Sacramento Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

Disputed Costs for Frank Yung, Ph.D.:

1. $95.00 for advanced costs
2. $12,223.75 for apparently 31.75 hours at $385 per hour

Number (1) above addresses costs advanced to Frank Yung, Ph.D. Plaintiff is unsure what this advanced cost is, or what it was for. Without some description and or justification of this cost, Plaintiff refuses to pay for it.

As to number (2) above, the deposition of Frank Yung, Ph.D. stated that he only had put in 4 1/2 hours on his review and consultation in this case. Plaintiff was not made aware of these extra hours spent in review or examination of the Plaintiff. Frank Yung is now trying to charge $12,223.75 for unaccounted for time as well as testing that he didn't administer. Frank Yung, Ph.D. stated that he was in the other room working on other things when the Plaintiff was completing her diagnostic testing. In fact, his face time with the plaintiff admittedly was only 2 1/2 to 3 hours. His review of the records consisted of scanning medical records in (by his assistant) and a 90-minute review. Based on his testimony it is hard to fathom how Frank Yung could have spent the claimed 31.75 hours of review and consultation on this case.

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Woman Suffers Head Injuries In Car Accident, Part 4 of 4 " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

EXPERT FEES cont.

Disputed Costs for Dr. Greene:

1. $4725.00 for apparently 10.5 hours of work at $450 per hour
2. $175.00 for an MRI/CT scan
3. $225.00 for 3 X-Rays
4. $800.00 for a confirmatory consultation
5. $450.00 for a preparation of a report

As to number (1) above, the deposition testimony of Dr. Greene loosely estimated that he only had put in 7 hours on his review of this case (far less than the 10.5 Defendant has claimed). A reasonable review of the medical records in the Plaintiff's opinion could have been done in less than half the time and accordingly the costs for this should be cut in half to $2,362.50 for 5-plus hours of work.

Numbers (2) and (3). The MRI/CT scans and the X-rays were unnecessary as several had already been taken and the Defense should have provided those to Dr. Greene well before his evaluation of the client. Therefore, these costs should not be reimbursable at all.

For number (4) Plaintiff is unsure what a confirmatory consultation even is. Without some description and or justification of this cost, Plaintiff refuses to pay for it.

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

Continue reading " Insurance Company Fights Sacramento Car Accident Victim Over Expert Costs, Part 3 of 4 " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

DEFENDANTS' COST MEMORANDUM IMPROPERLY CLAIMS $25,773.25 IN COSTS WHICH SHOULD BE TAXED

Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5 provides for the items recoverable as costs. The statute sets forth items specifically recoverable (subdivision (a)) and not recoverable (subdivision (b)), with all remaining items discretionary with the court (subdivision (c)(4)). In all cases, however, allowable costs must be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to the preparation, and reasonable in amount. Id. at § 1033.5 (c)(2) and (c)(3).

As set forth below, Defendants have included unreasonable and unjust costs in this lawsuit which should be denied.

A. FILING AND MOTION FEES

Regarding Item No. 1 in Defendants' Memorandum of Costs, "Filing and Motion Fees" items a, b, and c wrongfully seeks $129.50 for the filing of 1) Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial; 2) a Motion to Compel a Court Ordered Psych Exam as well as an Ex Parte for the same.

Again, as noted above, Plaintiff won the case however she failed to beat Defendant's 998 offer. Being the case Defendant is only entitled to post-§998 offer costs. All of these filings took place well before the trial in this matter and therefore any associated costs should be disallowed.

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Automobile Accident Victim Fights Excessive Costs, Part 2 of 4 " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

Plaintiff Deborah Hill’s Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs

Plaintiff will move this court for an order striking and/or taxing the following items of cost set forth in Defendants Memorandum of Costs filed in this matter.

Per code Plaintiff is only required to pay Defendant's post-CCP 998 offer costs the court finds reasonable. Defendant's CCP §998 offer was served on March 16, 2010 and expired April 16, 2010. Thus the only recoverable costs are those incurred after April 16, 2010.

(1) Regarding Item No. 1, "Filing and Motion Fees" Items a, b, and c, wrongfully included in CCP §998 offer, therefore not entitled to a reimbursement of these costs;

(2) Regarding Item No. 8, "Expert Fees," wrongfully seeks $25,643.75 because it is much too expensive for the services provided and is therefore unjustified and unreasonable thus preventing Defendants from getting a reimbursement for these costs.

Plaintiff seeks an order taxing these costs pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5.

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Woman Catastrophically Injured In Car Accident, Part 1 of 4 " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

MOVING PARTY'S CONCERN ABOUT PREJUDICE RESTS ON THE FAULTY ASSUMPTION THE JURY WILL NOT FOLLOW ITS INSTRUCTIONS

Moving Defendant cites no authority, statistics, or evidence of any kind for its claim that it will be deprived of "fair and unbiased deliberations on the issue of liability" simply because the jury will learn of the Injuries. This argument is counter-intuitive, in that it assumes that every case Involving disputed liability and significant damages will result in a plaintiff's verdict simply because of the damages. This is both contrary to everyday experience with these kinds of cases, and also insulting to the jury.

1. Moving Defendant does not explain what it is about this case, as opposed to any other brain damage case, or perhaps a spinal cord injury case, that will cause the jury to ignore its oath and decide liability purely out of sympathy. The jury will be instructed pursuant to CACI 5000 as follows: You must not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence your decision. Plaintiffs respectfully submit it would be inappropriate to assume that a properly-instructed jury will not follow the law.

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

Continue reading " Catastrophic Injuries In Sacramento Lake Boating Accident, Part 8 of 8 " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

THE DAMAGES PHASE WILL NOT BE AS EXTENSIVE AS PLAINTIFFS BELIEVED AT THE TIME OF THE MOTION TO DESIGNATE THIS CASE AS COMPLEX LITIGATION

1. While Plaintiffs' claimed injuries and damages are extensive, the fact is that the medical details of the injuries are essentially conceded. The boat propeller of the subject boat struck Ms. Hall in the head five to six times: she has suffered the loss of an eye, has undergone over a dozen surgeries to date, and sustained significant, permanent brain damage. Based upon materials received to date, it does not appear that the nature and extent of the injuries will be disputed.

2. There may well be a dispute as to Ms. Hall's future medical and care needs, but this controversy will occupy the testimony of maybe 2-3 physicians / psychologists at trial, as well as two life care planners and two economists. This testimony regarding future medical needs will occupy one day, at most.

3. The same propeller struck Plaintiff Black in the lower body, causing three separate, deep lacerations of her left buttock and three strikes on her left elbow. As with Plaintiff Hall, these injuries are objective and easily-documented.

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

Continue reading " Huge Medical Costs Result From Brain Injury To Sacramento Woman In Boating Accident, Part 7 of 8 " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

4. The subject boat was defectively designed to accommodate the capacity of persons advertised as foreseeable and appropriate for use. There were inadequate and insufficient warning stickers and/or informational signs alerting consumers to the dangers of sitting in the bow of the boat. The product liability defendants knew of the boat's propensity to take on water under certain conditions, and took no affirmative steps to warn, caution or advise prospective users. To the contrary, the boat was marketed by the manufacturer and the retailer as capable of safely carrying large numbers of people during normal operations.

5. The product liability defendants both failed to properly train, notify, educate, advise or otherwise communicate to prospective purchasers and users the risks inherent in the design of the boat.

6. Despite all of their knowledge, the product liability defendants failed to do any safety testing or load testing to determine the accurate and appropriate maximum number of passengers on the boat.

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

Continue reading " Insufficient Warning Labels Contribute To Sacramento Boating Accident, Part 6 of 8 " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

1. Defendant National not only manufactured the subject boat, but designed, marketed and distributed it to retailers across the nation. National was wholly responsible for decisions relating to the types of warnings, cautionary signs and advisories posted in the boat, and for information distributed to boat purchasers in the boat's Owner's Manual.

2. Defendant National, Inc. operated a number of retail sales outlets, and was an authorized dealer in National products. National personnel sold the boat to Defendant White based on his representations about what type of boat he wanted and the uses for that boat. National personnel were also responsible for acquainting Mr. White with the boat, including a basic review of how to operate the boat. National personnel also attended training conducted by National regarding general knowledge of the boat and ways to market the boat. National personnel also advised customers as standard operating procedure that the capacity signs posted in the subject boat were informational only, and that so long as there were sufficient life jackets on board, the operator was not limited to the number of passengers displayed on those capacity signs. National personnel and employees of the National Marine Manufacturers Association, the organization that "certified" the subject boat's occupancy, have also testified that the occupancy stickers were not warning labels, but informational only.

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

Continue reading " Tragic Lake Boating Accident Leaves Two Sacramento Women Severely Injured, Part 5 of 8 " »