Hi Elitza Case Study

According to Gabrielle’s doctors, while she was experiencing her hypoglycemic coma, “her blood sugar fell to a level at which her brain cells, particularly the gray cells of the cerebral cortex, began using their own proteins and lipids as fuel to avoid necrosis.” (McGuire) This resulted in permeant brain damage. At trial, Gabrielle was categorized as mentally retarded because of her brain injury. On October 7, 1996 the trial began. At trial the Hundley’s economist Dr. Oliver Wood presented his opinion on cost estimates of future damages based on a Life Care Plan. The Plan included a cost of $4,727,641 for institutionalized care for Gabrielle beginning at 21 years of age. After the verdicts were rendered, Jones and Rite Aid made post trial motions for a new trial.

The aim of damages resulting from negligence is to provide the plaintiff with a lump sum of money that will put the plaintiff in the position that the plaintiff would have been in had

Background: Based on the given complaint, on the 28th of March in 2014 the Plaintiff, Linda D. Daugherty suffered an injury on the property of Rauleigh J. Ringer at 814 N. Liberty Street, Alexandria, IN. She is claiming her injury was a result of negligence spawning from the actions, or lack thereof, by Mr. Ringer and Casual Lifestyles Realty, Inc., in which the connection of these three parties has not been clarified with certainty within the claim. The Defendants, by counsel, Mark Maynard, and, pursuant to Rule 12(E) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, moved for a more definite statement of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. Mark Maynard argues if said Plaintiff could amend her complaint that is supposedly so vague and ambiguous, the newfound clarity would help the defense frame a response to said Plaintiff’s claim. No other information could be

39. Under the doctrine of ________, the plaintiff may only recover the proportionate amount of damages attributable to the defendant’s negligence

The student 's motion for summary judgment was granted by the court and dismissed Drakers claims against the students for defamation and libel per se. The students and their families then had to file another motion for summary judgment regarding Draker’s remaining claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and negligence. Once this happened, Draker filed her third amended petition alleging the students only for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence and gross negligence as to the parents. Eric Goldman states, “the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed because under TX law the cause of action is a gap-filler, and there was no gap given that the defamation doctrine putatively governs these facts.” Along with her third amended petition, Draker filed a motion for continuance. This motion would give her more time to look into the facts of her remaining claims. This motion was denied by the trial court. Along with the denial of Drakers motion, the court granted the Schreibers ' and the Todds ' motion for summary judgment. Draker argues that the trial court made three mistakes. These mistakes, as listed in the case are (1) granting summary judgment in favor of the students on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) granting summary judgment in favor of the parents on her claims of negligence and gross negligence; and (3) denying her motion for continuance and

The Plaintiff will be able to move forward with her suit against the Defendants in the areas of heightened-risk and negligence, here is why:

The deposition of Dr. Joe Gonzales occurred on March 16, 2016. Dr. Gonzalez was retained by Plaintiff as an expert in this case and was requested to prepare a life care plan for Plaintiff’s future medical care needs. Dr. Gonzales has served as a life care planner since 1988, when he received is license to practice medicine. He became a certified life care planner in 2006. He is a medical doctor in San Antonio who is board certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation, pain medicine, and occupational and environmental medicine. Half of his work consists of treating patients and the other half consists of preparing life care plans related to litigation. When he does life care planning work, 85-90% of that work is on behalf of the plaintiffs in the respective litigation. He sees on average 20-50 patients a week in his medical practice. He has not practiced in a hospital in at least 10 years.

Sharpe JA found that the defendant’s deliberate and repeated actions arising from a complex domestic arrangement, and its provocation of strong feelings and animosity in the plaintiff, favoured a higher award. In contrast, the fact that the plaintiff suffered no

The ATRA and CALA are trying to stop minor cases from receiving enormous sums of money which will dampen the economy. The subject matter of these cases varies to some length including but not limited to medical and car insurance. In a case against Rich Mountain Nursing and Rehabilitation Center of Mena, jurors found the defendant, Mena, guilty of malpractice in the death of Margaretha Sauer, a ninety-three year old woman. The non-economic punitive damages cash award for the suffering and pain of the Sauer family to be paid by Mena was seventy-eight million dollars. Punitive damages is one of the issues that the ATRA is trying to combat. If nursing homes continue to have pay large sums for punitive damages, they will not be able to survive. The premium average liability offered by nursing homes has increased from $820,000 in 1999 to $11.6 million in 2001. With the liability premiums continuing to rise, the prospects of profits continue to dwindle. They will have no chance at retaining a profit and thus will have to close. It will also mean that doctors will charge more for their services, which leads to fewer health insurances carrying

Personal injury plaintiffs often utilize a life care plan which details the client 's current and future medical needs and expenses arising from a defendant’s negligence. The jury considers the life care plan as it considers any other evidence. As the effects of the ACA manifest over time, life care plans may no longer assume

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.

Conclusion: Thanks to the landmark case, Marrita Murphy and Daniel J. Leveille, Appellants v. Internal Revenue Service and United States of America, Appellees, there is now no misunderstanding that awards received for damages to personal and professional reputation and mental suffering are included in gross income and are therefore taxable under 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2). This determines that because Murray did not suffer personal physical injuries and since gross income as defined by Code Sec. 61 includes compensatory damages for nonphysical injuries, such as those awarded to Murray, his award is in fact taxable [2007-2 U.S.T.C. ¶50,531, (Jul. 3, 2007)].

* Research for similar cases with the same injury but with settlements far greater than $100,000. The bigger its difference from the client’s demands, the better it would be. Present these case citations to the court and by the principle of perceptual contrast, it will drive home the point to the jury that the plaintiff’s demand is indeed very

Donna Driver unintentionally ran a red light, and caused a car accident with Vic Victim. Vic sustained severe injuries. Donna’s auto insurance policy with Gekko has liability coverage limit of $100,000.00. Vic’s medical bills alone run close to that, and there’s also his loss of work and pain & suffering to be taken into account. Vic wants to settle the entire case for $100,000.00, and Donna pleads with Gekko to do so since it is obvious that he could recover more than that based on the facts of this case. Gekko tells her that they will only offer $50,000.00, and if it’s not accepted, they will take their chances at trial.

The mental anguish that he has had to go through and the pain and suffering that he has had to endure are also grounds for compensatory damages. Chapter 12 also covers punitive damages. These damages are fines that the court may impose on the company or individual in an effort them for the neglect. The company will undoubtedly be sued for negligence.