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

Similarly, in Bonds v. Roy (1999) 20 Cal.4th 140, the Supreme Court held that when a plaintiff fails to disclose that he intends to seek an opinion from a treating physician, the trial court may preclude that physician from testifying at trial on a subject whose general substance was not previously described in an expert witness declaration, reasoning that the whole purpose of supplying the information set forth in an expert witness declaration is to avoid surprise and gamesmanship at trial. This concept can be applied to the facts of this case. As there has been no testimony or documents supporting a causal link between the subject accident and this fusion surgery, any testimony at trial supporting a causal link would be a surprise to the defense, and should be disallowed to be introduced.

Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to find a doctor or expert that will support a nexus between the surgery and this accident, and as that nexus has not yet been found, plaintiff should be foreclosed from attempting to claim this surgery in damages at trial based upon the probative value of this evidence being substantially outweighed by the danger of an undue consumption of time, danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, and of misleading the jury, per C.C.P. § 352. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 352, Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceuticals, (1985) 163 Cal.App. 3d 396, and the Supreme Court's holding in Bonds v. Roy (1999) 20 Cal.4th 140, defendants Donna Lee and Veronica Lee request the court to order that plaintiff, plaintiff's witnesses, and his counsel are precluded from attempting to solicit, in any form or manner, any evidence from lay witnesses, non-retained treating physicians Paul White, P.A., Dr. John Brown, M.D., Dr. Devin Smith, or retained experts Sydney Chu, Dr. Andrew Greene, or Dr. Sean Finklestein, as to the causation of his claimed injuries specific to plaintiff Henry Johnson’s February 2009 L5-S1 fusion surgery at Memorial Medical Center.

Continue reading "Sacramento Man's Car Accident Back Surgery Subject Of Experts' Opinions, 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 also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this automobile accident case and its proceedings.)

Dr. John Brown, M.D., a radiologist who interpreted imaging data as a treating doctor of plaintiff Johnson, was deposed on February 2, 2009, and his transcript has not been completed by the court reporter. Dr. Brown testified that as a radiologist he is unable to determine the sources of any of the degenerative changes that he saw on plaintiff Johnson' imaging data he reviewed. For this reason, Dr. Brown's opinion on causation would be speculative, and would not assist a trier of fact in determining causation.

Based upon the standard for expert testimony in Evidence Code Section 801(a), an expert's opinion is limited to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of the expert would assist the trier of fact. In this case, it is clear that any opinion on causation would only cause to mislead or confuse the jury, as the opinions in regards to plaintiff's February 2009 fusion surgery are consistent that plaintiff's experts and treating physicians can not offer an opinion linking the subject accident and this disc injury. For this reason, there is no need for the testimony, as it may cause the jury to be confused as to why the plaintiff is claiming a surgery where not a single medical professional or doctor can causally link to the subject incident. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

This will then allow the jury to make a link that can not be established through the evidence. In Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation, (1985) 163 Cal.App. 3d 396, a similar situation arose whereby the medical experts in a case were in consensus that there was no causal link between the complained of injuries and a product that was ingested.

Continue reading "Insurance Company Fights Medical Treatment For Sacramento Driver's Accident Injuries, 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 also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this automobile accident case and its proceedings.)

Paul White, P.A. (date of deposition: January 29, 2009; page and line 31:13-17; 32:10-15)

Q: Are you going to give a medical opinion regarding Mr. Johnson's back, neck, and pain between his shoulder blade injuries as pertains to his August 9th, 2007, motor vehicle accident?
A:No.

Q: Would it be fair to say that as far as rendering opinions on causation, you are not going to render an opinion on the causation of Mr. Johnson's back, neck, or pain between the shoulder blades?
A: It would be fair to say that I'm not going to render an opinion on the cause of his symptoms.

Sydney Chu (date of deposition: January 9, 2009; page and line 27:1-6)

Q: And as it pertains to this case, is it true that you will not be offering any biomechanical opinions regarding the accident?
A: You are correct. I will not be discussing biomechanics, injury causation or anything remotely associated with those two topics.

Dr. Sean Finklestein, Ph.D. (date of deposition: February 3, 2009; page and line 42:13-23)

Q: Okay. Let's move on to the last category, and your last category is that the radiological studies suggest there is not sufficient force to cause the disk injury. Can you comment on the forces involved in that opinion?

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

Continue reading "Medical Experts Battle Over Sacramento Man's Auto Accident Injuries, 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 also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this automobile accident case and its proceedings.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff claims that lumbar fusion surgery on February 6, 2009 was related to alleged injuries suffered by plaintiff from the subject incident of August 9, 2007. Although this claim is being made by plaintiff, there is no documents, evidence, or testimony of his experts, retained, or non-retained, that support this causal link. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Not only has there been a consensus among all the experts that they are not willing to render an opinion on causation for this fusion surgery, but plaintiff's own expert Dr. Sean Finklestein opined that the forces involved in the subject accident were not sufficient to cause a disc injury. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The pertinent testimony is as follows:

Dr. Andrew Greene, M.D. (date of deposition: January 20, 2009; page and line 74:6-11)

Q: Do you intend on offering any opinions or have you been asked to offer any opinions about the relatedness of the surgery to the August 2007 accident?
A: Specifically to surgery?

Q: Yes.
A. No.

Continue reading "Car Accident Forces Back Surgery For Sacramento Man, 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 also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this automobile accident case and its proceedings.)

Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Sydney Chu, Paul White, P.A., Dr. Smith, Dr. Greene, Dr. Finklestein, and Dr. Brown from Testifying as to Causation of Plaintiff's Disc Injury

INTRODUCTION

Defendants Donna Lee and Veronica Lee hereby move this Court for an order instructing that plaintiff, his witnesses and counsel are precluded from attempting to solicit, in any form or manner, any evidence from lay witnesses, non-retained treating physicians Paul White, P.A., Dr. John Brown, M.D., Dr. Devin Smith, or retained experts Sydney Chu, Dr. Andrew Greene, or Dr. Sean Finklestein as to the causation of his claimed injuries specific to plaintiff Henry Johnson’s February 2009 L5-S1 fusion surgery at Memorial Medical Center.

The basis for this motion is that plaintiff's counsel disclosed that retained experts Sydney Chu, Dr. Sean Finklestein, and Dr. Andrew Greene would render opinions regarding causation for injuries from the subject accident that occurred on August 9, 2007. Also disclosed was that non-retained expert and treating medical provider Paul White, P.A., would also render an opinion on causation. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

At Dr. Greene’s and Mr. White's depositions, each of these medical treaters testified that they would not render an opinion regarding the causation of plaintiff's L5-S 1 disc injury that led to L5-S1 fusion surgery by Dr. Devin Smith at Memorial Medical Center, on or around February 6, 2009. As well, at deposition, Dr. Smith testified that he would not render any opinion on causation as to the L5-S1 fusion surgery that he performed.

Continue reading "Sacramento Driver Suffers Back Injury In Car Accident, Part 1 of 5" »

Toyota's recent series of missteps has forced the automaker to recall millions of vehicles that could potentially malfunction (obviously, some already have), possibly causing injury to the occupants as well as other drivers sharing the road. Sacramento lawmakers are stepping up their efforts to stay ahead of potential issues affecting California drivers.

A House Democrat expressed concern Wednesday about a massive Toyota recall that has led the automaker to stop manufacturing and selling vehicles linked to problems with gas pedals, signaling that Congress could soon review the massive recall.

Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak, who leads an investigative subcommittee, said his staff would meet with Toyota officials on Wednesday following the automaker's decision to suspend U.S. sales of eight of its vehicle models, including the Camry, the best-selling car in the United States. The company is also halting production at assembly lines at six North American car plants, beginning the week of Feb. 1.

"We want to find out what Toyota knows about the sudden acceleration problem with several of their vehicles and we want to know what will be done to protect consumers who are currently driving those vehicles," Stupak said in a statement.

Stupak is a senior member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which held high-profile hearings and pushed for new auto safety requirements following the massive recall of Firestone tires in 2000. Congress approved legislation requiring automakers and other manufacturers to provide data on deaths, injuries, consumer complaints, property damage and warranty claims.

Toyota issued a recall last week for the same eight models involving 2.3 million vehicles. It followed a separate recall of 4.2 million vehicles last year because of problems with gas pedals becoming trapped under floor mats, causing sudden acceleration. That problem was the cause of several crashes, including some fatalities. About 1.7 million vehicles fall under both recalls.

Continue reading "Sacramento Lawmakers Concerned About Toyota Recall And Accidents" »