Articles Posted in Personal Injury

One of several “bellwether” cases in a massive federal action against the maker of a transvaginal mesh device cleared an important hurdle when a judge refused to dismiss a California patient’s claim. Although the woman had her device implanted nearly three years before she sued, the evidence was conflicting regarding how long she knew about the device’s defect, which prevented the device maker from achieving dismissal based upon California’s statute of limitations.

Doctors at the Marian Medical Center in Santa Maria implanted a transvaginal mesh device into Roseanne Sanchez in early 2010 to treat her cystocele, stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Almost immediately after surgery, Sanchez began noticing symptoms, including discolored discharge, itching and cramping. Despite multiple follow-up surgeries to remove portions of the mesh, the patient’s symptoms did not improve. According to Sanchez, her doctors never told her that her difficulties were the result of a defect in the device. Only after the patient saw a television commercial for transvaginal mesh litigation in 2011, and retained legal counsel, did she learn that her device was defective.

In November 2012, Sanchez joined a group of thousands of users of the device to sue the product’s maker, Boston Scientific. The manufacturer asked a federal judge to dismiss Sanchez’s case, contending that Sanchez waited too long to sue. Boston Scientific argued that the patient’s symptoms, along with her four revision surgeries, should have been enough to make her aware of her potential claim. Because each of these events occurred before November 2010, and California law gives injured people two years to sue for their injuries, the patient’s lawsuit was not timely, the company asserted in its motion.

Continue reading ›

Succeeding in personal injury cases involves more than just having strong evidence about the injury itself. In a recent case, a mother’s wrongful death suit against an energy company failed, not as a result of a lack of proof regarding her son’s accident, but because California law prevented her from bringing such a legal action based upon her son’s injuries. The ruling highlights the importance of meeting all of the evidentiary requirements needed to pursue a wrongful death case.

James Bean was working on a solar panel construction job at a building leased by Southern California Edison Company when he fell through a skylight and landed on a concrete floor 37 feet below. Bean died from his injuries. Shirley Hill, Bean’s mother, sued the company for her son’s wrongful death. The company asked the trial court to throw out the case because the mother lacked standing, which is the legal capacity to bring a particular lawsuit. The trial court ruled for the company, concluding that the mother was not financially dependent on the son, as required in order for a parent to bring a wrongful death action based upon a child’s death.

The California Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court (downloadable doc). The court noted that the only proof she had to back up her claim of financial dependence on the son was her having lived with the son from 1998-2001 following her divorce, his purchase of meals and cigarettes for her, and his occasional gifts of cash to her that she used to pay bills.

Continue reading ›

A residential tenant failed in her effort to hold a property owner’s trustee liable for injuries she suffered for a fall in the dark. In Castellon v. US Bancorp, the court determined that the trustee was not liable because the tenant’s injuries arose not from the existence of an unsafe condition, but because the tenant chose to exit her residence at night without first turning on the light that illuminated the area where the tenant fell.

Yanira Garcia Ramirez Castellon rented a room in a detached garage on a property owned by the Luis Villalobos trust. Maria Luisa Hernandez, Villalobos’ mother, lived in the property’s main residence. Late one night, the tenant slipped and fell on the steps outside the door leading from her room. The tenant sued US Bancorp, the trust’s trustee, for negligence and premises liability, arguing that the steps were a dangerous condition. To constitute a dangerous condition under California law, a condition must pose an unreasonable risk of harm, the property owner (or in the tenant’s case, the trustee) must have known, or reasonably should have known, about it, and must have failed to either repair the problem, provide a sufficient warning or otherwise protect against the danger.

The trustee sought summary judgment, arguing that no dangerous condition existed. The trustee asserted that the tenant knew it was dark outside, and that a working light existed outside the door, but that she failed to turn the light on because she could not locate the switch. Furthermore, the trustee alleged that the tenant had access to another exit, but chose not to use it. Continue reading ›

A trucker’s ill-advised decision to stop along the side of Interstate 210 in southern California precipitated a gruesome crash in which two children watched their parents and a sibling burn to death four years ago. This month a Los Angeles County jury issued a judgment awarding the youngest child more than $150 million in damages as a result of the fatal accident.

Kylie Asam was travelling with parents and two brothers when her father’s SUV allegedly hit debris in the highway and the father attempted to steer the vehicle to the shoulder of the road. Unfortunately, the SUV hit Rudolph Ortiz’s truck, which was parked along the side of the road and enshrouded in darkness. Asam and one brother escaped the SUV, but the eldest brother and the parents were still inside when flames consumed the SUV, burning all three to death. The surviving brother, Blaine Asam, later committed suicide.

The girl’s negligence suit alleged that the trucker acted improperly by pulling over along the side of the freeway to sleep, even though signs along the road stated that stopping was permissible on in cases of emergencies. The trucker argued that he did experience an emergency, stopping to take medication for a severe headache. The trucker also contended that the fiery wreck was the fault of the father, for failing to control his SUV. Attorneys for the girl, however, argued that a dent in one of the SUV’s rims proved their assertion that the father only drove to the side of the road after hitting something in the traveling lane. Continue reading ›