California Traumatic Brain Injury Lawyers - TBI Attorneys - Serving Northern and Southern California in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area, From San Diego to Sacramento, in Orange County San Fernando Valley Ventura Fresno Santa Clara County San Jose and Oakland.
If you have suffered an accident involving impact to your head or rapid back and forward head motion resulting in traumatic brain injury or suspected TBI, you are encouraged to contact our California TBI lawyers for a free consultation. Simply submit the e-mail form California TBI Lawyers Case Evaluation Request and California traumatic brain injury lawyer, Ray Henke, will personally call you to discuss the facts of your case and provide his initial impressions and recommendations.Immediately below our California TBI lawyers will define traumatic brain injury, the mechanisms by which traumatic brain injury most often occurs, the categories which are commonly used to describe its severity, the symptoms of TBI, the common testing used to aid in its diagnosis, and the litigation strategies in traumatic brain injury cases, including the measure of damages recoverable in TBI litigation, and how qualified California traumatic brain injury lawyers most effectively present the brain injured plaintiff's damages for consideration by juries.
Following that we will discuss our qualifications as TBI lawyers. In the right hand column of this page we also discuss briefly TBI attorney, Henke's general trial lawyer credentials, and his national reputation and recognition as a preeminent California trial lawyer. After reviewing our credentials we hope that you will consider permitting us to review your case. We are here to serve you. Simply fill out the e-mail form "California Traumatic Brain Injury Lawyers Case Evaluation Request.
Our California Traumatic Brain Injury Lawyers First Discuss The Mechanisms By Which TBI Most Commonly Occurs.
Traumatic brain injury generally refers to a closed head injury commonly resulting from external impact to the head such as may occur in auto accident or any type of accident in which the ther is an impact to the head. But traumatic brain injury does not always require an impact to the head. It can also result from a quick acceleration of the head followed by quick deceleration, as commonly will occur in rear end accidents where the driver or passenger is restrained by a seat belt. This can result from the brain contacting the skull or it can occur as the result of diffuse axonal shearing from rotational acceleration and then deceleration, resulting a sliding of layers of the brain because of disparity in the density of the layers. A third mechanism is "cavitation," which is the process of microscopic bubbles forming as the result of alteration pressure in the brain from the rapid movement of the brain, and then when the brain moves back, the microscopic bubbles burst causing brain damage.
Our California TBI Attorneys Discuss What In Medicine Is Categorized as "Mild," "Moderate," and Severe Traumatic Brain Injury, While Maintaining That All Brain Injury is Serious For Those Who Are Injured.
From the perspective of our California TBI Attorneys, all traumatic brain injury is serious, and it is our experience that this is also the perspective of all who suffer TBI. However, the discipline of medicine has seen fit to characterize traumatic brain injury into the categories of mild, moderate and severe, so without in any way discounting the seriousness of what medicine would define as "mild" or "moderate" brain injury, we will discuss these categories in the terms assigned to them by the discipline of medicine.
There are various definitions of mild traumatic brain injury, but one adopted by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) is: "A person with a mild TBI may remain conscious or may experience a loss of consciousness for a few seconds or minutes. Other symptoms of mild TBI include headache, confusion, lightheadedness, dizziness, blurred vision or tired eyes, ringing in the ears, bad taste in the mouth, fatigue or lethargy, a change in sleep patterns, behavioral or mood changes, and trouble with memory, concentration, attention, or thinking." The Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee of the Head Injury Interdisciplinary Special Interest Group of the American Congress of Rehabilitative Medicine defines "mild TBI" as follows: "A patient with mild traumatic brain injury is a person who has had a traumatically induced physiological disruption of brain function, as manifest by at least one of the following: (1) any period of loss of consciousness; (2) any loss of memory for events immediately before or after the accident; (3) focal neurological deficits that may or may not be transient, but where the severity the injury does not exceed the following: (a) post traumatic amnesia not greater than 24 hours; (b) after thirty minutes, an initial Glasgow Coma Scale of 13 to 15, or (c) loss of consciousness of approximately 30 minutes or less.
Notwithstanding these definitions, it should be recognized that the majority of mild TBI will not be diagnosed, either because the injured individual may not seek medical care, or because the emergency room physicians or general practitioners whom the patient consults may lack the training to diagnose it or may fail to conduct the appropriate examination or recognize the symptoms. Nevertheless, the individual suffering mild TBI may suffer difficulties in his life, including physical symptoms such as sleep disturbance, nausea, dizziness, headaches, burred vision, or fatigue; he may suffer cognitive changes such as difficulty with attention and concentration, memory, or speech; and behavioral changes, irritability, disinhibition or the opposite, emotional lability. The individual's affect and personality may appear different to those who are close to him and his relationships with family and friends may suffer as a consequence.
NINDS defines moderate and severe traumatic brain injury in the following terms: "A person with a moderate or severe TBI may show these same symptoms, but may also have a headache that gets worse or does not go away, repeated vomiting or nausea, convulsions or seizures, an inability to awaken from sleep, dilation of one or both pupils of the eyes, slurred speech, weakness or numbness in the extremities, loss of coordination, and increased confusion, restlessness, or agitation."
Those categorized by moderate and severe traumatic brain injury may have sustained a concussion or hemorrhage or more enduring loss of consciousness. Those who sustain skull fractures are commonly diagnosed with moderate or severe TBI, and those who are rendered comatose certainly have suffered severe TBI although coma is not essential to the diagnosis of severe traumatic brain injury. Often diagnostic technology such as CT scans or MRI scans of the brain can be useful in identifying contusion or brain swelling, edema, substantiating more serious brain injury, and skull x-rays and EEG studies are often useful in making the diagnosis. In addition to the Glasgow Coma Scale referred to above, useful in diagnosis, the Rancho Los Amigos Cognitive Scale is used both to evaluate levels of function and to evaluated the rehabilitative progress of the TBI patient. Finally, neruopsychological evaluation may be very useful in TBI diagnosis because it does not depend upon a standardized scale but recognizes the individuality of the patient, evaluating, inter alia, his physical, mental and personality changes from before the incident which resulted in his traumatic brain injury.
Our California TBI Lawyers Describe Our Litigation Strategies to Demonstrate The Nature and Extent of Our Clients Traumatic Brain Injuries, and Their Measure of Damages.
Our California traumatic brain injury attorneys are sophisticated trial lawyers knowledgeable about the prosecution of TBI cases with abundant experience prosecuting the most complex of serious injury litigation from medical malpractice cases to pharmaceutical product liability cases in which the "damages" element of the plaintiff's cause of action is almost always presented by way of expert testimony. In its most basic elements, once liability is established, the measure of damages recoverable by a TBI patient include his "general damages" and "special damages." General damages is commonly referred to as "pain and suffering" but that is a misnomer. In TBI cases the presentation of the plaintiff's general damages includes conveying to the settlement judge or jury a full and accurate understanding of the nature and extent of the plaintiff's brain injury, including the physical, mental and social consequences of the injury. Included in the plaintiff's general damages also are all the activities which the plaintiff cannot do now that he enjoyed doing before, and every other aspect of the consequence of the injury on the plaintiff's life. "Special damages" refers to the plaintiff's past and future medical expenses and past and future loss of earnings or earning capacity.
In presenting the TBI case, the "opinion testimony" commonly required to adequately present these elements of damage will require either the plaintiff's treating physicians and those involved in his rehabilitation, an expert neurosurgeon or neurologist, in every case a neuropsychologist, in some cases a psychiatrist, physical therapist or speech pathologist depending upon the specific manifestation of the plaintiff's brain injury. These experts will serve the function first demonstrate that the plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury resulting from the incident upon which liability in the case was based, such as an impact to the head or coup contre-coup brain injury sustained in an accident; and then to describe the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries. The foundation for this testimony will be these experts review of the medical records, the scientific literature upon which they rely, and percipient testimony, such as descriptions of changes in the plaintiff's behavior following the incident from family members and friends.
The medical special damages include both past and future medical expenses. The past medical expenses are easy to establish merely by an accounting of the medical costs associated with the treatment of the injury through the date of the settlement conference or trial. Proving up future medical expenses usually requires a medical case manager expert who speaks with the physicians and identifies all of the medical costs the plaintiff is likely to incur over the course of the remainder of his lifetime. This will include the costs of regular physician visits, and the essential rehabilitative therapy, in many cases regular psychiatric visits, in some cases speech therapy or other therapy specific to the particular manifestation of the traumatic brain injury. The case manager's analysis is then provided to an economist, who then discounts the future medical expenses to present cash value.
The traumatic brain injured plaintiff's past loss of earnings is calculated first by analyzing what the plaintiff would likely have earned through the time of the settlement conference or trial from the date of the incident resulting in the traumatic brain injury. If the plaintiff has been able to do some work, perhaps part time work or work at a lower level of pay, then that amount must be counted as a partial offset. In some cases, such as the case of a salaried worker, calculating past loss of earnings can be simple. In other cases, such as cases involving a business owners who as the result of his traumatic brain injury was required to sell his business or remained as a less productive proprietor of his business, the analysis may require the testimony of an accountant and economist. Assessing future loss of earnings can require the testimony of several experts even in more simple cases, such as cases involving salaried workers. Generally speaking, presenting future loss of earnings requires at least two experts, a "rehabilitation expert" and an economist. The term "rehabilitation expert" does not refer in this contest an expert concerned with the plaintiff's physical rehabilitation, rather it refers to an expert who assesses which careers would be available to the plaintiff given the nature and extent of his brain injury, and which careers would be foreclosed to him. The rehabilitation expert considers the level of education the plaintiff achieved, his training, and then his limitations resulting from his brain injury. The rehabilitation expert's report is then provided to the economist who then consults a variety of government statistics in arriving at the total future loss of earnings and then discounts that number to present value.
In preparation for a voluntary or mandatory settlement conference, unless there are specific strategic reasons for not doing so, the California traumatic brain injury lawyer will prepare a "settlement brochure" which he will usually provide both to the settlement judge and the other party's attorney. The brochure will commonly contain the expert reports of the various experts identified above, along with the summary analysis of the general and special damages. Sometimes a PowerPoint presentation will be presented. Sometimes a "Day in the Life" film will also be presented so that the judge and the defense attorney may feel the emotional impact of the presentation the plaintiff's attorney will present at trial. If the case cannot be settled for an amount that the plaintiff determines is fair given his injuries and damages, then it is the testimony of these experts, along with the percipient testimony and Day in the Life film, and the plaintiff's testimony which will be presented upon the trial of the case for the jury to evaluate and consider in arriving at its judgment.
Our California Traumatic Brain Injury Lawyers Offer Free Consultations. Our TBI Attorneys Serve All of Northern and Southern California, in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles, in Oakland Berkeley Santa Clara County San Jose and Sacramento, in San Diego Orange County San Bernardino the San Fernando Valley Ventura and Fresno. We are Your Traumatic Brain Injury Lawyers for All of California.
You are encouraged to review our California traumatic brain injury lawyer qualifications and trial lawyer qualifications below and in the right column of this page. And then submit the e-mail form "California Traumatic Brain Injury Lawyer Case Evaluation Request" and TBI Attorney Ray Henke will personally contact you to discuss the facts of your case and provide his free case consultation.
We are pleased to consider your case arising in any county in the state of California. We practice in Northern and Southern California in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area, from San Diego to Sacramento, Orange County San Bernardino the San Fernando Valley Ventura Santa Barbara Fresno Santa Clara County San Jose and Oakland. We are here to serve you.
California Traumatic Brain Injury Trial Lawyer Qualifications. TBI Attorney, Ray Henke, is a Nationally Acclaimed Trial Lawyer For the Most Complex Cases Presented In Our Courts.
California traumatic brain injury lawyer, Ray Henke, is has received national acclaim from the legal profession, trial lawyer associations, in California and national legal journals, from the medial profession, acclaimed also by respected national journalists and recognized by Congress, specifically for his trial work in important medical and pharmaceutical cases.
California TBI lawyer, Henke, is "AV" rated by Martindale & Hubbell, the highest attorney ranking offered by the most respected attorney rating directory in the United States. Martindale & Hubbell ranks lawyers on the basis of interviews with judges before whom the attorney has practiced and interviews with other respected lawyers in the state who are familiar with the attorney's reputation. The "A" is defined as "very high to preeminent" in legal ability. The "V" stands for "very high" ethical standards. According to Martindale & Hubbell: "AV Peer Review Rating shows that a lawyer has reached the height of professional excellence. He or she has usually practiced law for many years, and is recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity."
California TBI lawyer, Ray Henke, is a former Governor of the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association, the fifth largest trial lawyer association in the United States, elected to the prestigious position by the several thousand members of the association, which nominated him also for the "Trial Lawyer of the Year Award" specifically for his prosecution of complex medical litigation. He also received the "Presidents Award" and numerous other honors and awards. Attorney Henke also served for several years in the prestigious position of Editor-in-Chief of the "Advocate" Law Journal.
California traumatic brain injury attorney Henke has received widespread recognition in the legitimate press specifically for his prosecution of important medical litigation, from the front page of the New York Times to the front page of the Los Angeles Times, from the Washington Post to the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner, as well as scores of other legitimate newspapers. California TBI attorney Henke's trial work has also been recognized in feature articles in California and National legal publications and journals, including California Lawyer and the National Law Journal. His trial work has also been recognized by the legitimate national and international television news media, again specifically his prosecution of landmark medical and drug fraud litigation, e.g., Tom Brokaw's NBC Nightly News, CNN.
California trial attorney, Ray Henke, has testified before Congress at the invitation of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives about his important medical cases and positive use of punitive damage claims to punish and set examples of physicians who misrepresented the efficacy of the AIDS drug Viroxan.
With the nationally acclaimed medical malpractice and pharmaceutical product liability law firm of Butler, Dan Allis & Reback, Mr. Henke was involved in some of the most complex malpractice and pharmaceutical product liability litigation, including Dalkon Shield, DES, Thalidomide, Bendectin and DPT litigation. Attorney Henke was also involved in the breast implant litigation and the asbestos litigation, and in prosecuting the first AIDS drug fraud litigation in the United States.
Mr. Henke has also achieved important appellate victories in drug product litigation and in medical litigation including one landmark published federal court of appeals opinion in a pharmaceutical product liability class action which defines the scope of permissible federal court mandatory class action. He also obtained a landmark published appellate opinion negating the effect of medical malpractice tort reform litigation which would have deprived most medical malpractice victims of the ability to obtain punitive damage verdicts against health care professionals.
Attorney Henke has published over 30 articles in "Trial," "Forum," and "Advocate," the journals of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, the Consumer Attorneys Association of California, and the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles.
Mr. Henke obtained his Juris Doctorate degree from the University of San Francisco Law School in 1979, served on the USF Law Review, received the American Jurisprudence Award, and while in law school interned with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Our California Traumatic Brain Injury Lawyers Welcome You to Contact Us If You Have Been Diagnosed with TBI or if You Suspect that You or a Family Member Suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury In Any County In Southern or Northern California. We Are Available to Represent Those Who Have Sustained a Traumatic Brain Injury in Los Angeles or the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego Orange County San Bernardino the San Fernando Valley Ventura Santa Barbara Fresno Santa Clara County San Jose Berkley Oakland or Sacramento. Our California Traumatic Brain Injury Lawyers Are Here to Serve You.
We welcome the opportunity to speak with you and discuss the facts of your accident and traumatic brain injury. We are pleased to provide free consultations. You may submit the e-mail form "California Traumatic Brain Injury Lawyers Case Evaluation Request" and Mr. Henke will personally contact you to provide his case consultation without any charge or obligation.
We are pleased to consider traumatic brain injury cases arising in Northern Central and Southern California. In Southern California please consider us your TBI lawyers for San Diego Orange County San Bernardino Los Angeles the San Fernando Valley Ventura and Santa Barbara, up to Fresno, and in Northern California in the San Francisco Bay Area Berkeley and Oakland, in Santa Clara County, San Jose and Sacramento. We welcome the opportunity to speak with you.
*Landmark Jury Verdicts:
$3.8 million dollar gross jury verdict in brain injury case. The brain injury and consequent mild aphasia resulted from strokes caused by emboli from an atrial myxoma, a tumor in the upper left chamber of the heart. Atrial myxomas are the most rare human tumors known to medical science. The patient suffered a "fainting spell" which her physicians investigated using EEG's and CT scans and well as an EKG, but failed to perform an echocardiogram of the patient's heart, which would have disclosed the atrial myxoma. The internist defendant was asked politely by Mr. Henke at trial whether he "considered atrial myxoma in his differential diagnosis." The physician responded snidely, "Mr. Henke, you don't think of zebras when you hear hoof beats." Mr. Henke thought about the doctor's analogy for a moment and then then asked, "Mitral valve prolapse. It's a 'horse,' isn't that a fact, Doctor?" The physician responded, "What do you mean?" Mr. Henke clarified, "Well mytral valve prolapse occurs in about 6 percent of a randomly selected population of females Mrs. Z's age. It's a 'horse' isn't it?" The physician responded reluctantly, "Yes, It's a horse." Henke continued, "Mitral Stenosis, it's a 'horse,' isn't it Doc?" The internist responded "Okay, yes, it's a 'horse'". Again Henke then asked, "Idiopathic subaortic stenosis, it's a 'horse' isn't it?" The physician has to acknowledge "Yes." Henke concluded, "Well, doctor, upon hearing the 'hoof beats,' Mrs. Z's symptoms, if you had just thought 'horse,' atrial myxoma, mitral stenosis or idiopathic subaortic stenosis, and 'turned your head in the direction of the hoof beats,' done an echocardiogram, you would have seen the 'Zebra,' wouldn't you have doctor?" Again the physician had to acknowledge "Yes." The physician's snide remark followed by Mr. Henke's quick analysis of the fallacy of the analogy, and indeed its utility in demonstrating the physician's negligence, by his own analogy, was cited by the jurors in interviews following the trial as the pivotal point in the trial which resulted in their liability verdict for Mr. Henke's client. This case and this particular interchange between Mr. Henke and the defendant physician, formed the subject for a chapter in the book "Medical Malpractice, Solving the Crisis" by Frank Edwards, M.D., Holt & Co. The case and interrogation was also the subject of a legal journal article published in "Forum" the journal of the California Trial Lawyers Association. You may consider our qualifications, and indeed our national acclaim as seasoned, superior trial lawyers in complex litigation, discussed in the center and right hand column of this page.
$2.7 million dollar jury verdict in medical malpractice case in which attorney Henke represented 5 plaintiffs in a single consolidated 4 month trial against their physicians and hospital for conspiracy to defraud them with phony AIDS cures. Mr. Henke's experts in the case included Luc Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV and head of France's National AIDS Laboratories; Michael Gotlieb, the discoverer of AIDS and co-founder of the American Foundation for AIDS Research, Don Francis, the head of the first CDC AIDS Task force and discoverer that AIDS was a sexually transmitted disease, John Curnutte, head of the largest AIDS vaccine project in the world, Roger Detels, Chairman of the Epidemiology Department at UCLA and chief investigator on the largest AIDS epidemiology study in the United States, and a dozen others of the most highly respected AIDS scientists and physicians in the world. This case was chronicled in legitimate newspaper articles from the front page of the New York Times to the front page of the Los Angeles Times, from the Washington Post to the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner, in California and national legal journals from "California Lawyer" to the "National Law Journal," in national and international television news segments, from Tom Brokaw's NBC Nightly News to CNN. Mr. Henke also testified before Congress with regard to these cases, at the invitation of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives.
*State Bar of California Disclaimer: The results obtained in the cases listed were dependent upon the facts of the cases, and the results will differ in other cases based on different facts
$3.8 million dollar gross jury verdict in brain injury case. The brain injury and consequent mild aphasia resulted from strokes caused by emboli from an atrial myxoma, a tumor in the upper left chamber of the heart. Atrial myxomas are the most rare human tumors known to medical science. The patient suffered a "fainting spell" which her physicians investigated using EEG's and CT scans and well as an EKG, but failed to perform an echocardiogram of the patient's heart, which would have disclosed the atrial myxoma. The internist defendant was asked politely by Mr. Henke at trial whether he "considered atrial myxoma in his differential diagnosis." The physician responded snidely, "Mr. Henke, you don't think of zebras when you hear hoof beats." Mr. Henke thought about the doctor's analogy for a moment and then then asked, "Mitral valve prolapse. It's a 'horse,' isn't that a fact, Doctor?" The physician responded, "What do you mean?" Mr. Henke clarified, "Well mytral valve prolapse occurs in about 6 percent of a randomly selected population of females Mrs. Z's age. It's a 'horse' isn't it?" The physician responded reluctantly, "Yes, It's a horse." Henke continued, "Mitral Stenosis, it's a 'horse,' isn't it Doc?" The internist responded "Okay, yes, it's a 'horse'". Again Henke then asked, "Idiopathic subaortic stenosis, it's a 'horse' isn't it?" The physician has to acknowledge "Yes." Henke concluded, "Well, doctor, upon hearing the 'hoof beats,' Mrs. Z's symptoms, if you had just thought 'horse,' atrial myxoma, mitral stenosis or idiopathic subaortic stenosis, and 'turned your head in the direction of the hoof beats,' done an echocardiogram, you would have seen the 'Zebra,' wouldn't you have doctor?" Again the physician had to acknowledge "Yes." The physician's snide remark followed by Mr. Henke's quick analysis of the fallacy of the analogy, and indeed its utility in demonstrating the physician's negligence, by his own analogy, was cited by the jurors in interviews following the trial as the pivotal point in the trial which resulted in their liability verdict for Mr. Henke's client. This case and this particular interchange between Mr. Henke and the defendant physician, formed the subject for a chapter in the book "Medical Malpractice, Solving the Crisis" by Frank Edwards, M.D., Holt & Co. The case and interrogation was also the subject of a legal journal article published in "Forum" the journal of the California Trial Lawyers Association. You may consider our qualifications, and indeed our national acclaim as seasoned, superior trial lawyers in complex litigation, discussed in the center and right hand column of this page.
$2.7 million dollar jury verdict in medical malpractice case in which attorney Henke represented 5 plaintiffs in a single consolidated 4 month trial against their physicians and hospital for conspiracy to defraud them with phony AIDS cures. Mr. Henke's experts in the case included Luc Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV and head of France's National AIDS Laboratories; Michael Gotlieb, the discoverer of AIDS and co-founder of the American Foundation for AIDS Research, Don Francis, the head of the first CDC AIDS Task force and discoverer that AIDS was a sexually transmitted disease, John Curnutte, head of the largest AIDS vaccine project in the world, Roger Detels, Chairman of the Epidemiology Department at UCLA and chief investigator on the largest AIDS epidemiology study in the United States, and a dozen others of the most highly respected AIDS scientists and physicians in the world. This case was chronicled in legitimate newspaper articles from the front page of the New York Times to the front page of the Los Angeles Times, from the Washington Post to the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner, in California and national legal journals from "California Lawyer" to the "National Law Journal," in national and international television news segments, from Tom Brokaw's NBC Nightly News to CNN. Mr. Henke also testified before Congress with regard to these cases, at the invitation of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives.
*State Bar of California Disclaimer: The results obtained in the cases listed were dependent upon the facts of the cases, and the results will differ in other cases based on different facts
Driving Under the Influence of Cell Conversation Results in DUI Level Driving Impairment And a 4 fold Increased Likelihood that the Driver will Cause an Accident.
Read Henke Law Group Scientific Review Article. As Knowledgeable Cell Phone Accident Lawyers We Can Investigate to Establish That The Other Driver Was On His Cell Phone. The Evidence Can Make the Difference in a Contested Liability Case.
Where we Can Establish That the Other Driver Was Engaged in a Business Call We Can Bring his Employer in as a Defendant and Recover Against the Employer's Assets and Insurance Coverage.
California auto accident attorney Henke has reviewed all the scientific literature on the effect of cell phone use to impair driver attention. Driving under the influence of cell conversation renders the driver DUI level driving impaired and results in a four fold increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident. Contrary to popular belief, it is not "holding" the cell phone which resulting the impairment. It is the diversion of conscious attention to the internal-cognitive tasks associated with the give and take of the cell conversation away from the external-visual tasks essential for safe driving. Indeed, it matters not whether the motorist is driving under the influence of handheld or hands-free cell conversation, the impairment and the 4 fold increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident are precisely the same. Yes, California and a number of other states have enacted handheld laws; unfortunately that is just a function of politics. The scientists are not in dispute. All agree that driving under the influence of any cell phone results in the identical DUI level driving impairment.
It is important that the auto accident lawyer obtain the cell phone records of the other driver in every contested liability case, and especially in any serious injury case in which it appears that the other driver lacks sufficient insurance coverage to fully compensate the plaintiff for his injuries and full measure of his damages. In the contested liability case,the evidence of the other party's cell phone use in the moments prior to the accident may snatch victory from the mouth of defeat. In the most common serious injury auto accident case in which the other driver lacks sufficient insurance to fully compensate the plaintiff for his injuries and damages, it is essential that the cell phone records be obtained and appropriate depositions taken of the defendant and the other party to the call to determine whether the other driver was engaged in a business call in the moments leading up to the accident. If he was, then the knowledgeable cell phone auto accident lawyer can bring the employer into the litigation as a defendant "vicariously liable" for the injuries caused by its employee in the "course and scope of his employment." In this way the auto accident lawyer may assure that the plaintiff will be fully compensated up to the limits of the employers insurance policy, and indeed, the employer's assets would be available to execute against.
Read Henke Law Group Scientific Review Article. As Knowledgeable Cell Phone Accident Lawyers We Can Investigate to Establish That The Other Driver Was On His Cell Phone. The Evidence Can Make the Difference in a Contested Liability Case.
Where we Can Establish That the Other Driver Was Engaged in a Business Call We Can Bring his Employer in as a Defendant and Recover Against the Employer's Assets and Insurance Coverage.
California auto accident attorney Henke has reviewed all the scientific literature on the effect of cell phone use to impair driver attention. Driving under the influence of cell conversation renders the driver DUI level driving impaired and results in a four fold increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident. Contrary to popular belief, it is not "holding" the cell phone which resulting the impairment. It is the diversion of conscious attention to the internal-cognitive tasks associated with the give and take of the cell conversation away from the external-visual tasks essential for safe driving. Indeed, it matters not whether the motorist is driving under the influence of handheld or hands-free cell conversation, the impairment and the 4 fold increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident are precisely the same. Yes, California and a number of other states have enacted handheld laws; unfortunately that is just a function of politics. The scientists are not in dispute. All agree that driving under the influence of any cell phone results in the identical DUI level driving impairment.
It is important that the auto accident lawyer obtain the cell phone records of the other driver in every contested liability case, and especially in any serious injury case in which it appears that the other driver lacks sufficient insurance coverage to fully compensate the plaintiff for his injuries and full measure of his damages. In the contested liability case,the evidence of the other party's cell phone use in the moments prior to the accident may snatch victory from the mouth of defeat. In the most common serious injury auto accident case in which the other driver lacks sufficient insurance to fully compensate the plaintiff for his injuries and damages, it is essential that the cell phone records be obtained and appropriate depositions taken of the defendant and the other party to the call to determine whether the other driver was engaged in a business call in the moments leading up to the accident. If he was, then the knowledgeable cell phone auto accident lawyer can bring the employer into the litigation as a defendant "vicariously liable" for the injuries caused by its employee in the "course and scope of his employment." In this way the auto accident lawyer may assure that the plaintiff will be fully compensated up to the limits of the employers insurance policy, and indeed, the employer's assets would be available to execute against.
©2008 The Ray Henke Law Group