident Leaves Sacramento Man With Catastrophic 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/auto accident case and its proceedings.)

Several witnesses, observing that Archie was underneath the SUV screamed at defendant to stop. Defendant, completely oblivious as to what was happening, continued on and did not stop until more than 20 feet later. Archie was pummeled against the asphalt as his body was propelled underneath the SUV all the way from the bike lane to the second lane of eastbound traffic on San Vicente Boulevard. When defendant's SUV finally came to rest, the rear wheel pinned Archie to the ground. Again oblivious, witnesses had to get the defendant's attention to reverse the SUV so that they could attend to Archie. (See deposition testimony of Cathy and Frank Bennett below.) Archie suffered massive injuries, including traumatic brain injury.

The Santa Monica Police Department determined that defendant caused the accident by failing to yield to Archie who was lawfully traveling in the bike lane at the time of the incident in contravention of Vehicle Code Section 21802 (a).

LIABILITY

Defendants do not dispute liability.

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT COMPARATIVELY AT FAULT, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS ARE 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS CATASTROPHIC INJURIES AND DAMAGES

Although it may be negligence where the injured party fails to discover the danger by neglecting to look or by looking ahead without glancing to either side, the rule does not apply in situations where there is reasonable reliance on another's duty of care.

Continue reading "Young Man From Sacramento Suffers Brain Injury In Auto Accident, 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/auto accident case and its proceedings.)

PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL BRIEF

STATEMENT OF FACTS

November 28, 2003, was Sunday of Thanksgiving weekend. Plaintiff Archie Smith, a Sacramento resident, was twenty-one years of age and was on a break from his studies as a math major at Princeton University. The weather was clear and sunny so Archie and friend Miranda Brown decided to go for a bike ride to the beach. The pair started near Veteran Avenue in Santa Monica, rode to Ocean Boulevard along the beach and then turned east on San Vicente Boulevard back towards Miranda’s home.

Defendant Sabrina Black, aged 60, had been to the manicurist, purchased holiday greeting cards and was driving her BMW X-5 SUV northbound on 11th Street on route to her home in Westwood. At approximately 2:15 p.m., defendant approached the stop sign at the intersection of 11th Street and San Vicente and intended to proceed across the intersection to the center median, where there is a break in the road for vehicles to make turns, and then turn left onto San Vicente Boulevard. Defendant stopped at the stop sign but failed to see Archie who was riding eastbound on San Vicente Boulevard in the bike lane directly in front of her at the time of impact. Defendant accelerated to make her way towards the center median and struck Archie.

The point of impact was within the bike lane. The front of defendant's SUV struck Archie 's right hip and the middle of the hood of the SUV impacted the bicycle's handlebars. After impact, Archie 's bicycle was knocked to the ground in front of defendant's SUV. Instead of immediately stopping upon feeling the impact, defendant continued to drive forward, ran over Archie with the left front tire of the SUV, and continued to drag him and his bicycle on the asphalt underneath the vehicle for more than twenty feet. (See Part 2 of 4.)

Continue reading "Sacramento College Student Suffers Traumatic Brain Injury, Part 1 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.)

GENERAL DAMAGES
As a result of his injuries Paul has experienced severe pain and suffering and emotional distress. Paul was nearly killed on the scene as he suffered a severe skull fracture and brain hemorrhage, multiple broken ribs, spleen and liver lacerations, internal bleeding, and collapsed lung. Paul endured nine days in critical care, and continued to have pain and suffering well into his recovery. Paul continues to have complaints of periodic headaches and pains in the area where he fractured multiple ribs. The large scar on his head, and facial palsy further add to the suffering experienced by this young man after the automobile collision.

As a result of his brain injury, Paul has lost all motivation and shows signs of depression and anger. Paul often sleeps throughout an entire day, and it is frequently difficult for him to pull himself out of bed. Prior to the collision, Paul was an energetic, enthusiastic, and kind young boy. Now, he does not express himself, does not communicate well with others, and becomes angry and frustrated very easily. In short, Paul has become a different person all together.

As a 14-year-old with a brain injury, Paul's social development has been stunted. For the most part, Paul has been in homeschool programs since the collision which have further contributed to this isolation. Paul's prime years of high-school have been taken away from him, and he will never be able to make up this lost ground.

Continue reading "Sacramento Mother And Her Son Deal With Traumatic Brain Injury After Car Accident, Part 7 of 7" »

(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.)

DAMAGES
As discussed above, Paul Martin suffered severe personal injuries as a result of the collision. Paul suffered a severe skull fracture, brain hemorrhage, collapsed lung, fractured pelvis, multiple fractured ribs, liver laceration, and spleen contusion and laceration. Paul nearly died on the scene after he became unresponsive and could not be intubated due to his locked jaw. The 14-year-old was air-lifted and spent nine days in critical care at University Hospital.

PAST MEDICAL EXPENSES
Mercy Air: $8,031.50

ABC Ambulance: $ 1,089.03

Valley Regional: $49,941.17

University: $ 70,752.47

Outpatient Rehab. $ 5,000.00

TOTAL $134,814.00

FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES & SERVICES
Paul has been diagnosed with a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Paul's treating physicians have recommended that he be placed in a specially designed educational learning program for children with brain injuries. Paul will need extended schooling through the age of 22 based on his condition.

Paul will require treatment in a residential neurobehavioral program to cope with his damaged motor skills.

Due to his brain injury and inability to properly care for himself, Paul will require long-term supported living after completion of school.

Continue reading "Sacramento Family Dealing With Son's Brain Injury After Car Accident, Part 6 of 7" »

(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 investigation performed by the Gas Company's experts confirmed that the speed of Mr. Brown's Ford F-150 was 50.7 to 60.3 miles per hour. This report, prepared by Dr. Kevin Fish of the Institute of Risk and Safety Analyses, further states "We found no evidence that the traffic signals were not properly functioning at the time the subject collision occurred." The report concludes It is clearly evident that Mr. Brown caused the subject collision by violating California Vehicle Code § 21453, failure to stop for a steady circular red signal.

Although the Gas Company has not formally accepted responsibility for causing this collision, Brown could not deny fault when pressed at deposition.
Q: Do you admit that you are at fault for this accident?
A: Yes. (Whitely deposition.)

SHERRIE MARTIN CANNOT BE APPORTIONED ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR CAUSING THE SUBJECT COLLISION

The single eye-witness to the collision, Mr. Walkup, confirmed in his statement to the California Highway Patrol that Brown was completely at fault in causing the collision. Mr. Walkup stated that he was driving his vehicle northbound on White Road and was stopped at SR-40 waiting for his light to change. He observed the Martin vehicle stopped in the westbound left turn lane and after the signal cycled, she began a normal left hand turn. Mr. Walkup stated that the Martins were in a normal turn and were not in a hurry, and that Brown "came out of nowhere eastbound on SR-40, ran the red light and collided with the Martins."

Continue reading "Negligent Truck Driver Leaves Sacramento Teen With Brain Injury, Part 5 of 7" »

(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.)

After Paul was discharged from the hospital, he attended outpatient rehabilitation for approximately three months. At this point it was clear that Paul was much slower to process information, had significant memory and motor-skills problems, and could not engage in many of the activities he used to enjoy. During the initial three-month recovery period, Paul suffered from daily severe headaches due to his brain trauma for which he treated with Vicodin.

Paul spent the remainder of his eighth-grade year in a homeschool program designed to help him during the recovery period. Paul attempted to go back to Sacramento Junior High School but he could not cope with the confusion and the chaos of a regular school program.

A teacher assigned from the Sacramento Unified School District came to the home two to three times per week to assist Paul with his school work. In ninth grade, Paul was home-schooled with the California Virtual Academy (an internet-based schooling program). Sherrie stayed home from work during this year to assist Paul with his recovery and learning.

At the beginning of Paul's tenth-grade year in the fall of 2007, Paul participated in an independent studies homeschooling program affiliated with the Sacramento High School. The students in this program work from the home and visit the school once per week for grading and extra help. Paul did not function well in this program and the school representatives recommended that Paul return to Sacramento High School. Due to his severe cognitive impairment, Paul has been unable to successfully matriculate into Sacramento High School. Paul's physicians have recommended an intensive residential based rehabilitation program, in which he is currently in the process of admission.

Continue reading "Sacramento Gas Company Sued For Auto Accident That Caused Teen's Brain Injury, Part 3 of 7" »

(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.)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On the date of the collision Plaintiffs had stopped at the intersection of White Road in the left turn lane where they waited for the red arrow signal to turn green. Upon the signal cycling to a green arrow, Sherrie Martin proceeded into her left turn in a normal course and speed.

Defendant Dan Brown was traveling westbound on S.R. 40 in his 2000 Ford F-150 dual-wheeled utility truck at approximately 60 miles-per-hour and failed to stop at the red light causing the collision. Brown was in the course and scope of his employment with the California Gas Company at the time of the collision.

The defendants' Ford truck struck the Martins' vehicle directly at the passenger side where Paul was seated. Brown admitted in deposition that he did not brake before the impact and that he was traveling at least 55 miles-per-hour. The deepest point of impact was the right-front grill of the Ford piercing through the passenger door and window area where Paul's head was located.

Paul suffered life-threatening injuries on the scene including a severe head trauma, brain hemorrhage, collapsed lung, fractured pelvis, multiple fractured ribs, spleen and liver lacerations, internal bleeding, and other cuts and soft-tissue injuries. At the scene, Paul initially had a Glasgow Coma Scale of 13 which quickly fell to a 3 when he became completely unresponsive. Paul went into respiratory failure at the scene likely due to brain swelling (subdural bleed in bilateral frontal lobes) and/or aspiration.

Continue reading "Car Accident Leaves Sacramento Boy With Brain Injury, Part 2 of 7" »

(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.)

PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL BRIEF

INTRODUCTION & FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On November 2, 2005, at 11:35 a.m., 14-year-old Paul Martin was a passenger with his mother Sherrie while driving eastbound on California State Route 40 in Sacramento. The Plaintiffs made a lawful left turn at White Road where they were violently struck by a California Gas Company truck driven by Dan Brown which ran through a solid red light. Paul Martin suffered life threatening injuries including a severe traumatic brain injury that has permanently disabled him.

PARTIES

Plaintiffs:
Paul Martin was an active fourteen-year-old boy at the time of the collision. He was in the eighth grade at Sacramento Junior High School and enjoyed riding dirt bikes, skateboarding, building and repairing bicycles, drawing, and playing basketball. Prior to the collision Paul had been a below-average student, but had recently found success with an independent studies program in which he received mostly A's and B's. After suffering a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury, Paul's entire life has changed. His ability to process information, memory, ability to communicate, and motor skills are now drastically diminished. Paul's personality has completely changed, he is depressed, lacks ambition, and he can no longer engage in many of the activities he used to enjoy. As a result of the impact of the collision, Paul has a large 6" scar on the back of his head, a drooping left eye, and partial facial palsy.

Sherrie Martin escaped the collision with only soft-tissue injuries.

Continue reading "Sacramento Teen Suffers Traumatic Brain Injury, Part 1 of 7" »

(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" »

(Please 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.)

On that issue, defendant has failed to meet her prima facie burden because her moving papers do not include any evidence, admissible or otherwise, that Ms. Smith's fall treatment had concluded as of April 30. Nowhere in the evidence offered there does any health care provider opine that the care for the fall had concluded or the care that came afterward was completely unrelated to the fall. Again, nowhere do the words appear in Defendant's evidence that care for the fall had concluded. Without some evidence to that effect, the defendant has failed to meet its burden of producing evidence.

The defense asks the court to make an enormous leap of faith and make that finding by attaching to their attorney's declaration without foundation medical records that reflect pain medications were discontinued and discharge planning commenced. For the reasons stated in plaintiff's objections submitted herewith, this evidence is inadmissible to prove her care for the fall had concluded.

Thirdly, there is at least a factual dispute on the question of whether some or all of decedent's hospital care after April 30, was for the fall. Plaintiff, and logic, dispute any notion that on April 30, 2005, Ms. Smith's care for the fall had concluded. Tammy Bauer, who guided the medical care from the patient's standpoint declared that the care in the hospital for the fall continued during Ms. Smith's entire stay as she continued to have severe or intractable left thoracic pain.

Continue reading "Elder Abuse Action Filed By Sacramento Family, Part 6 of 6" »

(Please 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.)

THERE IS A TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT AS TO WHETHER THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT WAS A CAUSE OF MS. SMITH'S DEATH WHERE NEGLIGENCE OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDER'S AT THE HOSPITAL WHERE SHE SOUGHT CARE CAUSED HER DEATH.

Defendant’s Motion misses the mark for several reasons.

First, defendant misstates the law of causation in this context. [W]here the additional harm results either from the negligence of doctors or hospitals who furnish necessary medical care, or from the materialization of a risk inherent to necessary medical care, the chain of causation set in motion by the original tort remains unbroken.

Even if one assumes, arguendo, that in the middle of this hospitalization the care for the fall concluded and the care for a completely unrelated seizure disorder began, the treatment for that disorder would still arise from the materialization of a risk inherent to necessary medical care. In this case, it is readily foreseeable that putting an elderly woman in the hospital would trigger some attendant care for unrelated medical conditions. Defendant's reading of the cases to exclude from causation these complications in care misstates the case law. That is why they do not cite nor is there any case where a negligent tortfeasors causal culpability stops during the hospitalization that the tortfeasor created. The fall put Ms. Smith in XYZ Hospital and subjected her to their care. While under their care, her death was negligently caused. That raises a triable issue of fact on causation.

Continue reading "Roseville Hospital And Nursing Facility Sued For Woman's Brain Injury, Part 5 of 6" »

(Please 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.)

In Hastie v. Handeland (1969) 274 Cal. App. 2d 599, a case involving a vehicular collision and subsequent death of the victim following medical care, the court held a tortfeasor was liable for the subsequent injury suffered during medical treatment. Id. at pp. 604-605 If death resulted from a risk inherent in the medical treatment reasonably required to cure the injuries caused by the accident, respondents the original would be liable irrespective of whether such treatment was rendered in a proper or a negligent manner.

The question is one of causation, and where the additional harm results either from the negligence of doctors or hospitals who furnish necessary medical care, or from the materialization of a risk inherent to necessary medical care, the chain of causation set in motion by the original tort remains unbroken. [Citations.] (Id. at p. 606.)

In one case, the victim of a motorcyle accident was injured further by a trauma room surgeon. Following that care, the patient sought care from Kaiser Foundation facilities, where their negligence further aggravated the situation. The court held that the trauma surgeon was responsible for the additional injuries caused by the negligence of the Kaiser staff. The court explained: The principle usually appears in cases involving automobile accidents, where the initial tortfeasor's careless driving exposed the plaintiff to a risk of physical harm, including medical treatment for the injuries resulting from the accident. The initial tortfeasor therefore is liable for the resultant medical treatment. The rationale for the rule is that such medical treatment is closely and reasonably associated with the immediate consequences of the defendant's act and forms a normal part of its aftermath.

Continue reading "Family Of Sacramento Woman Sues Nursing Home For Her Death, Part 4 of 6" »

(Please 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.)

DEFENDANT UNIVERSAL HOMES’ INSTANT MOTION
Defendant UNIVERSAL HOMES moves for summary judgment on the grounds the negligence that caused Ms. Smith to be hospitalized was not a legal cause her death due to negligence in that hospital.

In response, plaintiff contends that moving defendant's negligence was a legal cause of the death of Ms. Smith because her brain injury and subsequent death was caused by the negligence of health care providers she went to see as a result of the defendants negligence. At a minimum, there is a triable issue of fact.

THE STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court's role here is whether or not there is, or could be, a triable issue on any material fact. Code Civ. Proc. Section 437. A defendant who seeks summary judgment must define all theories alleged in the complaint and then challenge each factually, showing that one or more elements of each of plaintiff's causes of action for negligence cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. CCP section 437c (p)(2); Lopez v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 705, 714.

Summary Judgment is a drastic procedure and should be used with caution. Any doubt as to the propriety of granting the motion is resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion. Stationer's Corp v. Dun & Bradstreet Inc. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 412,

Continue reading "Elder Abuse Claim Filed Against Roseville Nursing Facility, Part 3 of 6" »

(Please 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.)

FACTUAL SUMMARY cont.

She was thereafter taken by a friend and fellow Universal Home tenant to XYZ Hospital. She had fallen on her left side and was treated for injuries sustained in the fall. She was diagnosed with a left sided chest contusion. It caused her to have intractable left sided thoracic pain throughout her stay. [Declaration of Plaintiff Tammy Bauer] Ms. Smith was admitted to XYZ Hospital by her primary care and admitting physician Robert J., M.D.

After two days in the hospital, Ms. Smith developed and alteration of consciousness, including confusion and somnolence repeatedly trying to get out of bed. In addition, she developed seizures. Dr. J. asked for and received a neurology consultation with Nancy S., M.D. This was not a transfer of medical care to a new physician for a new problem but a simple consultation request by the admitting and primary treating physician.

Dr. S.'s initial exam occurred on April 30, 2005. [The foregoing references are to Dr. S.'s deposition.] The two reasons for the consultation were Ms. Smith's confusion somnolence, or alteration in her level of consciousness and unexplained tremors she was having. Dr. S. diagnosed intermittent partial seizures. After consulting with the patient and plaintiff, Tammy Bauer, Ms. Smith was started on Dilantin, an anti-seizure medication.

Dr. S.'s evaluation was part of the care and treatment for the falls, not independent of that. Contrary to the basic theme of defendant's Motion, care for the fall did not conclude at the time Dr. J. sought a consultation from Dr. S. Dr. S. considered the question of whether or not several reported earlier falls ending with the one that brought Ms. Smith to XYZ Hospital had been caused by the seizure disorder she had been asked to consult about.

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Files Personal Injury Action Against Nursing Facility, Part 2 of 6" »

(Please 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's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Universal Homes Motion for Summary Judgment

THE PARTIES
This is a wrongful death action arising out of the death of plaintiff's beloved mother, Felicity Smith at XYZ Hospital on May 6, 2005. The decedent resided at the Universal Home in Roseville, California owned by defendant UNIVERSAL NURSING HOMES (hereinafter Universal Home ). Due to the negligence of Universal Home, Ms. Smith fell and was injured. Seeking treatment for injuries sustained in the fall, Ms. Smith was taken to XYZ Hospital, owned and operated by defendant XYZ TOWNSHIP HEALTHCARE DISTRICT (hereinafter XYZ Hospital ). Near the end of her hospital stay, Ms. Smith got out of her hospital bed to go to the bathroom. She had not been diapered, and urinated on the floor. She slipped and fell in her own urine striking her head. Ms. Smith died from this head and brain injury.

Plaintiff alleges that the negligence of Universal Home in causing the injury for which Ms. Smith was hospitalized in the first place was a cause of her death.

Continue reading "Roseville Nursing Home Sued For Brain Injury By Patient, Part 1 of 6" »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)

And again, at the time of delivery, the defendants assured MRS. WHITE that an ENT indeed was present:

A. IT WAS SOMEBODY IN THE ROOM THAT ASKED DR. X., THAT SAID, MRS. WHITE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THE ENT AND ALL NEEDED PERSONNEL ARE IN THE ROOM. AND DR. X. HAD ACTUALLY LOOKED IN THERE AND SAID, YES, MRS WHITE, DON'T WORRY ABOUT A THING EVERYBODY IS HERE. (Deposition of David White, at pp. 12:19-24.)

And DAVID WHITE knew his son was injured - by directly viewing the child's injured body because an ENT was not present:

Q. AND WHAT DID YOU SEE WHEN THEY SHOWED YOU DONALD [in the delivery room]?

A. BLUE, LIFELESS.

Q. WAS THAT --

A. HE WASN'T BREATHING.

Q. OKAY

A. JUST LIFELESS.

Q. AND WAS THAT DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU HAD EXPECTED TO SEE?

A. YES.

Q. HARD TO REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAW, BUT SHE SEEMED TO BE LIFELESS AND BLUE?

A. I SAW HIS FACE. HIS FACE WAS BLUE. EVERYTHING WAS BLUE. (Brackets added.) (Deposition of David White, at pp. 52:14-55:11.)

Thereafter, the defendants told DAVID WHITE about the health care providers failure to get an airway into the baby - with an ENT not present:

Q. DURING YOUR FIRST CONVERSATION WITH DR. SEAN Z., THAT'S IN THE HALLWAY WHEN HE TAKES YOU OUT OF THE OPERATING ROOM TO SPEAK WITH YOU. WAS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING AT THE TIME DR. Z. WAS SPEAKING WITH YOU, THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE TAKING CARE OF DONALD STILL HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET AN AIRWAY IN THERE EFFECTIVE TO GIVE HIM PROPER OXYGENATION?

A. YES.

Continue reading "Birth Injury Leaves Sacramento Baby With Brain Damage, Part 3 of 8" »

Actress Natasha Richardson died today from a brain injury she suffered during a ski vacation at a resort in Canada. It was reported that Ms. Richardson was taking a beginner's lesson when she fell on a flat portion of a run near the bottom of the mountain. Notably, she was not wearing a helmet.

Right after the fall Ms. Richardson was talking and joking, but shortly she complained of head pain and was taken to a local hospital for observation. "A patient can appear so deceivingly normal at first," said Graffagnino, director of Duke University Medical Center's Neurosciences Critical Care Unit. "But they actually have a brain bleed and as the pressure builds up, they'll experience classic symptoms of a traumatic brain injury." For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Such injuries are known as epidural hemorrhage. Blood gets trapped between the skull and the hard layer of skin between the bone and brain, known as the dura mater. As the blood flows from the ruptured artery, the fluid builds and punctures the dura. For comparison, physicians often describe the human brain as an orange. The brain is the meat of the orange, the peel is the skull, and the spidery layer around the meat is the dura mater. ("Dura mater" is Latin for tough mother.)

Physicians working on trauma teams are taught "if a group of people are in a car crash and someone dies, the team should assume everyone else has serious injuries -- even if they look good, and say they feel totally fine," Graffagnino said. This is a fundamental lesson for all of us who experience some kind of head trauma -- don't assume you are okay simply because you feel no immediate obvious effects from the trauma. Seek prompt medical attention.

Continue reading "Gifted Actress Natasha Richardson Dies From Brain Injury" »

Many fans of professional football and hockey are thrilled when players deliver bone-crushing hits to their opponents. However, there are often serious health consequences in collision sports about which most casual fans hear little. A recent article in the New York Times reported that doctors from Boston University’s School of Medicine found another former National Football League player died from a brain injury called chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Former Tampa Bay Buccaneer player Tom McHale died in May 2008 at 45, from repeated head trauma. He is the sixth such NFL player known to have died from CTE.

CTE is a progressive condition that results from repetitive head trauma and can bring on dementia in people in their 40s or 50s. The condition is often associated with former boxers. On McHale, doctors used techniques that can only be administered after a patient dies. Doctors have identified CTE in all six NFL veterans between ages 36 and 50 who have been tested for the condition, further evidence of the dangers of improperly treated brain trauma in football.

These findings underscore the need for anybody suffering with a possible traumatic brain injury, whether it be apparently mild or severe, to seek immediate medical treatment. Concussions are very often the underlying injury that lead to CTE. Such injuries can occur in traffic accidents or contact sports at all skill levels.

Continue reading "Former NFL Player Tom McHale Dies From Brain Injury" »

A Sacramento man died last June from injuries he sustained during an illegal chiropractic session.

The 76 year old man and his wife visited the home of Antonio Arellano, 66 years old, out of which Arellano was operating an unlicensed chiropractic office.

Sacto 9-1-1 reported:

According to police, the victim and his wife went to Arellano's Oak Park home Tuesday. Arellano had run an unlicensed chiropractic business out of his garage for some time and the victim had gone there to receive treatment to alleviate pain in his extremities, police said.

According to Sacto 9-1-1, Arellano was adjusting the victim's neck and seriously injured it. The victim was brought to UC Davis where he was put on life support until he was pronounced brain dead two days later.

Arellano has been arrested on suspicion of murder.

A brain injury is one the most traumatic and frightening injuries a person can sustain. At The Law Office of Moseley Collins, we try the personal injury cases of many people who have sustained such injuries.

If you or a loved one has received a brain injury in an accident that was not your fault, we want to help you. With over 27 years of experience, Moseley Collins knows exactly what you need to win your case and how to do it. Please call us at (916) 444-4444, or visit our website at www.moseleycollins.com.

You will never see a “To-Do List” like this:

• Get laundry
• Pay bills
• Mow lawn
• Get brain injury

Nobody ever asks to get a brain injury but it happens anyway. Everyday, people in all walks of life, become victims of brain injury. Brain injury can be a result of depriving the brain of oxygen, as a result of illness, injury, poisoning, (including alcohol) and even chemotherapy. Sometimes brain injury is an act of nature and sometimes it is an act of another.

The impact of a brain injury on someone’s life is dramatic. It can be as simple as almost unnoticeable personality changes to permanent disability. Delusions, speech or movement problems, and even mental handicap can result from brain injury. In the most extreme, coma or even death may be the result of brain injury.

Sometimes brain injury could be avoided. It can be as simple as a motorcycle rider wearing a helmet. Wearing a helmet has vastly improved the odds of avoiding a brain injury during a motorcycle accident.

Here in Sacramento at the Law Office of Moseley Collins, we are not physicians but we are legal advocates dedicated to helping restore a person’s quality of life. While we cannot change the past, we can utilize every legal resource, every legal remedy available, to rebuild the quality of life that was needlessly taken away.

At the Law Office of Moseley Collins (Sacramento, California), we believe that you have the right to an experienced attorney who will fight for the compensation you deserve. If you have suffered a brain injury and need help, please call us at 916.444.4444. There is never a fee until we win your case.

When you are about to get onto your bicycle, the first thing you should make sure to have once you have taken off, is a helmet on. Ever since I was a small child I was always made to wear a helmet, whether I was bicycling, on a scooter, or on a skateboard. And if I didn't wear a helmet all those times, I could of really hurt myself. I took many spills on my toys that required helmets, always getting scrapes on my elbows and knees, but never injuries on my head.

Many parents now a days let there kids ride around with out helmets, and when they fall, they are sometimes seriously injured. Even if you are over 18 years old and legally not wearing a helmet it is still very unsafe. Just because your older doesn't make you an experienced bicyclist, or skateboarder for that matter.

I decided to get some facts and statistics on helmet use at www.helmets.org:

# There are 85 million bicycle riders in the US.

# 770 bicyclists died on US roads in 2006, down just 14 from the year before. Over 90 percent died in crashes with motor vehicles.

# The "typical" bicyclist killed on our roads is a sober male over 16 not wearing a helmet riding on a major road between intersections in an urban area on a summer evening when hit by a car.

# About 540,000 bicyclists visit emergency rooms with injuries every year. Of those, about 67,000 have head injuries, and 27,000 have injuries serious enough to be hospitalized.

# Bicycle crashes and injuries are under-reported, since the majority are not serious enough for emergency room visits. 44,000 cyclists were reported injured in traffic crashes in 2006.

# 1 in 8 of the cyclists with reported injuries has a brain injury.

# Two-thirds of the deaths here are from traumatic brain injury.

# A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent.

# Direct costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are estimated at $81 million each year.

# Indirect costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are estimated at $2.3 billion each year.

# Helmet use in the US varies by orders of magnitude in different areas and different sectors of our society. White collar commuters probably reach 80 per cent, while inner city kids and rural kids would be 10 per cent or less. Overall, our best wild guess is probably no more than 25 per cent. Sommers Point, NJ, where a state helmet law is in effect, found that only 24 of the 359 students who rode to school in one week of the Winter of 2002 wore helmets (6 per cent) until the School District adopted a helmet rule. North Carolina observed 17 per cent statewide before their law went into effect in 2001.

# Helmets are cheap. The typical discount store price has risen from under $10 to about $20, but there are still models available for under $10 at major national retailers including Target and Wal-Mart.

# Only 41 per cent of the kids 5 to 14 at surveyed sites were wearing helmets, although the sites chosen had a bias for higher rates.

# Even at sites where helmets were required, only 52 per cent wore them.

# At sites where wheels are used for transportation, only 38 per cent wore helmets.

# More than a third of the kids wearing helmets did not have them fitted correctly. Conversely, two-thirds did!

# The effect of laws was not well evaluated. Although sites with state-level helmet laws had only 45 per cent wearing helmets and sites without state level laws had 39 per cent, the study did not take into account whether or not there was a local ordinance.

So please, make your children wear helmets, and wear one yourself. It could save your life, and it can send a positive message to your children and the other families on the bike paths.

Moseley Collins is a Sacramento Personal Injury lawyer, who has worked in California for 28 years, and has specialized in severe brain injury cases involving bicycle accidents. If you or a loved one have been badly injured please visit our website at http://www.moseleycollins.com
Or call us at (916) 444-4444.

As a paralegal for a Sacramento personal injury attorney, we have assisted numerous clients who have suffered from a brain injury. Keep in mind that if you are ever wrongfully injured, you may have a personal injury claim.

Facts about Traumatic Brain Injury

What is a traumatic brain injury?
A traumatic brain injury (TBI) is defined as a blow or jolt to the head or a penetrating head injury that
disrupts the function of the brain. Not all blows or jolts to the head result in a TBI. The severity of such an
injury may range from "mild," i.e., a brief change in mental status or consciousness to "severe," i.e., an
extended period of unconsciousness or amnesia after the injury. ATBI can result in short or long-term
problems with independent function.

How many people have TBI?
Of the 1.4 million who sustain a TBI each year in the United States:
50,000 die;
235,000 are hospitalized; and
1.1 million are treated and released from an emergency department.
The number of people with TBI who are not seen in an emergency department or who
receive no care is unknown.

What causes TBI?
The leading causes of TBI are:
Falls (28%);
Motor vehicle-traffic crashes (20%);
Struck by/against (19%); and
Assaults (11%).
Blasts are a leading cause of TBI for active duty military personnel in war zones.

Who is at highest risk for TBI?
Males are about 1.5 times as likely as females to sustain a TBI.
The two age groups at highest risk for TBI are 0 to 4 year olds and 15 to 19 year olds.
Certain military duties (e.g., paratrooper) increase the risk of sustaining a TBI.
African Americans have the highest death rate from TBI.

What are the costs of TBI?
Direct medical costs and indirect costs such as lost productivity of TBI totaled an estimated $56.3 billion in
the United States in 1995.

What are the long-term consequences of TBI?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that at least 5.3 million Americans currently
have a long-term or lifelong need for help to perform activities of daily living as a result of a TBI.
According to one study, about 40% of those hospitalized with a TBI had at least one unmet need for
services one year after their injury. The most frequent unmet needs were:
Improving memory and problem solving;
Managing stress and emotional upsets;
Controlling one's temper; and
Improving one's job skills.
TBI can cause a wide range of functional changes affecting thinking, sensation, language, and/or
emotions. It can also cause epilepsy and increase the risk for conditions such as Alzheimer's disease,
Parkinson's disease, and other brain disorders that become more prevalent with age.

For more Stats and Facts please visit: http://www.biausa.org
or just click on the picture below!

Here at the offices of Moseley Collins we believe that you have the right to an experienced Attorney who will fight for the money you deserve.

I have a bouncing, beautiful baby boy. He is two years old, has long curly blond hair and a smile that won’t quit. He also has Cerebral Palsy.

According to Webmd.com, Cerebral Palsy (CP) is a group of motor problems and physical disorders related to a brain injury. The charitable organization March of Dimes estimates that approximately 2-3 children of every 1,000 born in the U.S. develop Cerebral Palsy. Around 800,000 people in the U.S. are currently diagnosed with CP. Most who suffer with CP are born with it, as was the case with my son.

However, some children can acquire CP after birth due to a traumatic brain injury. Car crashes are a leading cause of this type of Cerebral Palsy. As a paralegal for a Sacramento personal injury attorney I have seen a number of children badly injured because of a traumatic car collision. If someone else is at fault such a child has a claim for personal injury. If, God forbid, your child, or another child you know, is ever severely injured in an automobile accident with a brain injury or head trauma, ask the doctor to look for signs of the development of CP. The symptoms to watch for, per the Web site Webmd.com, are discussed below.

These babies and young children may retain newborn reflexes and fail to reach age-appropriate developmental milestones. Parents and caregivers usually are the first to notice that a baby has developmental delays that may be early signs of CP.
When CP is severe, signs are often noticed at birth or shortly thereafter. However, some early signs of severe CP vary according to the specific type of CP present.
Common signs of severe CP that may be noticed shortly after birth include:
• Problems sucking and swallowing.
• A weak or shrill cry.
• Unusual positions. Often the body is either very relaxed and floppy or very stiff. When held, babies may arch their backs and extend their arms and legs. These postures are different from and more extreme than those that sometimes occur in babies with colic.
Some problems related to CP become more evident over time or develop as a child grows. These may include:
• Smaller muscles in affected arms or legs. Nervous system problems prevent movement in affected arms and legs. Inactivity affects muscle growth.
• Abnormal sensations and perceptions. Some people with CP feel pain when touched lightly. Even everyday activities, such as brushing teeth, may hurt. Abnormal sensations can also make it difficult to identify common objects by touch, such as feeling the difference between a soft foam ball and a hard baseball.
• Skin irritation. Drooling is common when facial and throat muscles are affected. Drooling irritates the skin, particularly around the mouth, chin, and chest.
• Dental problems. Children who have difficulty brushing their teeth have increased risk of developing cavities and gum disease (gingivitis). Seizure medications may also contribute toward developing gum disease.
• Accidents. Falls and other accidents are a risk, depending on muscle control, joint stiffness, and general physical strength. In addition, CP-related seizures can cause accidental injuries.
• Infections and long-term illnesses. Severe CP causes problems with eating. If food is inhaled into the lungs, a child's risk of developing pneumonia increases. Adults are at a higher risk for heart and lung disease.
Some children with CP often also display a group of behavioral symptoms, such as excessive sleepiness, irritability, and little interest in their environment.

Fourteen year old Jerry Pham from Milpitas, just south from the capital Sacramento, California, is now suffering from serious brain injuries after being underwater for several minutes before anyone saved him from drowning in a pool.

On October 12th Milpitas high School's Physical Education teacher Kristina Edwards had a mandatory swimming unit day. Edwards didn't take in account that Jerry Pham was filed as a "non-swimmer" when he entered the pool for the class.

according to http://www.themilpitaspost.com:

"Edwards was socializing with students about clothing styles that were popular in the 1980s. Meanwhile Pham began to drown. Students began to notice something at the bottom of the pool, some believing that they saw clothing, according to the claim. When Edwards noticed the commotion and realized Pham was laying at the bottom of the pool, she ordered everyone out of the pool, but did not dive in to rescue her drowning student."

Edwards called for campus security but not 911, and once security arrived Edwards was no where to be seen and had fled the scene. Now the School and Mrs. Edwards are being sued for negligence in several regards. The School should not have appointed Edwards to do swimming activities if she was not trained in that area. They also should of had some type of device, such as a pole with a large hook on the end, to pull him up. If they could have saved him from nearly drowning he probably would not be suffering from brain injury or any sort of personal injury for that matter.

Remember, water is dangerous, especially if you cannot swim well.

These type of accidents can be prevented, but when they're not there are serious consequences. This young man will now have to live with these personal injuries for the remainder of his life. He will have to pay medical bills, and may never be able to earn a living. But obtaining a lawyer could help him pay off the medical bills and give him a reasonable sum with which to start his life over.

Here at the offices of Moseley Collins we believe that you have the right to an experienced Attorney who will fight for the money you deserve.

Way back in 2003, a Truckee man shocked the world with his bizarre injury...and miraculous recovery. The story was so unbelievable that many wrote it off as a hoax, but, in fact, it actually happened.

Up in beautiful Truckee, CA, an adventure-resort town just a few hours north of Sacramento, California, lives a man named Ron Hunt, nick-named the "Miracle Man". In 2003, Hunt was working at a construction site when he fell from a ladder and landed, face first, upon an 18 inch, 1 1/8 inch chip-auger drill bit. The drill went through his eye, pushed his brain aside, and exited his skull by his ear. Tahoe World reports the following:

Just to write the description of the injury gives us the heebie-jeebies. But miraculously, Hunt survived the accident with minimal trauma, losing the eye and having titanium plates installed where the bit went through his skull, as well as some minor nerve damage in the right side of his face.

Amazingly, Hunt survived! The whole world was captured by this story and Hunt was interviewed by many magazines, newspapers, and even television programs, including Good Morning America.

Clearly, God wants to keep this man around for a while!

Please see tahoe-world.com by clicking on this link. There are some amazing pictures you need to see!

Though this article brings us good cheer, many head injuries do not end so happily. Many head injuries result in brain trauma, which can severely damage a person's cognitive ability, making the tasks they did at their jobs before the accident difficult or impossible. Brain trauma can also hurt the victims' family life, and can possibly cause them to become paralyzed. If you or a loved one has suffered a head injury that was not your fault, we can help you. Please call our office at 916.444.4444, or visit our website by clicking this link.

God bless you.

Brain Injuries are often times either fatal or severely debilitating. A young woman, Anna Kindt, knows the fragility of the brain first hand. Driving her car one night, Anna, lost control of her Honda Civic as she passed another vehicle and swerved into a nearby lawn. Slamming into several trees later, the Civic was left totaled, with a collapsed roof and smashed side.

Anna was rushed to the hospital. Suffering a traumatic brain injury, doctors tried to keep Anna’s brain from swelling.

There is a relatively new method some hospitals have been implementing to prevent serious brain injury and death after an accident such as Anna’s. The method is to place the patient in a state of hypothermia. This method of hypothermia has been show to have some positive effects on an injured brain. For one thing, when a brain suffers an injury, it will produce a chemical that can be harmful to its cells, hypothermia can slow this down. Hypothermia also reduces swelling, which in injured brain can cause severe mental damage and even death.

After 32 days in the hospital and 10 days in a state of hypothermia, Anna was released from the hospital. She has had an amazing recovery. Anna's initial prognosis was a mere 20% for survival and, if she did in fact survive, mental retardation was a guarantee. Although Anna's family says that her personality has altered somewhat with more moodiness and she suffers from memory loss, Anna's beat out the odds by a dramatic amount.

If you have been injured in an accident at someone else’s fault, and have suffered from a traumatic brain injury, please call the Law Offices of Moseley Collins. We are here to help.

Web Resources:

Hypothermia May Help With Severe Head Injuries, Red Orbit

At our Personal Injury Law Office in Sacramento, we can face the most horrific of acts carried out against an individual. I was reading the news today, when I came across one of those acts in the nearby area of Auburn, California. The story told of a case against a woman for allegedly killing a 16-month old child through shaken baby syndrome.

The accused woman, Veronica Salcedo, was babysitting three children the night of the incident. The youngest child, Hannah, is the center of the case. According to News 10, prosecutors are calling for Veronica to be tried for “second degree murder and child abuse causing death or great bodily injury”. It is their claim that Veronica shook Hannah so violently that the child ended up in the hospital on life support and died two days later.

On the opposing side, defendants state this is not what happened at all, but rather the cause of Hannah’s death was from a neurological undiagnosed illness. They state that there is evidence that the child’s brain was swelling the night before the incident. However, doctors never did the neurological testing for the illness, so there is no way of truly knowing.

Veronica did state that she shook Hannah. However, she states that it was only slightly and just to get her to come to when she found her unresponsive. Supposedly, Veronica had confessed to shaking the child harder when police first spoke to her, but has now withdrawn that on account of a language barrier (Veronica only speaks Spanish).

Shaken Baby Syndrome is child abuse. Shaken Baby Syndrome, or SBS, occurs when a child is shaken hard enough that their brain bounces inside the child’s skull, causing damage or death. This diagnosis usually will occur in children two years or younger. At this age children have weak necks, large, heavy heads, and developing brains. These characteristics put together make an instance of strong shaking very threatening to a baby’s life.

If you have a child who has been diagnosed with SBS because of someone else’s abusive behavior, please call me at the Law Offices of Moseley Collins.

To read the full news article, please click here.

For more information on Shaken Baby Syndrome, please click here.

I was reading the news today when I came across a story about a young girl who was a part of a car accident 10 months prior. The crash left her in a coma and in critical condition. Two other passengers of the car were killed and the driver, her boyfriend at the time, was also in critical condition. It is amazing how one moment can so incredibly alter the course of one’s life. The young girl, 19-year old Savannah Willson, now is learning to cope with life again, from a different angle.

The car crash was caused by Savannah’s boyfriend, who took part in a sudden street race on his way home from a night out. His car reached speeds of 70 mph, well over the posted 25 mph speed limit. The car lost control in midsts of the race and slammed into a tree. From that moment on, Savannah would see her life change. After a week in a coma, she awoke to find the right side of her body paralyzed. She had suffered brain damage to the left side of her brain in the accident, causing neurons to disconnect. She also was not able to swallow her saliva and doctors had to perform a tracheotomy, which left a tube in her windpipe for 90 days.

Three months after the accident Savannah was able to leave the hospital and had regained partial use the right side of her body. Savannah will continue to undergo physical therapy and rehabilitation to regain use of the right side of her body.

Savannah’s ex-boyfriend is now facing trial for two counts of vehicular manslaughter. Street racing is such a dangerous game to play, especially when others' lives are involved. The lives of loved ones, friends, and even strangers can be alter and/or lost forever.

To read the full article in the Sacramento Bee, please click here.

I was reading an article in the Sacramento Bee this afternoon on the amount of children that fall out of windows and injure themselves. The article states that thousands of children fall out of windows each year and are hospitalized as a result. That is incredible to me, but it does make sense. Children are so curious, especially at young ages they want to explore everything that catches their eye. An open window is an open invitation for these children to accept. In our Sacramento area alone, doctors at UC Davis hospital stated that over the course of three years, 44 children were hospitalized after falling out of a window.

The Sacramento Bee gave an example of a little girl, Taia Herring, who fell out of a second-story window just days after her third birthday. She was left alone for a moment and out the window she went. Her mom found her on the grass outside, barely conscious. She was rushed to the hospital to find out that she had suffered major brain injury and fractured her femur.

Taia’s parents were devastated, but they held fast to hope and submitted themselves to prayer every day for their daughter. And then her remarkable recovery took hold. Within two months, Taia was able to speak and left to return home. She is still learning to walk on her leg and continues with physical therapy. Her parents say that they know it is the blessing of God that Taia was saved in that fall.

If you have small children take precautions to prevent them from climbing out of windows. This could protect your child from suffering from a major brain injury or even death. Keep objects away from windows that could enable your child to get easy access to the outside. Close windows on the second story or keep close watch on your children when they are playing upstairs.

To read the full article in the Sacramento Bee, please click here.

A story I blogged about a couple weeks ago on a high school football player has been updated. In Southern California, a high school senior, Scotty, is still in critical condition after he collapsed on the field during one of the high school football games about two weeks ago. News reports state that he actually stumbled off the field and then slipped into a coma. He has been comatose since this incidence.

His doctor informs news sources that Scotty’s injury is due to a traumatic brain injury, very similar to what one would see from a serious car accident. Despite suspicions that the injury was due to a previous hit or accident, Scotty’s doctor says that this injury had to have happen within hours of Scotty reaching the hospital.

Doctors cannot predict how Scotty will, or even if he will, recover. At this point in time, with such a major brain injury, and with Scotty in such a deep coma, it is difficult to see signs of recovery. Over the past couple of weeks, Scotty has only slightly moved the right side of his body and cracked his eyes open once. Unfortunately, this could be due to reflexes rather than signs of improvement.

Students and parents around the area of San Marcos have formed a support group for Scotty. The team had their first game this past Friday, and the stadium, on both sides, were filled with people adorning Scotty’s football number, number 54. There were also fundraisers at the game to help pay for the extensive medical bills that Scotty’s parents will undoubtedly face.

It is such a tragedy to see someone so young go through such horrific injuries. Scotty’s football coaches have scoured videotapes of the game in which Scotty was injured, but have yet found an exact hit which caused Scotty's traumatic brain injury. Let’s pray for Scotty’s recovery and strength for his family.

To read the full article on Scotty’s traumatic brain injury, please click here.

South of our Sacramento home, in San Marcos, California, a high school football player suddenly collapsed during one of his games. Reports still have yet to fully discover why the teen collapsed, but most likely he suffered a concussion that was not diagnosed right away.

Brain injuries are a serious concern, no matter how little. A concussion is a small brain injury that may not seem to be a very big deal at the time of the accident, but can have lasting and long-term effects. Athletes have many different terms they use to describe a concussion, including; getting your “bell rung”, feeling “foggy”, and “getting dinged”. These terms can make concussions sound pretty innocent, but we should be aware of the impact this mild brain injury can have.

This is important to know and diagnose because a concussion IS a brain injury and deserves special attention. Having one concussion also makes you more susceptible to further concussions in the future. Statistics show that suffering from one concussion will make you 4 to 6 times more likely to suffer another concussion. In addition, the more concussions one suffers from, the worse it is for them. Studies have shown that each additional concussion has an additive effect, amount to more and more damage to the brain each time it suffers from a concussion.

Brain injuries are always a serious matter. If you or a loved one has ever been injured and have suffer from a brain injury, please call me at the Law Offices of Moseley Collins. I am here to help.

Be aware…

To read the full article on this news story, please click here.

Brain injuries can come from a array of accidents, including extreme sports like skateboarding. We all know how much kids, especially boys, enjoy being out with their friends, scraping elbows and bruising knees. Sometimes, these cuts and scrapes can lead to more serious injuries as well. As a Personal Injury Attorney, I know full well the dangers of these sports. No, I am not telling you to lock your children inside the house, forbidding them to participate in the games, but simply to be aware and give some helpful advice when needed.

One recent skateboarding accident that could have wound up more serious, occurred at the X-Games in Los Angeles, California this month. Skateboarder Jake Brown fell 45 feet off his skateboard at the Big Air event’s quarterpipe, landing feet-first on the flatter part of the ramp. Jake was unconscious for a moment after the fall and suffered from a minor concussion. Had he fallen head first, or had he not been wearing a helmet, well, that would be a whole other story.

So what is the advice here? First of all, if your children are going to be skateboarding, protect them with a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads. Secondly, if a skateboarder is going to fall on a ramp, he/she should try to slide down the ramp, rather than going for a direct hit on the bottom as Jake did at the X games. If someone does fall while skateboarding and loses consciousness for a moment, take them immediately to received medical attention.

Have fun and play safe...

For more the full article on Jake Brown's accident, please click here.

South of our Sacramento home, in Modesto, California, a boy was severely injured in a car accident several months ago, suffering from a traumatic brain injury. This week, he is coming home to his family and friends. The boy, Tyler Allen, is going through a long process of recuperation and it will be some time before he is able to regain abilities he had before, such as walking and talking.

The accident, a collision between a semi-truck and a BMW, happened on May 9th. Tyler was sitting in the passenger seat of the BMW. Following the accident, Tyler was taken to the hospital where he was diagnosed with a broken hip, a broken knee, multiple head injuries, and placed in a coma. The driver of the BMW died at the scene.

Often times, the degree of severity for a coma will be described using the Glasgow Coma Score (GCS). The GCS assess several different aspects of a person’s skills, including verbal, eye, and motor responses. The final outcome is a number range from 3 to 15, 3 being the worst and 15 the best. Tyler has scored about a five which indicates a very severe injury.

Let’s keep Tyler in our prayers. If you or a loved one has suffered from a severe brain injury, please call our Law Offices for legal help and advice.

Take care…

Read the full news article on Tyler’s injury and rehabilitation.
Read more about comas.

The date for the annual California State Fair in our home of Sacramento is rapidly approaching. August 17th the gates will open and remain a place filled with rides, games, and treats until September 3rd. My family and I have always loved going to the fair. You can’t help but feel like a kid again, running around from ride to ride and smelling all the delicious goodies. But along with the fun, amusement parks can at times be dangerous. I just saw a recent article on roller coasters and injuries, in particular brain injuries. At our Personal Injury Law Firm, we know how costly (emotionally, physically, monetarily) a brain injury can be.

The article states that a head or brain injury can occur from the jerking motions of a roller coaster ride. It states that people can be particularly susceptible to this when riding in the dark (for example a tunnel) or when turning their heads while on the ride (for example to see the view, or a parent checking on their child).

Reading other articles, such as one from the Brain Injury Association, roller coasters do not seem to be one of our biggest threats in causing brain and head injury, but nevertheless, we should be aware of the possibilities that exist in a given situation.

If you or someone you love have ever been injured and suffered from a head or brain injury, you should get legal help. Please call the Law Offices of Moseley Collins for advice and assistance.

Have fun and be safe…

To read more about brain injuries and roller coasters see the full news article and the Brain Injury Association website.

As a Personal Injury Law Firm in Sacramento, California, we see a lot of brain injury cases occurring from various accidents. Sports have been the catalyst for many brain injuries in young people these days. Interestingly enough, the sport that causes the greatest amount of brain injury in young people is not snowboarding as you blast down the mountain or even cumbersome football players slamming into one another, but rather horseback riding.

In the late July issue of its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated that horseback riding is the number one culprit for causing traumatic brain injury in young people, with ice skating coming in as number two.

The CDC stated that each year about 65% of all sports-related brain injuries occur in people ages 5 to 18. When calculating all ages into the equation, basketball comes in number one, bringing in 603,239 people a year, and bicycling heads up number two with 524,692 people a year.

Traumatic brain injury is nothing to ever take lightly. If you or your child have ever been in an accident and suffered from a brain injury, please call the Law Offices of Moseley Collins. We would love to speak with you about your case and subsequent options.

Until next time…

For more information on sports-related brain injuries, please go to the CDC website or this article.

At the Law Offices of Moseley Collins, we know auto accidents, motorcycle and truck accidents occur every day in Sacramento and throughout California.

Severe car, motorcycle and truck accidents can leave a crash victim with a traumatic brain injury. As a Sacramento car accident law firm we regularly assist victims who are suffering from a catastrophic brain injury. If you ever find yourself in this position, as an auto accident victim with trauma to the brain, one key aliment to watch out for is vertigo. This will assist your lawyer or attorney in representing you.

According to Dr. Kuljit Singh, “Head injuries from motor vehicle accidents or any other kind of trauma would result in traumatic vertigo. Vertigo occurs when sensation from the inner ear, eyes and sensation throughout the body are mismatched.”

Continue reading "Vertigo: Common in Car Accidents & Brain Injury" »