Category: Personal Injury

Proving Past Medical Expenses

Posted on by Art Gholian in Personal Injury

To recover past medical expenses, the injured must prove that the medical services were attributable to the accident; that they were necessary, and that the charges were reasonable. See Calhoun v. Hildebrandt, (1964) 230 Cal. App. 2d 70, 73.   This rule has been well settled in California, in that the cost alone of medical treatment does not govern the recovery of such expenses and that it must also be shown that the services were attributable tot he accident, that they were necessary and reasonable. See Gimbel v. Laramie, (1960) 181 Cal. App. 2d 77, 81.

If you have a question regarding your injury, contact one of our Los Angeles Injury Attorneys today for a free consultation and case evaluation.

Medical Device Injuries & The Two-Year Statute

Posted on by Art Gholian in Personal Injury

There is a two-year statute of limitations to file suit for “assault, battery, or injury to, or for the death of, an individual cuased by the wrongful act or neglect of another.” See C.C.P. § 335.1.  However, when the cause of the injury is not readily ascertainable, as is the case for many medical product liability cases, the two-year statute of limitations period begins to run when the injured suspects or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should suspect that the injury was caused by a wrong committed by an actor.  The California Supreme Court in Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., (1988) 44 Cal. 3d 1103 held: “Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that her injury was caused by wrongdoing, that someone has done something wrong to her.  As we said in Sanchez and reiterated in Gutierrez, the limitations period begins once the plaintiff “ ‘ “has notice **928 or *1111 information of circumstances to put a reasonable person on inquiry….”). (internal citations omitted) A plaintiff need not be aware of the specific “facts” necessary to establish the claim; that is a process contemplated by pretrial discovery. Once the plaintiff has a suspicion of wrongdoing, and therefore an incentive to sue, she must decide whether to file suit or sit on her rights. So long as a suspicion exists, it is clear that the plaintiff must go find the facts; she cannot wait for the facts to find her.”

If you have a question regarding an injury, contact one of our Los Angeles Injury Attorneys today for a free case evaluation.

Products Liability and Dangerous Drugs – The Standard for Manufacturer Liability

Posted on by Art Gholian in Personal Injury

The California Supreme Court in Brown v. Superior Court, (1988) 44 Cal. 3d 1049, wrestled with the question of whether strict liability theories would be applied to Drug Manufacturers whose product, after released in the market, results in injury to its intended users.  The Brown Court concluded that “a manufacturer is not strictly liable for injuries caused by a prescription drug so long as the drug was properly prepared and accompanied by warnings of its dangerous propensities that were either known or reasonably scientifically knowable at the time of distribution.” Id. at 1069.  The Brown Court did clarify its conclusion so as not to mean “that drug manufacturers are free of all liability for defective drugs. They are subject to liability for manufacturing defects, as well as under general principles of negligence, and for failure to warn of known or reasonably knowable side effects.” Id. at fn. 12.

If you or a loved one has suffered an injury as a result of taking a prescription drug, contact one of our Los Angeles Injury Attorneys today for a free consultation and case evaluation.

 

Punitive Damages May Be Awarded In Products Liability Actions

Posted on by Art Gholian in Personal Injury

Punitive damages are authorized in California pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 3294.  In Products Liability claims, punitive damages may be awarded where a plaintiff can prove oppression, fraud or malice.  See Hasson v. Ford Motor Co., (1982) 32 Cal. 3d 388, 402. (“In order to justify an award of punitive damages on this basis, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he wilfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.”) In the context of punitive damages, California Courts have defined malice to include not only a malicious intention to injury the specific person harmed, but conduct evincing a conscious disregard of the probability that the actor’s conduct will result in injury to others. See Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., (1981) 119 Cal. App. 3d 757, 808.

Thus, depending on the nature of the defect and injury resulting therefrom, certain facts and circumstances could support a claim for punitive damages in a device defect case.  If you or a loved one has been injured due to a defective device, contact one of our defective device attorneys today for a free consultation and case evaluation.

Two – Year Statute for Injury or Death Actions

Posted on by Art Gholian in Personal Injury

Victims of personal injury or wrongful death actions must be aware of the time frame to which their claims may be brought.  Generally, there is a two-year statute of limitations to file suit for “assault, battery, or injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another.  See Cal. Civ. Code § 335.1.  The time usually begins to when the injury is accrued whether the plaintiff is ignorant of the cause of action or the identity of the tortfeasor. See fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 797, 80-809.  However, the discover rule may act to postpone the accrual if under certain circumstances the plaintiff is delayed in discovering that he/she has been injured. Thus, knowledge of the injury is important.

If you or a loved one has been injured, contact one of our personal injury attorneys today for a free consultation and case evaluation.