Virginia Injury Attorney Blog

On January 14, 2010, the brain injury case of Gagnon v. Burns was reconsidered in Circuit Court for Gloucester County, Virginia. Sovereign immunity still was denied the Defendant Assistant Principal.

The Judge reaffirmed his findings that the testimony of Shannon Diaz and other witnesses of Plaintiffs was more persuasive than the testimony of all Defendants; that the act of notifying school security of the reported impending physical attack of Greg Gagnon or otherwise investigating the report of Shannon Diaz omitted by Assistant Principal Burns was a ministerial act; and that the Plaintiffs have made out a sufficient case that Defendant Burns’ act constituted negligence in the non-performance of that ministerial act. The Judge also reaffirmed the admission into evidence of the deposition of a key independent eye witness, Shannon Diaz.

The brain injury case was scheduled for trial by jury on all issues for the week of August 16-20, 2010, at Gloucester Courthouse. Meanwhile the parties resume discovery.

Continue reading "Virginia: Sovereign Immunity – a Lawyer’s Reconsideration" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries

Bookmark:

In the Virginia brain injury case of Gagnon v. Burns, No. CL08-572 in Gloucester Circuit Court, the defendant assistant principal alternatively claims sovereign immunity by statute, Va. Code Ann. §8.01-220.1:2(A). Defendant argues that “teachers” in that statute actually means “principals” and “assistant principals” too.

It is hornbook law that statutes in general in derogation of the common law are to be construed narrowly. Further, it also is hornbook law that immunities in particular are disfavored and must be construed narrowly. §8.01-220.1:2(A) is no exception to those tandem rules of construction.

No jurisprudence construes §8.01-220.1:2(A). Tazewell County School Bd. v. Brown, 267 Va. 150 (2004), cited by the brain injury defendant, actually involved Va. Code Ann. §22.1-308, not §8.01-220.1:2(A). His reliance on 16 M.J. Schools §18 at 365 to extend “teachers” to “principals” likewise is misplaced: because Mitchie’s cites Tazewell County as its only Virginia jurisprudence on the definitional point, it necessarily falls with Tazewell County.

Tazewell County does not define “teachers” as including “principals” for all purposes. Tazewell County delineated that under the State Grievance Procedure “teacher” meant only classroom instructors and other non-supervisory personnel (non-principals) under Part II, while “teacher” expressly was broadened to include principals only under Part III. Id. at 159 and 162. Thus, since §8.01-220.1:2(A) does not expressly define “teachers” broadly to cover supervisory personnel like principals, §8.01-222.1:2(A) is analogous to Part II versus Part III of §22.1;308, i.e., covers classroom instructors versus principals too.

Further, other statutes clearly distinguish between “teachers,” on the one hand, and “assistant principals” or “principals,” on the other hand. For example, Va. Code Ann. §22.1-293 applies only to principals and assistant principals, while Va. Code Ann. §22.1-295 is limited to teachers.

Continue reading "Virginia: Statutory Sovereign Immunity – a Lawyer’s Analysis" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries

Bookmark:

In the brain injury case of Gagnon v. Burns, No. CL08-572 in Gloucester, Virginia, plaintiffs introduced as evidence at trail on sovereign immunity the de bene esse deposition of a key witness taken in the initial proceeding that was non-suited. Defendant Burns objected, referring generally to Va. Sup. Ct. Rule 7; but the Virginia Supreme Court has ruled on point in favor of Plaintiffs.

“[P]rior testimony is admissible if the court is satisfied: (1) that the party against whom the evidence is offered, or his privy, was a part to the former trial; (2) that the issue is substantially the same in the two cases; (3) that the witness who proposes to testify to the former evidence is able to state it with satisfactory correctness; and (4) that a sufficient reason is shown why the original witness is not produced.” Gray v. Graham, 231 Va. 1, 5 (1986). The salutary rule of Gray is followed by its progeny. E.g., Morgan v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 369, 376 (2007); Jones v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 46, 51 (1996); and Commonwealth Transp. Comm’r v. Wee Folks Nursery, Inc., 371 Va. Cir. 463, 464 (1996).”

Continue reading "Virginia: Prior Witness Testimony – a Lawyer’s Evidence" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries

Bookmark:

In Gagnon v. Burns, No. 049352 in Gloucester Circuit Court, the brain injury victim alleges gross negligence as an exception to the sovereign immunity claimed by the defendant Assistant Principal. Plaintiffs allege that his failure to exercise any prudence, diligence or care for the safety of the student constitutes gross negligence as a matter of law.

“Gross negligence” is “that degree of negligence which shows indifference to others as constitutes an utter disregard of prudence amounting to a complete neglect of the safety of [another].” Koffman v. Garnett, 265 Va. 12, 15 (2003). “A claim of gross negligence, which involves the ‘absence of slight diligence, or the want of even scant care,’ will not lie if the defendant exercised some degree of care with regard to the plaintiff. Colby v. Boyden, 241 Va. 125, 133, 400 S.E. 2d 184, 189 (1991).” Whitley v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 482, 490 (2000). Jennings v. Hart, 602 F. Supp. 2d 754, 758 n.6 (W.D. Va. 2009)(Virginia law).

Thus, the Court in Colby held there was no gross negligence where the trial court found defendant “exercised ‘some degree’ of care for the safety of others.” 241 Va. at 133 (emphasis added). Likewise in Whitley there was no gross negligence where the trial court’s “findings show that defendants exercised at least some degree of care” toward the victim. 260 Va. at 490.

Conversely in Jennings, however, the Court ruled defendants were not entitled to sovereign immunity for “any alleged acts of negligence [gross or simple]” based on defendants having showed no degree of care for the victim. 602 F. Supp. 2d at 759 (emphasis added). “Holding otherwise would imply that [defendants] have complete discretion to ignore… and disregard….” Id. (denying sovereign immunity on Rule 12(b)(6) motion).

Moreover, the case cited by Gloucester Circuit Court at hearing on December 16, 2009, B.M.H. v. The School Board of the City of Chesapeake, Virginia, 833 F. Supp. 560 (E.D. Va. 1993)(Virginia law), supports Plaintiffs’ position too. In B.M.H., school teachers “failed to take action [about a threat…] even though they had stated an intention to do so”; and this allegation alone sufficed to support the claim of gross negligence. Id. at 562, 574.

POST 12/30 Attorneys Forum, Brain Injuries

Continue reading "Virginia: Gross Negligence – a Lawyer’s Evidence" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries

Bookmark:

In the brain injury case of Gagnon v. Burns, No. CL07-557-00 in Gloucester, Virginia, plaintiffs argue that defendant’s conduct in destroying evidence and approaching witnesses should be considered some evidence of gross negligence. The Virginia Supreme Court has declared that “a party’s conduct, ‘so far as it indicates his own belief in the weakness of his cause,’ is admissible as an admission against interest.” Gray v. Graham, 231 Va. 1, 9-10 (1986)(avoidance of being photographed). Such “acts or conduct of a party may be admitted into evidence, because they show a ‘consciousness of guilt’ and thus constitute, in effect, an admission by conduct. Charles E. Friend, The Law of Evidence in Virginia, §18-49(9)(1)(6th ed. 2003).” Commonwealth v. Wallace, 70 Va. Cir. 341, 343 (Portsmouth Mar. 29, 2006)(subsequent imposing statements to a prospective witness).

Continue reading "Virginia: Conduct as an Admission – a Lawyer’s Evidence" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries

Bookmark:

On December 18, 2009, The Daily Press again marqueed Hampton Roads attorney, Avery T. “Sandy” Waterman, Jr., Esq., under a headline entitled, “Judge says assistant principal negligent.” Mr. Waterman prevailed in a brain injury case in Gloucester Circuit Court, Gagnon v. Burns, No. CL08-572.

The article reports the witnesses’ testimony and judge’s ruling adverse to the Defendant Assistant Principal in this special case. It also notes that Defendant Burns has $6,000,000.00 of insurance coverage in Gagnon.

Continue reading "Virginia Brain Injury: Separate Liability Trial – a Lawyer’s Victory" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries , Legal Recognitions , Special Cases

Bookmark:

On December 16, 2009, Gloucester Circuit Court heard the Demurrer and the Plea in Bar of Virginia sovereign immunity in the brain injury case of Gagnon v. Burns, No.
CL08-572. At 9:15 p.m., after a 12-hour trial, Judge Long ruled in favor of Plaintiffs, who are represented by Avery T. “Sandy” Waterman, Jr., Esq.

The only witnesses Defendant Burns called in this special case besides himself were his self-interested co-Defendants: James Newsome, the admitted attacker who was prosecuted criminally for his offense against the victim; and his sister, Christine Newsome, who at least one witness says egged on her brother to punch the victim, Greg Gagnon. The self-serving accounts of the Newsomes about a supposedly demeaning profane remark being made by the victim were refuted by a non-party witness for Plaintiffs, fellow student eyewitness, Ronnie Miller; and by James Newsome’s own contemporaneous signed statement admitted into evidence, which showed no such remark at all.

Conversely, Plaintiffs called 10 witnesses on their behalf, mostly non-parties. Five witnesses testified that in Gagnon Assistant Principal Burns at Gloucester High School (“GHS”) admitted his fault to each of them independently in strong terms shortly after the attack. Former student Shannon Diaz testified Burns “apologized for dropping the ball”. Gloucester County Deputy Carwell testified Burns admitted, “I screwed up.” Gloucester County Sergeant Shuster testified Burns admitted, “I made a big mistake. I thought I had told you guys about it.” The brain injury victim’s father testified Burns admitted, “I feel I owe you an apology because I ‘dropped the ball’. I could have done something to stop this but didn’t.” The victim’s mother testified Burns admitted, “I know that you know that I talked to Shannon Diaz, and I am very sorry because I dropped the ball.”

Further, Burns admitted in Gagnon that he disposed of his handwritten note about his meeting with Diaz and his school calendar for the day of the attack. Plaintiffs asserted that was contemporaneous evidence spoliation in the special case.

In closing, Mr. Waterman stressed that Burns simply had failed to perform a “ministerial act,” i.e., a “no-brainer” (requiring no real discretion). He analogized that Burns ignoring the warning and brain injury following was like an Emergency Room doctor failing to address chest pains as a potential heart attack and instead wrongfully blowing them off summarily as only indigestion.

The Gloucester Court in Gagnon sat as trier of fact without a jury, including as to the issues of negligence of Burns; as requested by Defendant and Plaintiffs. The Court believed that the most persuasive authority was B.M.H. v. The School Board of the City of Chesapeake, Virginia, 833 F.Supp. 560 (E.D.Va. 1993)(Virginia law), and applied the four-factor test of Virginia sovereign immunity enunciated in Messina v. Burden, 228 Va. 301 (1984), relied upon therein. In this special case, only the test’s fourth prong was in issue: whether the act was discretionary or ministerial and whether there was any gross or simple negligence.

The Gagnon Court expressly found the testimony of Diaz and other witnesses of Plaintiffs more credible than the testimony of Burns and his Co-Defendant witnesses; found that the act of notifying GHS Security of the reported impending physical altercation omitted by Burns was a ministerial act; found that Burns was guilty of simple negligence, but not gross negligence, in the non-performance of that ministerial act; and found that the aforesaid findings are dispositive and preclusive as to the liability of Burns to Plaintiffs on the Amended Complaint. The Court overruled the Demurrer; denied the Plea in Bar; and ordered that Plaintiffs’ cause against Burns be set for separate trial forthwith only on the amount of damages for the brain injury as the sole remaining issue.

The Court denied Burns’ oral post-trial motion to strike the de bene esse deposition in this special case, which deposition was taken in the non-suited predecessor suit of a witness unavailable for this trial, Diaz. Burns participated in that companion suit deposition through his same counsel of record as in Gagnon.

Fortunately for Burns, as Assistant Principal at GHS, he enjoys $6,000,000.00 of liability insurance coverage for negligence in Gagnon. He is covered by a $1,000,000.00 liability policy, plus a $5,000,000.00 excess policy, for Gagnon’s brain injury.

Continue reading "Virginia: Sovereign Immunity – a Lawyer’s Trial" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries , Legal Recognitions , Special Cases

Bookmark:

On October 13, 2009, Gloucester Circuit Court ruled Plaintiffs were entitled to have their expert review first-hand the Defendant’s disputed computer documents and history of creation, modification, etc. The case is Gagnon v. Burns, involving a brain injury victim.

The Court also imposed deadlines in this brain injury case for document production, expert review and identification, and discovery depositions. Hearing on sovereign immunity is scheduled for December 16, 2009.

Continue reading "Virginia Brain Injury: Discovery – a Lawyer’s Expert" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries , Crime Victims

Bookmark:

In medical malpractice suits alleging wrongful death and brain injury, Circuit Court for the City of Newport News, Virginia, has granted plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaints, including after the statute of limitation has run. The cases are Licare v. Riverside Health System, No. 0702452T-01, and Morel v. Mary Immaculate Nursing Center, Inc., No. CL0703905P-03.

Both medical malpractice decisions were predicted on three independent grounds: (1) Plaintiff not being provided all factual patient care records and papers voluntarily; (2) Plaintiff being delayed by defense pleading; and (3) Plaintiff having originally alleged generally “such other tortious acts and/or omissions as may be investigated, discovered and proved”. Orders were entered in the wrongful death case of Licare on February 1, 2008, and in the brain injury case of Morel on September 2, 2008.

Continue reading "Virginia Medical Malpractice – a Lawyer’s Amendments" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries , Medical Malpractice , Nursing Homes , Wrongful Deaths

Bookmark:

On May 28, 2009, Gloucester Circuit Court granted over Objection the Plaintiff’s Motion to amend their complaint and to depose the primary Defendant for additional time. The case, Gagnon v. Burns, involves brain injury to a student attacked at Gloucester High School.

Continue reading "Virginia Brain Injury: Discovery - a Lawyer’s Deposition" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries , Crime Victims

Bookmark:

On May 8, 2009, Gloucester Circuit Court granted the Motion for Reconsideration of a brain injury plaintiff. The Court Order entered on May 28, 2009, required Gloucester High School to produce the office computer of the defendant Assistant Principal.

Previously the plaintiff brain injury victim had been denied discovery of the defendant’s computer. The case is Gagnon v. Burns.

Continue reading "Virginia Brain Injury: Discovery – a Lawyer’s Computer" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries , Crime Victims

Bookmark:

Today begins the annual convention of the Virginia Trial Lawyer’s Association (“VTLA”) in Williamsburg, Virginia. Avery T. “Sandy” Waterman, Jr., Esq. is one of its Williamsburg Society members and will be attending.

VTLA is an association of trial lawyers from throughout Virginia, many of whom practice vehicle accident, medical malpractice, premises liability, and other personal injury litigation. The Association meets once a year, rotating sites with The Homestead in Hot Springs, Virginia, and The Greenbrier in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia.

The annual convention spans a four-day weekend early each Spring. Members enjoy the wonderful surroundings amid days of continuing legal education (“CLE”).

CLE offerings cover personal injuries such as wrongful death, brain injuries, limb paralysis, and skin burns. Mr. Waterman soon will post new learning from it.

Continue reading "Personal Injury: Virginia Trial Lawyer’s Association – a Lawyer’s Convention" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Brain Injuries , Legal Recognitions , Medical Malpractice , Premises Liability , Vehicle Accidents , Wrongful Deaths

Bookmark:

Defendants routinely oppose motions for leave to amend in wrongful death, brain injury and other cases against them. But Virginia courts routinely grant leave, consistent with the liberal mandate of Virginia Supreme Court Rule 1:8.

“Leave to amend shall be liberally granted in furtherance of the ends of justice.” Va. Sup. Ct. R. 1:8 (emphasis added). Fifty years ago the Virginia Supreme Court embraced its Rule’s liberality toward amendment as the modern trend. “The tendency of modern decisions is reflected in our Rule”. Goode v. Courtney, 200 Va. 804, 807 (1959).

Virginia Circuit Courts routinely grant leave to amend to further justice. E.g., Pedigo v. Flattop Mountain Landowner’s Assn., Inc, 73 Va. Cir. 26, 33 (Greene Dec. 7, 2006); PMG Invs., LLC v. Gravely-Robinson, 71 Va. Cir. 140, 141 (Roanoke Jun. 14, 2006). In PMG, the circuit court granted an amendment on an appeal de novo from General District Court. In Pedigo, the circuit court granted leave to amend after sustaining a demurrer.

“A trial court that fails to allow amendments is likely to have abused its discretion. See, e.g., Peterson v. Castano, 260 Va. 299 534 S.E. 2d 736 (2000); Mortarino v. Consultant Eng’g Servs., Inc., 251 Va. 289 467 S.E. 2d 778 (1996).” Drewery v. City of Roanoke, 63 Va. Cir. 609, 619 (Roanoke Sep. 7, 2001). Kole v. City of Chesapeake, 247 Va. 51 (1994); XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 424 (2006); and Dirtselis v. Dirtselis, 2005 Va. App. LEXIS 451 (Nov. 8, 2005). The Supreme Court of Virginia and the Court of Appeals of Virginia regularly have reversed and remanded for denial of leave to amend. E.g., Peterson, 260 Va. at 303-304; Mortarino, 251 Va. at 295-296; Kole, 247 Va. at 57; XL, 47 Va. App. at 437-438; and Dirtselis, 205 Va. App. LEXIS 451 at *11-14. In Mortarino, the circuit court properly had sustained a demurrer, but “abused its discretion in failing to allow the filing of the amended motion for judgment”. 251 Va. at 296.

In Booher v. Botetourt County Board of Supervisors, 65 Va. Cir. 53, 59-61 (Botetourt Apr. 29, 2004), Defendants variously opposed the motion for leave to amend on grounds of it being unseasonable, the movant not showing it would not be futile, and the movant not having tendered the proposed amendment. But the court found no untimeliness despite months having past since initial filing, where there was no trial date or discovery. Id. at 60. Next the court in Booher rejected the futility assertion: “There is no technical burden upon a party seeking leave to amend to demonstrate that the amendment will not be futile. Nothing within the Rules of Virginia’s jurisprudence calls for such a showing.” Id. Then the Court held that although producing the proposed amendment at hearing “may be preferable and is often done, it is not required.” Id. Finally, Booher observed that the burden instead was on defendant opposing the Motion, who could not show undue prejudice. Id. at 61.

Continue reading "Virginia Amendment: Va. Sup. Ct. Rule 1:8 – a Lawyer’s Motion " »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries , Wrongful Deaths

Bookmark:

This is the last of three posts covering duties of care for protection under Virginia law against criminal conduct of third-parties causing wrongful death, brain injury, and other personal injuries. Virginia recognizes (gratuitously) assumed duties of care.

The Virginia Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that one can assume a duty of care when otherwise none would exist. “As the plaintiffs correctly point out, and the defendants do not dispute, we have cited with approval the legal principal that ‘[i]t is ancient learning that one who assumes to act, even though gratuitously, may thereby become subject to the duty of acting carefully, if he acts at all’.” Didato v. Strehler, 262 Va. 617, 628 (2001)(emphasis added)(and cases cited therein). Significantly, Didato held that even if plaintiffs were unable to establish the prevailing medical standard of care (duty) required the defendant doctors to act, i.e., to notify; the defendants having undertaken in fact to notify properly constituted that they “assumed the duty”. Id. at 629.

Continue reading "Virginia Special Duties of Protection: Assumed – a Lawyer’s Overview" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries , Special Cases , Wrongful Deaths

Bookmark:

This is the second in a three-post series covering Virginia legal duties of care to protect against third-party criminal acts resulting in wrongful death, brain injury, and other personal injuries. In Taboada v. Daly Seven, Inc., 271 Va. 313, 327-328 (2006) on reh. 273 Va. 269 (2007), the Virginia Supreme Court held circuit court erred in sustaining a demurrer to an amended motion for judgment predicated on the duty and responsibility of an innkeeper to a “guest” (versus “business invitee”) for injuries sustained in a criminal assault by a third party on the innkeeper’s premises, where the innkeeper was on notice of its guests being in general danger of injury from prior similar criminal acts, making the act in question “reasonably foreseeable” (even though there was no warning in particular about it).

On an “issue of first impression,” the Virginia Supreme Court in Taboada found that innkeeper and guest presented a special relationship with an elevated “duty of ‘utmost care and diligence’ to protect the guest against reasonably foreseeable injury from the criminal conduct of a third party.” 271 Va. at 327. Taboada first observed that a common carrier’s duty of care to passengers was justified “because the passenger entrusts their safety to the carrier,” which his superior knowledge and ability about conditions and dangers. “This imbalance of knowledge and control warrants imposition of a duty on a common carrier ‘to protect its passengers against violence or disorderly conduct on the part of its own agents, or other passengers or strangers, when such violence or misconduct may be reasonably expected and prevented”. Id. at 325.

Taboada then likened common carrier passengers to innkeeper guests to impose the same duty of care.“[T]he guest of an innkeeper entrusts his safety to the innkeeper and has little ability to control his environment. The guest relies upon the innkeeper to make the property safe and the innkeeper’s knowledge of the neighborhood in taking the reasonably necessary precautions to do so. In this regard, it is reasonable for the law to impose upon the innkeeper, as a common carrier, a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect his guests against any injury caused by the criminal conduct on the part of other guests or strangers if the danger of injury by such conduct is known to the innkeeper or reasonably foreseeable.” Id. at 325-326. The Virginia Supreme Court in Taboada delineated that the requisite “notice of a specific danger” equated to the “concept of a reasonably foreseeable danger,” not the heightened degree of foreseeability if an “imminent probability of harm”. Id. at 327 (emphasis added). The plaintiff’s allegations of repeated prior criminal incidents on-premises over a protracted period satisfied the requirement of “notice that its guests were in danger of injury caused by similar criminal acts of third parties”. Id.

Continue reading "Virginia Special Duties of Protection: Elevated – a Lawyer’s Overview" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries , Special Cases , Wrongful Deaths

Bookmark:

This concludes the five-part series on Virginia sovereign immunity pleaded in the brain injury case of Gregory Joseph Gagnon, et al. v. Travis Burns, et al., No. CL08-572 in Gloucester County Circuit Court. It covers the gross negligence exception, which the victim Plaintiff also was alleged.

In a 2003 school board employee case, the Virginia Supreme Court reversed and remanded the trial court’s judgment that a student plaintiff’s allegation for gross negligence against his football coach was factually insufficient as a matter of law. In Koffman, “gross negligence” was defined as “that degree of negligence which shows indifference to others as constitutes an utter disregard of prudence amounting to a complete neglect of the safety of [another].” 265 Va. at 15. “Because reasonable persons could disagree on this issue” of alleged gross negligence in the tackling demonstration, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in Koffman that “a jury issue was present”. Id. at 16.

Even Green v. Ingram, 269 Va. 281, 291-292 (2005), relied upon by the Assistant Principal in Gagnon, found plaintiff raised a jury question on the sovereign immunity issue of gross negligence, noting that the difference between gross negligence and ordinary negligence (versus recklessness willfulness or wantonness) simply was “one of degree” (versus a “matter of kind”). doing absolutely nothing at all after unequivocally assuring that he would alert security for the impending altercation about which he warned and his protection was sought presents a prima facie case of gross negligence to be decided by a jury.

The Assistant Principal in Gagnon claims that “Banks v. Sellers [ 224 Va. 168 (1984)] concerned facts almost identical to the facts alleged in this case”. But the brain injury victim in Gagnon asserts that Banks actually is distinguishable on multiple grounds.

First, Banks was handed down before the seminal opinions of the Virginia Supreme Court in Koffman, Friday-Spivey, Heider, and Lentz, when in general the then-evolving law of sovereign immunity still was not settled completely, when in particular the focus was on the judgment and discretion of the general position versus on the specific wrongful act as it is now. Second, Banks involved the “principal,” not an “assistant principal” as in the matter sub judice. Third, Banks only alleged simple negligence, not gross negligence as in the matter sub judice. Fourth, Banks involved a sharply divided Court, with three dissents and a “concur in result” as the swing vote; times in general and schools in particular unfortunately have changed materially for the worse in the 27 years since Banks was decided, school administration of necessity now routinely involves physical safety measures metal detectors, on-premises security, etc. as in the matter sub judice; and Taboada v. Daly Seven, Inc., 271 Va. 313 (2006) on reh. 273 Va. 269 (2007) calls into question the continuing viability of Banks even on its own facts.

Continue reading "Virginia Sovereign Immunity: Gross Negligence – a Lawyer’s Exception" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries , Special Cases , Wrongful Deaths

Bookmark:

This is the fourth in the five-part series from the brain injury case of Gregory Joseph Gagnon, et al. v. Travis Burns, et al., No. CL08-572 in Gloucester County Circuit Court. It concludes the ministerial act exception to Virginia sovereign immunity.

There are four additional sovereign immunity cases evincing that an individual employee like Defendant, Travis Burns, still is liable for “simple negligence in the performance of a ministerial act”. See, Exhibit A, Jennings v. Hart, No. 3:08CV00028, Memorandum and Order (W.D. Va. Mar. 17, 2009)(Virginia law); Hughes v. Lake Taylor City Hosp., 54 Va. Cir. 239 (Norfolk Dec. 13, 2000); Exhibit B, Fender v. Cendana, No. 96-6844, Op. Letter and Order (Albemarle Jan. 28, 1998); Deeds v. DiMercurio, 30 Va. Cir. 532 (Albemarle Sep. 4, 1991). They are dispositive of Gagnon.

In Jennings this year, sheriff department employees denied medical care to an inmate who ultimately died. Memorandum Op. at 1-3. United States District Court properly focused on the particular act in question (rather than the actor’s general position), principally citing James, and denied the motion to dismiss.

“The doctrine of sovereign immunity applies to acts that are discretionary, but not ministerial, in nature. * * * * The fact that the provision of medical care to Jennings initially involved the exercise of some judgment and discretion, however, does not necessarily mean that the Defendants should be entitled to sovereign immunity. Every act involves the exercise of at least some amount of discretion. See, Memorandum Op. at 5 (underlining added)(italics in original). Judge Moon in Jennings delineated, “Whether a matter is truly committed to the discretion of a government employee is therefore a question of degree and requires a analysis of the circumstances of a particular situation. * * * [W]ell before Jennings was taken to the hospital, the circumstances were such that the Defendants lacked the discretion to keep her at the jail and deny her the opportunity to be seen by a neurologist or other medical professional. Id. at 6. (emphasis added).

In Hughes in 2000, nurses and a therapist misclassified a patient as “DNR” versus “full code” status and failed to arrange her emergency transport as ordered, causing death. 54 Va. Cir. at 239. Norfolk Circuit Court correctly focused on the particular act in question (instead of the actor’s general positions), citing principally James, and overruled their special plea. Id. at 242-244.

Continue reading "Virginia Sovereign Immunity: Ministerial Acts – a Lawyer’s Exception (III)" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries , Special Cases , Wrongful Deaths

Bookmark:

This is the third in the five-part series from the brain injury case of Gregory Joseph Gagnon, et al. v. Travis Burns, et al., No. CL08-572 in Gloucester County Circuit Court. It continues the ministerial act exception to Virginia sovereign immunity.

Heider and Friday-Spivey have articulated and promoted the ministerial act exception to sovereign immunity, such that it increasingly has gained traction in the circuit courts throughout the Commonwealth. Not surprisingly, much of their progeny are cases about the ministerial act of driving. E.g., Lake, supra (law enforcement officer driving to suspected homicide scene in Prince George); Baker, supra (game warden driving on patrol for potential law breakers in Fauquier); Ferro, supra (social worker driving transport of an upset teenager in Prince William); Howard, supra (dump truck operator driving route in Richmond); Daddio, supra (fire fighter driving to station for fire call in Loudoun); and Diaz, supra (unspecified employee driving in Norfolk). However, various other cases exemplify the breadth of the ministerial act doctrine, including notably in circumstances apparently presenting more arguable judgment and discretion than the matter sub judice. E.g., Ford, supra (Commonwealth doctor leaving gauze in wound); Gray, supra (Commonwealth nurse placing line in wrong blood vessel); Habib, supra (Commonwealth transportation inspectors failing to correct defective roadway); MFC, supra (Commonwealth special agent destroying explosives); and Yassa, supra (City zoning administrator approving plot plan). In Gagnon, the brain injury victim asserts that Defendant Assistant Principal Burns failing to call the security officers as he needed and assured patently is a ministerial act.

In Ford, a 2002 malpractice case, the patient alleged that the defendant Commonwealth doctor negligently left infectious gauze in his hip would by “failing to fully explore the wound to remove foreign objects during dressing changes; by failing to suspect and search for a foreign body when the plaintiff showed signs of infection; and by failing to identify the hip wound as the site of infection”. 58 Va. Cir. at 429. Rappahannock County Circuit Court properly focused on the particular act in question (rather than the actor’s general position), citing James, Messina, and Heider; and overruled the plea in bar.

“While it may be said that providing health care services necessarily involves the exercise of some discretion, such discretion may be so inconsequential as to be of little significance when considering a grant of immunity to the health care provider.” Judge Horne continued in Ford, “the procedure that gave rise to the instant action involves a routine medical procedure. For purposes of the analysis, the Court determines based on the experience of Dr. Danisa, that this was a ministerial act not requiring the exercise of judgment and discretion.” Id. at 331-432.

In Gray, a 1996 malpractice case, Commonwealth nurses allegedly inserted a medication line into the wrongful blood vessel. Richmond Circuit Court properly focused on the particular act in question (instead of the actors’ general positions), considering James and citing Heider.

Continue reading "Virginia Sovereign Immunity: Ministerial Acts – a Lawyer’s Exception (II)" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries , Special Cases , Wrongful Deaths

Bookmark:

In Gregory Joseph Gagnon, et al. v. Travis Burns, et al., No. CL08-572 in Circuit Court for Gloucester County, the brain injury victim is contesting the Assistant Principal’s Plea of Sovereign Immunity. One ground for opposition is that the Defendant’s alleged wrongful act is simply ministerial, which continues the five-part series.

Following James v. Jane, 221 Va. 43, 53 (1980) and Messina v. Burden, 228 Va. 301, 313, the Virginia Supreme Court in Lentz v. Morris, 236 Va. 78, 82 (1984)(emphasis added), focused the inquiry on “whether the alleged wrongful act involved the exercise of judgment and discretion” or simply was a ministerial one. Subsequently in First Va., the wrongful act was a Deputy Clerk’s indexing error. The Virginia Supreme Court reversed circuit court sustaining a demurrer, because “the negligence underlying the bank’s claim was malfeasance of a ministerial duty and ther cloak of sovereign immunity does not cover such torts.” 225 Va. at 77.

Again citing James, the Virginia Supreme Court in Heider again focused on the wrongful act and elaborated that some situations present only a “ministerial obligation,” while other instances involve “acts of judgment and discretion;” such that defendant’s claim of sovereign immunity must be scrutinized on the particular facts of the case. “The holding and principle announced fifty years ago in Wynn [v. Grandy, 170 Va. 590 (1938)] remain viable today. While every person driving a car must make myriad decisions, in ordinary driving situations the duty of due care is a ministerial obligation. The defense of sovereign immunity applies only to acts of judgment and discretion which are necessary to the performance of the governmental function itself.In some instances, the operation of an automobile may fall into this category, such as the discretionary judgment involvement in vehicular pursuit by a law enforcement officer. However, under the circumstances of this case, the simple operation of an automobile did not involve special risks arising from the governmental activity, or the exercise of judgment or discretion about the proper means of effectuating the governmental purpose of the driver’s employer. Thus, on the showing here, the trial court properly held that Heider was not entitled to the defense of sovereign immunity.” 241 Va. at 145 (citations omitted). In Heider, a deputy sheriff driving while serving judicial process had collided with a motorcyclist.

The Virginia Supreme Court reaffirmed Heider in Friday-Spivey in 2004, focusing on the wrongful act yet again. In Friday-Spivey, a fire truck operator unsuccessfully sought sovereign immunity for personal injuries caused in responding to rescue a child locked in a car. The defendant unpersuasively cited “as examples of discretion and judgment his determination of the route to be taken and the maneuvering of the 40,000 pound pumper truck through traffic [and] the inherent difficulty and special skills required in operating a specialized piece of equipment”. Id. at 388. “Despite a natural inclination to classify the report of a child in a locked car as an ‘emergency,’ the facts of the case do not support the conclusion that Collier’s driving involved the exercise of judgment and discretion beyond that required for ordinary driving in routine traffic situations. * * * * The special skill and training required to operate a fire truck under these circumstances is not the exercise per se of judgment and discretion for purposes of sovereign immunity.” Id. at 390. The defendant’s “driving was a ministerial act requiring no significant judgment and discretion beyond that of ordinary driving in routine traffic.” Id. Thus, the Virginia Supreme Court concluded in Friday-Spivey that the fire truck operator “did not exercise judgment and discretion beyond that necessary in a ordinary driving situation – a ministerial act. As such, he is not entitled to sovereign immunity for his alleged negligence.” Id. (reversing grant of plea in bar and remanding for further proceedings).

Continue reading "Virginia Sovereign Immunity: Ministerial Acts – a Lawyer’s Exception (I)" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries , Special Cases , Wrongful Deaths

Bookmark:

In Virginia, the Commonwealth, counties, cities, towns, school boards, agencies, and sometimes even their employees enjoy sovereign immunity from the wrongful deaths, brain injuries and other personal injuries they cause. Currently an Assistant Principal is claiming sovereign immunity for brain injuries suffered by a student who was attacked at Gloucester High School after the Assistant Principal allegedly was warned of the impending attack, assured he would notify security personnel on premises, and did nothing instead. See, Gregory J. Gagnon, et al. v. Travis Burns, et al., No. CL08-572 in Gloucester County Circuit Court.

This is the first in a five-part series on exceptions to Virginia sovereign immunity. The series will be followed by a related post on duties of school board employees and others.

Virginia law is clear that even if a governmental entity is immune, its employees individually still are liable for simple negligence in the performance of a ministerial act. E.g., Friday-Spivey v. Collier, 268 Va. 384, 388-391 (2004); Heider v. Clemons, 241 Va. 143, 145 (1991); First Va. Bank-Colonial v. Baker, 225 Va. 72, 78 (1983); Lake v. Mitchell, 2008 Va. Cir. LEXIS 118, * 1, 7-8 & 12, (Prince George May 23, 2008)(relied on by Defendant at bar at discovery hearing); Baker v. Miller, 74 Va. Cir. 98, 99-100 (Fauquier Aug. 7, 2007); Ferro v. Shifflett, 72 Va. Cir. 298, 302-303 (Prince William Nov. 29, 2006); Howard v. Streater, 71 Va. Cir. 61 (Richmond Apr. 24, 2006); Ford v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. Cir. 428, 429-431 (Rappahannock Apr. 3, 2002); Daddio v. Ashley, 43 Va. Cir. 283, 285 (Loudon Sep. 3, 1997); Gray v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. Cir. 419, 421-422 (Richmond Oct. 24, 1996); Diaz v. Mendoza, 46 Va. Cir. 491, 493 (Norfolk Aug. 16, 1995); Habib v. Blanchard, 25 Va. Cir. 451, 453-455 (Fairfax Nov. 13, 1991); MFC Partnership v. Foster, 6 Va. Cir. 349, 356-357 (Lee Jul. 16, 1986); and Yassa v. Moore, 3 Va. Cir. 189, 191-192 (Alexandria May 2, 1984). Additionally, it is clear that governmental employees also still are liable for gross negligence in the performance of any act, including one of judgment and discretion. E.g., B.M.H. v. The School Board of the City of Chesapeake, Virginia, 833 F. Supp. 560, 574 (E.D. Va. 1993) (Virginia law)(school board employee); Koffman v. Garnett, 265 Va. 12, 15 (2003)(school board employee); Verry v. Barry, 72 Va. Cir. 318, 321 (Fairfax Jul. 27, 2006); Kern v. Allee, 2006 Va. Cir. LEXIS 19, * 6-7 (Nelson Feb. 8, 2006)(school board employee); Daddio, supra, 43 Va. Cir. at 286; and Hawkins v. Pinkerton’s, Inc., 42 Va. Cir. 316, 319 (Petersburg May 27, 1997)(cited by Defendant). Cf., Altizer v. County of Tazewell, Va., 2008 Va. Cir. LEXIS 13, * 3-5 (Nelson Feb. 8, 2008).

Continue reading "Virginia’s Sovereign Immunity Overview: a Lawyer’s Exceptions" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries , Special Cases , Wrongful Deaths

Bookmark:

Plaintiffs in Gregory Joseph Gagnon, et al. v. Travis Burns, et al., No. CL08-572 in Circuit Court for Gloucester County, Virginia, are the family of a student who suffered brain injuries. Defendant Assistant Principal additionally seeks to interpose Va Code Ann. §8.01-47.

§8.01-47 immunizes a “principal…who, in good faith with reasonable cause and without malice, acts to report, investigate or cause any investigation” of certain school activity vis-à-vis the “making of such report, investigation or disclosure”. §8.01-47 must be strictly construed because it is in derogation of common law. Morris, supra.

But Gagnon is not an action for slander, libel, invasion of privacy, etc. for “making of such a report, investigation or disclosure,” as contemplated by §8.01-47. §8.01-47 is not applicable to an action for physical personal injuries for not making an investigation and taking action, which is the facts of Gagnon.

Continue reading "Gloucester County Schools: Va. Code Ann. §8.01-47 – a Lawyer’s Immunity" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries , Special Cases , Wrongful Deaths

Bookmark:

In Gregory Joseph Gagnon, et al. v. Travis Burns, et al., No. CL08-572 in Circuit Court for Gloucester County, Virginia, inter alia Defendant Assistant Principal seeks to interpose Va. Code Ann. §15.2-209. But the statute’s “notice” requirement is inapplicable to this brain injury case on several independent grounds.

§15.2-209 was passed in the 2007 session of the General Assembly and did not become effective until July 1, 2007. Hence it does not apply retroactively to causes of action accruing before that date.

§15.2-209 as a statute “in derogation of the common law . . . must be ‘strictly construed and not . . . enlarged in [its] operation by construction beyond [its] express terms’.” Univ. of Va. Health Servs. Found v. Morris, 275 Va. 319, 332 (2008). It also must be strictly construed because §15.2-209 so states expressly. See, §15.2-209(G). Such strict construction limits the applicability of §15.2-209 in several significant ways.

First, by its own language, §15.2-209 is strictly limited only to a claim for simple “negligence”. See, §15.2-209(A). It does not apply to claims of recklessness or gross negligence.

Second, by its own language, §15.2-209 applies only to a “county, city, or town,” not to a “school board”. §8.01-222 was the predecessor of §15.2-209: §8.01-222 was repealed incident to §15.2-209 being enacted by 2007 Senate Bill 913, approved March 15, 2007. §8.01-222 covered only a “city” or “town”. §15.2-209 added only a “county”. If the General Assembly meant to cover a “school board,” it could, should and would have done so in its new enactment; but it did not.

Continue reading "Gloucester County Schools: Va. Code Ann. §15.2-209 – a Lawyer’s Notice " »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries , Special Cases , Wrongful Deaths

Bookmark:

On February 23, 2009, Gloucester Circuit Court ruled that a Plaintiff brain injury victim was entitled to all school records concerning his attack, despite Gloucester High School keeping them solely in the files of his attacker, another student named Co-Defendant with its Assistant Principal. The case is Gregory Joseph Gagnon, et al. v. Travis Burns, et al., No. CL08-572.

Assistant Principal Burns and the Gloucester County School Board had sought to keep the investigative records secret, claiming Va. Code Ann. § 22.1-287 imbued them with “privilege”. However, §22.1-287 only subjects such records to certain limitations (versus absolute privilege), and specifically excepts involved students, their parents, and judicial discovery.

Plaintiff brain injury victim successfully relied on Bunch v. Artz, 71 Va. Cir. 358 (Portsmouth Aug. 15, 2006), the leading opinion applying §22.1-287. In Bunch, school pupil records were subject to the ordinary rules of discovery and ordered produced.

Continue reading "Gloucester School Records: Va. Code Ann. §22.1-287 – a Lawyer’s Discovery" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries , Legal Recognitions , Special Cases

Bookmark:

Newport News Circuit Court ruled on discovery matters in a patient fall suit, Shakshober v. Riverside Hospital, Inc., alleging medical malpractice and resulting brain injury. That was at contradictory hearing on February 9, 2009.

The primary sweep of the impending Discovery Order was disgorging from Riverside materials and of its Nursing Schools. Included were materials, other information and witnesses on Nursing School policies, procedures, protocols, presentations, and all teaching or instruction about patient falls.

Having its Nursing Schools’ material, information and testimony helps greatly in exposing the truth about what goes on vis-à-vis nursing error and holds Riverside to it. Evidence which otherwise arguably may not be introduced in a medical malpractice case when offered as that of the Riverside entity employing a substandard nurse, still may be admissible as that of Riverside’s Nursing Schools. Riverside Hosp., Inc. v. Johnson, 272 Va. 518, 528-530 (2006).

Secondarily, but importantly, the Discovery Order compels Riverside to tender appropriate corporate representatives for deposition. Riverside unfairly continues not to tender its most knowledgeable personnel for its deposition, which dodges patient fall and other medical malpractice victims pinning down the corporation in testimony.

Continue reading "Newport News Medical Malpractice: Riverside Discovery Order – a Lawyer’s Experience" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries , Legal Recognitions , Medical Malpractice , Nursing Homes , Patient Falls

Bookmark:

A Virginia motorist faces potential liability for a vehicle accident that injures bicyclist. Avery T. “Sandy” Waterman, Jr., Esq. has filed suit in the Newport News Division of United States District Court and recovered $350,000.00 for wrongful death of a bicyclist struck by a York County bus. McCormick v. White, No 4:97cv44 (E.D. Va.).

The recumbent bicyclist in McCormick just had dipped his wheels in the Atlantic to start a cross-country trek to the Pacific when he was rear-ended by a school bus on the Colonial Parkway near Yorktown. The victim suffered a fatal brain injury.

The only surviving witness to the McCormick vehicle accident was the bus driver. Roadway, bicycle, and bus data controverted the self-serving account of the Defendant.

Mr. Waterman retained a civil engineer to survey the Colonial Parkway, bicycle and bus, and a physicist/animator to input and calculate data. The end-product was an extraordinary video that convincingly animated the vehicle accident scenario.

The McCormick wrongful death suit settled promptly after the video animation was provided to the defense by Mr. Waterman. The settlement was reported by Virginia Lawyers Weekly.

Continue reading "Virginia Vehicle Accidents: Bicyclists, Brain Injury & Wrongful Death – A Lawyer’s Case" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Brain Injuries , Legal Recognitions , Vehicle Accidents , Wrongful Deaths

Bookmark:

Despite overwhelming statistics that seatbelt use greatly reduces wrongful death and brain injuries in car accidents, some drivers and passengers make up unfounded excuses for not wearing them. Some common erroneous thinking is:

A. I am, or am riding with, a good driver;

B. I am not driving far from home;

C. I am not driving on the highway; and

D. I rather be thrown away from the crash than trapped inside the vehicle.

A military “Safety Training 2005” publication based on statistics from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration states the real facts:

1. Even good drivers have vehicle accidents beyond their control due to vehicle, weather, road and/or other driver conditions;

2. Most vehicle accidents happen within 25 miles of home;

Continue reading "Car Accidents, Wrongful Death & Brain Injury – A Lawyer’s Facts" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Brain Injuries , Client Considerations , Vehicle Accidents , Wrongful Deaths

Bookmark:

Car accidents occur constantly. But many crash-related wrongful deaths and brain injuries can be avoided by wearing seatbelts.

In September, 2008, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) noted for passenger vehicle accidents: “Research has found that lap/shoulder seat belts, when used reduce the risk of fatal injury by front-seat passenger car occupants by 45 percent and the risk of moderate-to-critical injury by 50 percent. In 2006 alone, seat belts saved an estimated 15,383 lives.”

NHTSA statistics show general seat belt usage up incrementally and wrongful deaths decreasing. This Valentine’s Day, be sure that your loved ones and you “buckle up” to minimize the chance of wrongful death and brain injury.

Continue reading "Car Accidents, Wrongful Death & Brain Injury – A Lawyer’s Statistics" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Brain Injuries , Client Considerations , Vehicle Accidents , Wrongful Deaths

Bookmark:

The defense may dispute mild and even moderate traumatic brain injury, particularly where neuroimaging is inconclusive. The defense opportunistically may contest the fact of brain injury and, alternatively, may assert that the victim is malingering.

The victim’s lawyer must protect his brain injury client against any such unfounded ploy with motions in limine, objections at trial, etc. As gatekeeper, Virginia Courts must be vigilant against introduction of malingering testimony, which is highly prejudicial and variously inadmissible.

Although the Virginia Supreme Court has not ruled substantively on malingering testimony, many of its opinions provide ample general guidance such evidence. For example, the defense bears the burden of proving that such testimony is founded on proper expert qualifications, assists the jury, does not invade the jury’s province, does not violate physician-patient confidentiality, is not speculative, is not missing variables, does not include hearsay, is based on scientifically reliable methods, is to the appropriate degree of certainty, is not cumulative, is more probative than prejudicial, etc.

Continue reading "Virginia Traumatic Brain Injuries – a Lawyer’s Non-Malingerer" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Brain Injuries , Defense Tactics , Medical Malpractice , Vehicle Accidents

Bookmark:

Use of neuroradiology is critical to diagnosis of traumatic brain injuries in general. Use of the best imaging techniques may be crucial to accurate evaluation of mild and diffuse axonal injury in particular.

Computerized Axial Tomography (“CAT”), renamed Computer Tomography (“CT”), scans still are entrenched as the front-line neuroradiological imaging for many because of their relative availability and low cost. But “CAT fever” has its limitations and detractors, with CT scans showing false negatives in virtually all cases of mild traumatic brain injuries and in some others too.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (“MRI”) is more sensitive than CT. But most traditional clinical MRI also show mild traumatic brain injuries as normal, because it relies on signs of edema and structural abnormalities, which are just the tip-of-the-iceberg fordiffuse axonal injury.

The vast majority of MRIs are low resolution 0.15-1.5 Tesla (“T”); relatively few are the “gold standard” high-resolution 3T available by 2004. In the United States, there are only a half-dozen 7T (located in Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis and Portland); and a single 9.4T in Chicago, the world’s most powerful medical one, which hopefully soon will offer real-time view of metabolic processes safely.

New MRI-based diffusion tensor imaging (“DTI”) advances sensitivity toward micro-structural lesions and changes implicated thereby. This brilliant cutting-edge technique measures fractional anisotropy variations and fiber bundle discontinuity in white matter locations.

Functional imaging techniques of positron emission tomography (“PET”) Single Photo Emission Computed Tomography (“SPECT”) and MRI-based spectroscopy (“MRS” or “MRSI”) are complementary to the foregoing anatomical imaging. PET measures cellular function, SPECT measures blood flow, and MRS/MRSI measures chemical changes – all as metabolic markers of neuronal integrity or damage.

Continue reading "Virginia Traumatic Brain Injuries – a Lawyer’s Diagnostic" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Brain Injuries , Patient Falls , Vehicle Accidents

Bookmark:

Traumatic brain injuries frequently are closed-head sequelae of high-velocity acceleration, deceleration and/or rotational force incidents, such as vehicle accidents or patient falls. Significantly, no direct impact is necessary for causation, although often it is present and intensifies injury.

Rapid external acceleration, deceleration and/or rotational forces propel the unprotected soft brain within the hard bony skull. Those forces strain, stretch and finally shear delicate minute blood vessels and nerve fibers irrepairably, and are followed by biochemical degradation.

Much traumatic brain injury consists of diffuse axonal injury. Lesions and lacerations dispersed throughout the brain are the observable tip-of-the-iceberg of such injury and ultimately result in permanent degeneration, scarring and/or cavities.

With injury occurring at the neuronal level, the damage may not be discernable using only a CT scan, particularly in cases of mild traumatic brain injury. That primary diagnostic technique may have to be supplemented with other more expensive neuroimaging, such as MRI and even PET, SPECT or EEG; so not to overlook demonstrable injury.

Despite many victims having an outwardly normal appearance, clinically-observable damages flowing from traumatic brain injury are numerous, wide-ranging, and frequently permanent, increasing and disabling, such as persistent postconcussive syndrome – hence the national Center for Disease Control refers to it as the “silent epidemic”. Classic neurobehavioral symptoms, deficits and disorders include but are not limited to: physical (headaches, neck/back pain, tinnitus, hearing loss, aural-sensitivity, blurred vision, diplopia, photo-sensitivity, diminished taste, diminished smell, fatigue, drowsiness, seizures, tremors, sleep disturbance, vertigo/dizziness, imbalance, decreased appetite, and increased risk of altzheimer’s disease and morbidity); psychological/affective (personality change, depression, anxiety, irritability, agitation, aggression, impulsivity, moodiness, disinhibition, altered sexuality, and limited self-awareness); cognitive (visual-perceptual alteration, attention/concentration impairment, memory dysfunction, decreased processing/reaction, decreased understanding/insight, decreased reasoning/judgment, language/communication difficulties and learning problems); and socioeconomic (increase risks of interpersonal disputes, regression/dependency, suicide, divorce, substance abuse, vocational problems, occupational problems, chronic unemployment/underemployment, and economic strain).

Continue reading "Virginia Accidental Brain Injuries – a Lawyer’s Overview" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Brain Injuries , Patient Falls , Vehicle Accidents

Bookmark:

On January 8, 2009, The Daily Press covered a successor suit for traumatic brain injury filed by Avery T. “Sandy” Waterman, Jr., Esq. in Gloucester. Its headline is titled “New suit seeks $9M over fight”.

In December, 2006, a Gloucester High School student was victim of a vicious unprovoked assault and battery by another student, who allegedly was encouraged to attack by his older sister. The siblings recently were named as Defendants since both now have graduated and are adults.

Gloucester Assistant Principal Travis Burns remains the primary Defendant for his alleged gross negligence in completely abdicating his ministerial duty to intervene as specifically requested and promised hours beforehand. By Deposition attached as an exhibit, a fellow student already has testified under oath that Burns assured he would alert Gloucester High School, security hours before the attack; and by separate Affidavits attached as exhibits, the victims parents have averred further under oath Burns subsequently admitted to each of them independently that he “dropped the ball” in not protecting their child at school.

The attack victim suffered traumatic brain injuries which persist and increase, including among other things memory loss; balance, vision and learning problems; seizures; and psychological issues. As averred, he needed special academic accommodation to graduate Gloucester High School; cannot attend college or even drive; and has limited employment and other prospects.

Although the suit has requested $9,350,000.00 for the victim’s damages, Mr. Waterman previously sought unsuccessfully to settle case with Assistant Principal Burns and the Gloucester County School Board within their very substantial insurance coverage limits and remains open to such a resolution. So far, Mr. Waterman has discovered two insurance policies covering Burns that can provide at least $6,000,000.00 in coverage for his client’s traumatic brain injuries.

The suit also alleges that Gloucester officials have secreted all school investigative materials in the attacker’s records to keep them from the assault and battery victim. Any such withholding of key facts enables Defendants to deny them without impeachment.

Continue reading "Gloucester $9,350,000.00 Brain Injury Suit – a Lawyer’s Coverage" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Brain Injuries , Crime Victims , Legal Recognitions

Bookmark:

On January 7, 2009, the Gloucester Gazette reported a brain injury suit filed by Avery T. “Sandy” Waterman, Jr., Esq. The article is titled “Suit seeks $9 million in GHS incident”.

Virginia Municipal League Insurance Programs retained Richmond counsel for Defendant, Assistant Principal Burns, who was new on the job in 2006. Burns enjoys $6,000,000.00 in insurance coverage for the GHS assault and battery.

The Plaintiff suffered permanent brain injuries in 2006 from being attacked by another student, who reportedly was encouraged by his older sister. Gloucester High School made accommodations to allow the victim to graduate in 2007.

By deposition, another Gloucester High student testified that he warned Assistant Principal Burns the victim was being targeted for an altercation, that Burns promised he would alert security, and that Burns took absolutely no action instead. By affidavits, both of the victims’ parents swore under oath Burns admitted his fault, that he had “dropped the ball”.

Continue reading "Gloucester $9,000,000 Brain Injury Insured – a Lawyer’s Representation" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Brain Injuries , Crime Victims , Legal Recognitions

Bookmark:

On January 16, 2008, The Daily Press reported a $2,350,000.00 suit filed by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. for traumatic brain injury suffered by a Gloucester High student attacked at school. New Assistant Principal Travis Burns was named a Defendant based on sworn Affidavit allegations of a fellow student that previously he warned Burns of the attack, that Burns assured him school security would be alerted, and that Burns did absolutely nothing instead.

The assault and battery was committed by another student at Gloucester High School. Gloucester County Sheriff’s Office responded to the attack and recommended charging the perpetrator with “malicious wounding”.

The attack was aggravated for being unprovoked and causing permanent brain injury. Among other things, the victim immediately required and still requires healthcare intervention by multiple providers; needed significant special academic accommodations by Gloucester High School to graduate, and cannot continue with college education; and still suffers from memory and other problems.

Continue reading "Gloucester $2,350,000.00 Brain Injury – a Lawyer’s Filing" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Brain Injuries , Crime Victims , Legal Recognitions

Bookmark: