Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog

California Court Limits Insurance Coverage When One Collision Was Proximately Caused by Two Negligent Acts

November 30, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In an opinion regarding the definition of “accident” under an automobile insurance policy, the California Court of Appeal held that two negligent acts that proximately cause one accident are considered one accident for insurance policy purposes. The court relied upon common sense and the reasoning that if a time lapse existed between proximate causes of car accidents, there would be no limit to an insurance company’s liability.

Mercury Casualty Company sought a judicial determination that their policy’s limit of liability for bodily injury applied to Monique Jones’ claim for bodily injury coverage under the policy. The trial court granted Mercury’s summary judgment motion, and Ms. Jones appealed.

The facts demonstrate that Mercury Insurance issued a coverage policy to Kari Amaya, with bodily injury liability limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. The insured driver was listed as Ashley Amaya.

California Supreme Court Reviews Workers’ Compensation Laws and Benefits for Police Officers, Holds That Sworn, Salaried Officers Not Entitled to Maximum Indemnity Benefits

November 24, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Supreme Court, the court reviewed the legislative history of workers’ compensation provided to police officers. Labor Code section 4458.2 sets forth workers’ compensation benefits for certain peace (police) officers injured in the course and scope of their employment. The issue before the court centered on whether volunteer police officers and regularly sworn, salaried officers received the same maximum disability indemnity levels.

Officer John Larkin was employed as a police officer by the City of Marysville. In the course of duty, he suffered injuries to his face and body. A workers’ compensation judge held that Mr. Larkin was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits but not maximum indemnity levels under section 4458.2.

Mr. Larkin petitioned for reconsideration, arguing that sworn, salaried police officers were entitled to maximum indemnity levels. The Board denied his petition, finding that the judge’s reasoning was persuasive. The Court of Appeal affirmed this order, basing their finding on the notion that providing maximum benefits to volunteers encouraged volunteer service. Since Mr. Larkin was a sworn, salaried employee, he was entitled to the full range of workers’ compensation benefits.

California Supreme Court Reverses Judgment for City Because Plaintiff Need Not Prove Dangerous Condition Caused Third-Party Conduct

November 20, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Supreme Court, the issue centered on government liability for injuries caused by a dangerous condition on property. Government Code section 835 provides that a public entity can be held liable for an injury if that injury is proximately caused by a dangerous condition on its property. The risk of injury must have been foreseeable, and the entity must have had notice of the danger such that it could have taken corrective measures. Sometimes, as in the case at hand, prior to the injury, a third party causes or contributes to the accident. The question before the court was whether the plaintiff must show that the dangerous condition caused the third-party conduct.

The facts of this case center on a motor vehicle accident in which a third party’s negligent driving caused another car to strike a tree situated on a center median owned by the City of Los Angeles. This collision with the tree killed or injured all the vehicle occupants. The parents of three of the five passengers, plaintiffs Antonio Cordova and Janis Cordova, sued the City, asserting that under Government Code section 835, the configuration of the roadway was a dangerous condition on public property.

Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the boulevard was in a dangerous condition due to the proximity of the magnolia trees to the travel portion of the roadway. They alleged that the dangerous condition of the boulevard posed an unreasonable risk to motorists. The City of L.A. moved for summary judgment on the basis that the street and median were not dangerous, and the accident was due to third-party conduct, not a feature of public property. After the plaintiffs submitted expert conclusions stating that the magnolia tree was a dangerous condition, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the City.

California Court Holds State Workers’ Compensation System Provides Injured Employees Ample Opportunity for Review and Does Not Violate State Constitution

November 17, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed an injured employee’s claim that the workers’ compensation process of independent medical review (IMR) was unconstitutional. The court reviewed the legislative reforms to the workers’ compensation system and analyzed the history of an injured employee’s challenge to a denial of a request for medical treatment. Ultimately, the court determined that injured workers were provided more opportunity for review of their medical claims through constitutional state reforms to the workers’ compensation system.

Frances Stevens injured her right foot while working as an editor for Outspoken Enterprises. After undergoing three surgeries on her foot, she was unable to return to work. The pain in her feet forced her to use a wheelchair, leading to low back and shoulder pain, as well as eventually severe depression. After a trial in 2013, a workers’ compensation judge held that Ms. Stevens was permanently totally disabled.

Outspoken Enterprises was insured by the State Compensation Insurance Fund. They accepted responsibility for her medical care and covered extensive medical care for her. Ms. Stevens’ physician requested approval for her to receive four prescription medications to alleviate her pain. He also sought approval for home health aide services, eight hours a day, five days a week. His request was processed under utilization review (UR) and reviewed by another doctor. This doctor eventually denied the request and maintained that a home health aide was not warranted because the evidence did not show that Ms. Stevens was home-bound or that she required home medical care.

California Court Holds Injured Plaintiffs May Show Value of Medical Services through Medical Testimony, Not Unpaid Medical Bills

November 13, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a personal injury lawsuit stemming from a rear-end motor vehicle accident, the California Court of Appeal addressed the type of evidence that can be used to prove the value of medical services received. A trucker and his passenger were injured in a collision, and the court held that their doctors’ testimony could be used to establish the value of medical services received, but their unpaid medical bills could not. The court stated that a billed amount is not necessarily representative of the true value of the service.

Joaquin Ochoa, a trucker, was driving his semi-truck without a trailer when a tractor-trailer driven by Jesus Felipe Dorado rear-ended his vehicle. Mr. Ochoa had been stopped in traffic, and Mr. Dorada allegedly did not see Mr. Ochoa until it was too late for him to stop in time. Mr. Ochoa and his passenger, Imelda Moreno, suffered back injuries as a result of the crash, and both underwent surgery.

California Court Holds that General Duty to Maintain Reasonably Safe Premises Supports Claim against Restaurant for Stray Soccer Ball Injury

November 10, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

A recent negligence and premises liability case before the California Court of Appeals centered on whether an exception applied to the general duty of care. A possessor of land owes a duty to use reasonable care to maintain their property, even in the presence of a dangerous condition caused by a factor that the landowner does not possess or control. In this case, the defendant controlled the land where the dangerous condition, an outdoor dining area, existed. The defendant did not control the instrumentality creating the hazard, a soccer ball.Campclar Corporation is the owner and operator of the Spitfire Grill, a restaurant located across the street from a soccer field at the Santa Monica Airport Park. While sitting at an outdoor table eating, Ms. Neira was struck in the head by a stray soccer ball that flew over the fence. Ms. Neira received emergency medical care and suffered hearing loss and other injuries.

Ms. Neira sued Campclar for negligence, premises liability, and strict liability. She alleged that Campclar knew or reasonably should have know that customers seated in the restaurant’s outdoor dining area would be exposed to an unreasonable risk of harm from stray soccer balls kicked from the soccer field. In support of her claim, Ms. Neira alleged that she was negligently seated in a risky area and that Campclar failed to warn her of the risk. As a result, she suffered an injury. In her premises liability cause of action, Ms. Neira alleged that Campclar negligently maintained the restaurant in a dangerous condition.

California Court Rejects Report from Expert Retained Solely to Rebut Opinion of Agreed Medical Expert

November 6, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent California Court of Appeal case, an injured worker requested that the court address what she perceived as an inconsistency in the workers’ compensation laws regarding admissible evidence. The Legislature has declared that the opinion of a privately retained expert who has evaluated an injured worker may not be admitted as evidence before the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board.

Margaret Batten alleged that she suffered a workplace injury in the course and scope of her employment as a registered nurse for Long Beach Memorial Hospital. She claimed injuries to her jaw, knees, neck, and lower back. She also claimed that she suffered psychological harm due to her physical injuries.

An initial evaluation by a psychiatric panel’s qualified medical examiner, Dr. Joseph Stapen, suggested that Ms. Batten’s injuries were not compensable because they were not caused by industrial factors. The Workers’ Compensation Judge authorized Ms. Batten to retain her own qualified medical expert, at her own expense, according to Labor Code section 4064(d). Dr. Gary Stanwyck opined that Ms. Batten’s psychiatric condition was due to work-related injuries, and therefore it was compensable.

California Court Holds Evidence of Marijuana Use Inadmissible in Car Accident Lawsuit Because Causal Connection Not Shown

November 3, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a California Court of Appeals case involving the admissibility of evidence, the court addressed the role of testimony concerning a car accident victim’s marijuana use. The issue on appeal was whether the jury had been swayed to assign partial negligence to the victim after hearing evidence of his medical marijuana prescription.

This civil case centered on a tragic incident in which two men involved in an initial car accident were then injured in another accident, while standing outside their vehicles. Randy Hernandez had been driving on the freeway when he collided with Eric Lauderdale’s vehicle. Both men stood near their vehicles in the left lane when a sheriff’s deputy accidentally slammed into Mr. Lauderdale’s vehicle. This collision sent Mr. Lauderdale over the five-foot-tall divider, and he suffered a minor injury. Mr. Hernandez was fatally wounded by this second collision.

Mr. Hernandez’s daughter brought a lawsuit against Los Angeles County for negligence. During the trial, the County introduced evidence of Mr. Hernandez’s medical marijuana use. They alleged that Mr. Hernandez was responsible for the accident with Mr. Lauderdale. The jury awarded the County 51% of the fault, Mr. Lauderdale 35% of the fault, and Mr. Hernandez 14% of the fault.

California Court Rules in Favor of Injured Prison Guard in Premises Liability Lawsuit

October 29, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a premises liability case before the California Court of Appeal, the court reversed a grant of summary judgment based on the remaining triable issue of whether an employee’s injury arose out of and in the scope of his employment.

Monnie Wright worked as a correctional officer at San Quentin State Prison, and he lived on the San Quentin premises. He rented a unit from his employer, the State of California. He lived there voluntarily, since it was not a condition of his employment with the State. He paid market rate rent and did not receive a discount or benefit for living on the property.

While walking to work in the early morning, Mr. Wright fell and was injured when a concrete step collapsed beneath him. He sought and received workers’ compensation in the form of medical expenses and disability payments.

California Court Upholds Verdict Despite Improper Testimony and Misconduct by Attorney

October 28, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a new trial based on improper trial testimony regarding causation. This case involved a multiple-vehicle crash on a multi-lane freeway, leading to a personal injury lawsuit for damages. The court acknowledged the improper conduct of the attorney who elicited the testimony regarding causation, but it held the error to be correctable and not critical to the outcome of the case.

Plaintiffs Leo Pope and Judi Nightingale were hit by a car driven by Debbie Sert. Ms. Sert was no longer a party to the matter because she settled with the plaintiffs prior to the trial. She was a young, inexperienced driver with three passengers, on her way home from a weekend partying in Palm Springs.

Mr. Pope and Ms. Nightingale brought a lawsuit against Thomas Stanley, who allegedly made a negligent lane change, causing Ms. Sert to lose control of her car and hit Mr. Pope and Ms. Nightingale’s car. Mr. Stanley was not involved in the accident, and he did not stop at the scene. Mr. Pope and Ms. Nightingale also sued the vehicle’s owner, Matthew Babick.