Case Results

In a birth injury jury trial brought for a child with spastic quadriplegia, the Walkup medical malpractice trial team received a $23.2 million jury verdict. The 2½-year-old plaintiff suffered cerebral palsy, quadriplegia and cognitive impairment when her mother’s doctor failed to recognize and act on the warning signs of fetal distress during her birth. As a result, a timely cesarean section was not performed. The child was deprived of oxygen for 28 minutes before an emergency C–section could be completed.

Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy resulted, and the child now has multiple health problems, including a permanent tracheotomy, g–tube, spastic cerebral palsy, cortical impairment, and seizures. The jury award included $1.7 million for past health care expenses, $10 million for future health care expenses, $10 million for past and future pain, disability, and emotional distress, and $1.5 million for loss of earning capacity.

Douglas Saeltzer and Spencer J. Pahlke represented the surviving wife and children of a man tragically killed by an irrigation siphon pipe in the San Joaquin Delta. The decedent, his family and friends were wakeboarding on the delta when the tow rope got caught in the boat’s propeller. Swimming under the back end of the boat, he slapped the side of the boat with his hand, signaling he was unable to resurface. Rescuers discovered his leg had been sucked into a 12” irrigation siphon. He drowned as his family and friends attempted to rescue him. Doug and Spencer elected to proceed under Maritime Law. Because the incident occurred on navigable waters, it could be filed in admiralty, permitting a recovery for pre-death pain and suffering. The team also obtained a preferential trial date based upon the age of one of the surviving children. In discovery, Doug and Spencer obtained admissions from the property owner’s manager and employees that this was an accident waiting to happen. The matter settled for $20,000,000 shortly before expert discovery was to commence.

Our paralysis trial team obtained a jury verdict in the amount of $9,480,820 on behalf of a 29-year-old Sonoma County laborer who suffered permanent paraplegia from the navel down as a result of an untreated spinal epidural abscess. The defendant had been treating the plaintiff for skin infections for approximately two months when our client began to develop unremitting pain in his back. The defendant charted a suspicion of an epidural abscess but never ordered the appropriate diagnostic tests to confirm his suspicion.

In Doe Infant v. Healthcare Facility (Court and County confidential) Khaldoun Baghdadi negotiated a combination cash and annuity settlement with a present value of $9,000,000 on behalf of a severely disabled 4 year-old child and her parents. The child was born with severe congenital disabilities. The matter was prosecuted as a wrongful life case per CACI 512 and premised upon the failure to conduct follow up prenatal diagnostic testing which was indicated according to the standard of care. Pursuant to the holding in Turpin v. Sortini (1982) 31 Cal.3d 220, the parents sought recovery of the economic damages required to care for their daughter. The child’s ongoing medical needs were substantial. She required treatment and medication for seizure management and attendant care for activities of daily living including feeding, bathing and toileting. The child was unable to walk or provide for her own needs. In addition to the customary experts in the fields of physical medicine and rehabilitation and life care planning, liability experts in the field of radiology and obstetrics were retained to testify in the case. By utilizing a special needs trust in conjunction with structured annuities and a substantial cash payment, Khaldoun was able to help the parents maintain their daughters right to receive public benefits, thereby maximizing the benefit to the family of the negotiated settlement.

Our lawyers resolved this case for a badly damaged child who developed distress during labor at a point when no doctor was available to consult or do an emergency surgical delivery. The obstetrician left the hospital to run a personal errand and was not available to perform an emergency C-section.

The obstetrician believed labor was progressing adequately when he departed. After he left, contractions were too strong and too frequent, putting stress on the baby. The labor and delivery nurse did not summon another physician. By the time the baby was finally delivered, he had suffered permanent hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy.

In Arborist v. Bay Area Crane Service (Sonoma Co. Sup. Ct.) Rich Schoenberger and Matt Davis obtained a $6 million settlement on behalf of a 33-year-old employee rendered a paraplegic during a tree removal project at a Sonoma County home. The defendant crane company was hired by the plaintiff’s employer to hoist and move sections of cut trees over a residence and place them into a “safety zone” where the plaintiff was to cut the sections into smaller pieces. During the work a large limb broke free from the crane’s rigging and fell on the plaintiff. His employer was in charge of the jobsite and he was cited by Cal-OSHA for safety violations. Suit was brought against the crane operator and his employer. During depositions evidence was developed showing numerous safety violations by the crane operator. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the crane operator was a “special employee” of the plaintiff’s employer and therefore the suit was barred by the exclusive remedy rule and the holding in Privette v. Superior Court and its progeny. In support of their motion the defendants pointed to the contract that defined the crane operator as a “special employee” of the arborist company. Rich and Matt developed evidence showing that the crane company and operator retained control over how the crane was operated during the job and prevailed at the summary judgment hearing citing case law holding that the facts of how a job was actually run are more important that what is written in the contract. The court denied the defense motion and the case settled for the crane company’s policy limits shortly thereafter.

In Tennis Coach v. Local Trucker (Sacramento Sup. Ct.) Douglas Saeltzer and Conor Kelly obtained a $6,000,000 settlement on behalf of a 25-year-old tennis instructor who suffered major lower extremity injuries against a driver who collided head-on with the plaintiff’s vehicle. The client was returning home after providing tennis lessons at a club on the Sacramento Delta. The defendant driver was returning to his company’s headquarters in Rio Vista in an F-250 pickup truck. The crash was unwitnessed. After the collision the defendant denied crossing into plaintiff’s lane of traffic, and told police that the plaintiff had caused the collision. Because of his injuries, the plaintiff had no recollection of the collision. Doug and Conor obtained cell phone records which showed defendant making two separate phone calls in the minutes preceding the collision. Analysis of the physical evidence also established the collision occurred on plaintiff’s side of the road. Past medical specials totaled $963,000. Following the accident plaintiff returned to college retaining his tennis scholarship. The case settled following factual depositions, with a policy limit demand supported by four expert reports demonstrating future damages in excess of $3,000,000.

In Cyclist v. Colliding Defendants (No.Cal.Sup.Ct.) Matthew Davis and Spencer Pahlke obtained a settlement in excess of $6,000,000 on behalf of a badly injured bicyclist who was struck head-on after a collision between a food delivery vehicle and a taxi cab. The initial accident occurred at a busy SOMA intersection when the food delivery driver jumped the change in his red light to green. At the same time, a taxi driver approaching from the east, traveling 15 miles per hour over the speed limit to catch the last seconds of a stale yellow, violently broadsided the delivery car. Post-impact the taxi careened toward the plaintiff, who was stopped, sitting atop his bicycle waiting for his light to turn green. The force of the impact threw the plaintiff to the ground and launched his bike over a nearby fence. Our client suffered blunt force trauma to the head causing a traumatic brain injury. Previously liked and likeable, and interested in literature, art, and music, after his brain injury the plaintiff suffered personality changes and became disagreeable. Many friends testified at length about the considerable before-and-after changes observed. The recovery was in the full amount of the available policy limits of all defendants.