Adam Peck, Author at PLG Nursing Home Abuse & Neglect Injury Attorneys in California

7.7 Million In Wrongful Death of a Dependant Adult

Posted on April 23, 2013 - 7:55 pm by Adam Peck

7.7 Million In Wrongful Death of a Dependant Adult: A San Luis Obispo County jury has awarded $7.7 million to the parents of a woman diagnosed with schizophrenia who died during a scuffle with her caregivers.

The sum announced Friday after five days of deliberation was significantly larger than the $5 million Lauren Arcady’s parents had sought.

Arcady, 33, died in 2010 during a struggle with her caregivers. Arcady had moved into her own house in Santa Maria after living in a state-run facility for people with developmental disabilities. Two caregivers were hired to stay with her during the day.

Arcady, who was tentatively diagnosed with schizophrenia at age 13, became angry when one of the caretakers took a picture of her. She marched into her room as they followed.

During the trial, plaintiffs’ attorney told jurors that Arcady suffocated because the caregivers improperly restrained her on a bed. Murphy said the caregivers did not have CPR training and did not try to revive Arcady.

But attorneys for the company that hired the caregivers countered that they tried to help Arcady, who had a habit of hurting herself. They contended her death was caused by medications and stress. The coroner’s office could not conclusively determine a cause of death.

The caregivers were not charged. Arcady’s parents, Kathleen Reed and Alexander Arcady, filed a wrongful death complaint against the caretakers’ employer, alleging negligence and abuse of a dependent adult.

Traumatic Brain Injury Issues

Posted on April 17, 2013 - 5:28 pm by Adam Peck

Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) can cause severe medical and physical issues. Even a mild injury to the brain can have long lasting consequences, including increased risk of cognitive impairment later in life.

While it is not yet known how brain injury increases risk for dementia, there are indications that chronic, long-lasting, inflammation in the brain may be important.

It is very important that an individual that has been personally injured and has incurred a TBI, seek competent medical attention immediately.

The signs and symptoms of mild traumatic brain injury may include:

Loss of consciousness for a few seconds to a few minutes
No loss of consciousness, but a state of being dazed, confused or disoriented
Memory or concentration problems
Headache
Dizziness or loss of balance
Nausea or vomiting
Sensory problems, such as blurred vision, ringing in the ears or a bad taste in the mouth
Sensitivity to light or sound
Mood changes or mood swings
Feeling depressed or anxious
Fatigue or drowsiness
Difficulty sleeping
Sleeping more than usual

Moderate to severe traumatic brain injuries

Moderate to severe traumatic brain injuries can include any of the signs and symptoms of mild injury, as well as the following symptoms that may appear within the first hours to days after a head injury:

Loss of consciousness from several minutes to hours
Profound confusion
Agitation, combativeness or other unusual behavior
Slurred speech
Inability to awaken from sleep
Weakness or numbness in fingers and toes
Loss of coordination
Persistent headache or headache that worsens
Repeated vomiting or nausea
Convulsions or seizures
Dilation of one or both pupils of the eyes
Clear fluids draining from the nose or ears

– from Steven Peck, Senior Attorney at Peck Law Group

Settlement Negotiations

Posted on April 17, 2013 - 5:10 pm by Adam Peck

how are personal injury lawyers compensated Settlement Negotiations: Section 1152, subdivision (a), provides, “Evidence that a person has, in compromise … furnished or offered or promised to furnish money or any other thing … to another who has sustained … loss or damage, as well as any conduct or statements made in negotiation thereof, is inadmissible to prove his or her liability for the loss or damage or any part of it.” Section 1154 provides, “Evidence that a person has … offered … to accept a sum of money or any other thing … in satisfaction of a claim, as well as any conduct or statements made in negotiation thereof, is inadmissible to prove the invalidity of the claim or any part of it.”

Both provisions are based on the public policy in favor of the settlement of disputes without litigation and are intended to promote candor in settlement negotiations: “The rule prevents parties from being deterred from making offers of settlement and facilitates the type of candid discussion that may lead to settlement.” (Carney v. Santa Cruz Women Against Rape (1990), 221 Cal.App.3d 1009, 1023, 271 Cal.Rptr. 30; see Caira v. Offner (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 12, 32, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 233; Hasler v. Howard (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1026, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 217; see generally Cal. Law Revision Com. com., 29B West’s Ann. Evid. Code (1995 ed.) foll. § 1154, p. 532 [“Section 1154 stems from the same policy of encouraging settlement and compromise that is reflected in Section 1152”].)

“The Law Revision Commission comment accompanying the enactment of Evidence Code section 1152 specifically emphasized that the statute was drafted to include statements made in the context of settlement negotiations: ‘The words “as well as any conduct or statements made in negotiation thereof make it clear that statements made by parties during negotiations for the settlement of a claim may not be used as admissions in later litigation…. The rule excluding offers is based upon the public policy in favor of the settlement of disputes without litigation. The same public policy requires that admissions made during settlement negotiations also be excluded….'” (Caira v. Offner, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at p. 32, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 233.)

Standard of Review

A trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. (E.g., People v. Williams (1997), 16 Cal.4th 153, 196-197, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710[“[i]n determining the admissibility of evidence, the trial court has broad discretion…. On appeal, a trial court’s decision to admit or not admit evidence, whether made in limine or following a hearing pursuant to Evidence Code section 402, is reviewed only for abuse of discretion”]; accord, People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 203, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385, 926 P.2d 365 [“appellate court reviews any ruling by a trial court as to the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion”]; Austin B. v. Escondido Union School Dist. (2007), 149 Cal.App.4th 860, 885, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 454[“[w]e review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under the abuse of discretion standard”].) Relying on this well-established principle, as well as case law involving analogous evidentiary provisions in other jurisdictions, the court in Caira v. Offner, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th 12, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 233 held the trial court’s ruling excluding evidence under sections 1152 or 1154 is properly reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (Cairo, at pp. 31-32, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 233.)

Although we do not disagree with that conclusion when the issue involves evaluating particular facts and applying established law to those facts, to the extent the trial court’s decision depends on the proper construction of sections 1152 and 1154, as here, the issue is a question of law, which we review de novo. (People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 432, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 200, 11 P.3d 956; California Veterinary Medical Assn. v. City of West Hollywood (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 536, 546, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 318; cf. Moving Pictures etc. Union v. Glasgow Theaters, Inc. (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 395, 401, 86 Cal.Rptr. 33 [admission of evidence prohibited by § 1152 “is error”].)