Brain Injury Case Study

The plaintiff Michael Aloe, widower of Robin Aleo, brought a suit individually and on behalf of his wife’s estate in Massachusetts/ U.S. First Circuit, against SLB Toys, Amazon.com Inc., Toys “R” Us, and Amazon.com Kids, Inc., after his wife dies from injuries sustained when an inflatable pool slide collapsed while she was sliding down. The decedent was attempting to slide down head first in an inflatable, in-ground swimming pool slide imported and sold by Toys R Us. The pool slide collapsed and caused her to strike her head on the concrete deck of the pool. The decedent fractured two cervical vertebrae and suffered a severed spinal cord. She died the following day after she was removed from life support.

RP stated law enforcement received a call from an anonymous caller stated an employee, Shemaiah Messengale grabbed the child Marley's arm which is fractured. Law enforcement contacted the child's mother to verify injuries. It was disclosed the child had suffered 4 fractures to her elbow and wrist. The RP stated law enforcement spoke with owner/licensee of the facility and the employee accused of causing the injury. They reported Marley sustained the injuries accidentally when she fell from slide. The RP stated the child was treated at Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA) by Dr. Lindsey Andras who determined the injuries are consistent with a fall. Law enforcement did not speak with treating doctor to confirm the information. The RP disclosed

In the case of Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, the plaintiff fractured her wrist while riding in a Rue le Dodge bumper car at an amusement park in California. The plaintiff filed a case of negligence against the defendant. To prove negligence, the plaintiff will have to establish all of the following requirements: (1) duty of due care, breach of duty, causation, and injury. The defendant had the Rue le Dodge ride inspected yearly by state safety regulators and daily by the park’s maintenance staff. This means they filled their duty of maintaining the ride, breach of duty than does not apply or causation, but there was injury.

The last element is damages. “Damages are proven when it is determined the injury was a result of the practitioner's actions. The intent of awarding damages is to make the plaintiff whole, meaning as if the negligence never occurred” (Walker, 2011, para. 15). Damages are usually paid in the form of money, but I do not think any amount of money will ever make this patient feel whole or that the negligence never occurred.

On or about July 14, 2015, the Plaintiff, Scott Siegel, was involved in an accident on the playground, which resulted in injury to the Plaintiff. One substitute teacher was supervising all eighty children on the playground. The substitute teacher, Defendant, Andrew Rafter, noticed the Plaintiff and friends spinning too fast on a merry-go-round and told them to slow down and get off. He then turned his back to the boys to tend to other students and that is when the accident occurred and Scott injured his leg. Scott’s father wants compensation from the school board due to lack of supervision during the playground activities. Defendant parties are a public entity so they may be immune from suit.

While tragic cases such as these place insurance companies, doctors, legislators and families in an ethical and legal dilemma, it is the lawyers who pursue a common practice known as "ambulance chasing," that causes the root of all of these problems. Having originally acquired its name from personal injury lawyers, this immoral method is applied when a law firm contacts a recent accident victim and pries them into taking their cases to court. In many states, laws have been instilled that ban ambulance chasing - specifically accident victims - however money-hungry lawyers have found ways to outthink the system. Hubbard is a perfect example of such a lawyer. Hubbard and her hired associates have visited hundreds of businesses, which offer services to the public. Prying their way into restaurants, malls, and medical offices, to name a few, they search for deficiencies that do not comply with the 1990 American Disability Act. By law in the state of California, one is able to prosecute for up to $250,000 for "pain and suffering" in addition to the $100,000 in penalty fees. In a sense, many of these cases end up being more like insurance fraud. Since many of these large corporations have insurance that cover potential cases like these, most of

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

In 2004 the plaintiff Andrea Larkin suffered from ongoing bouts of dizziness, she sought the care of the defendant Dr. Jehane Johnston of Dedham Medical Associates. She underwent MRI and CTA testing twice, once during 2004 upon her initial visit with the defendant and another in 2005 for a follow up. During both times it was determined that the plaintiff showed abnormalities in her brain- a venous varix in the left side and an aneurism on her right side of the brain. In 2006 Mrs. Larkin claimed that she was due for another imaging study but the defendant failed to order the tests or set up a referral. Dr. Johnston also failed to place information regarding her condition on the patient’s problems list database of the hospital. The plaintiff

A judge or jury would easily find that the failure to provide Ms. Shark with reasonable disability accommodation was not based on any legal merit and failure to provide the requested accommodation caused Ms. Shark significant damages, including re-aggravation of her injury.

In this scenario, I believe Nicole is guilty of several intentional torts. Due to her financial stressors at home, Nicole wholeheartedly decided to supplement her husband’s lack of income by risking the safety and well-being of her patients. Based on her educational level by completing nursing school, I feel Nicole was well aware that if patients were not receiving their prescribed medications, many medical and behavioral issues may arise.

Plaintiff, Ronald Hall alleges that on June 3, 2013 at approximately 11:00 a.m., he sustained injuries to his left leg when he stepped on an unsecured water meter pit located in the tree space in the 3500 block of Stanton Road, S.E. Plaintiff alleges that his medical/health care expenses total $17,103.45. Plaintiff stated that prior to the incident, he had traveled this area, and did not experience or notice any problems with the water meter cover; that the meter pit at issue was covered; nobody told him, nor did he hear that there was a problem with a water meter cover on this street. Plaintiff testified during his deposition that prior to stepping on the cover, it [cover] looked “normal.” Further, Plaintiff also testified that he did not

Therefore, The Appellant had demonstrated that the boards failure to install a sign forbidding diving, negligence of duty of care to give any adequate warning that the ledge was unsafe for diving, caused the appellants injury.

As requested, I have reviewed the facts of the above-captioned file, along with the applicable law and summarized same in this memorandum. Mrs. Mary Smith suffered an injury to her right ankle in an automobile accident on 10/3/95. After surgery and months of rehabilitation, Mrs. Smith still suffers daily. I have researched the facts regarding a personal injury action against Paul Joseph, as well as a medical malpractice action against the medical providers.

Preamble: This case is a potential negligence case involving a swimming pool and a ten-year child who was under the care and supervision of neighbors at a public campground. Potential defendants are the neighbors and the campground owners. The only witnesses appear to be the two ten-year girls, one of whom was injured.

Injuries to the brain might be as direct result of compression of the head at the point of impact and rebound effects. The injury may be right below the strike and impact point (coup injury) or the opposite point of impact point (contrecoup). Tessie had an incident which most probably affected hers frontal lobes (directly influenced, coup injury) and occipital lobes (opposite site of the strike, contrecoup). The frontal lobe of the brain has a lot of functions including motor function, memory, language, and judgement. Due to frontal lobes injury, Tessie may suffer from poor memory and judgment, mood change, increased irritability, and dramatic changes in social behavior, decreased executive functions such as planning and goal selection. Lose