Wife Files Wrongful Death Action Against Phoebe Putney Health System After Husband’s Death

In recent news, a woman filed a wrongful death action against a medical facility, claiming their negligence caused her husband undue pain and suffering and eventually caused his death.

The Case: Sandra Pinkney Parker v. Phoebe Putney Health System

The Court: Superior Court of Dougherty County, State of Georgia

The Case No.: SUCV2023000885

The Plaintiff: Sandra Pinkney Parker v. Phoebe Putney Health System

The plaintiff in the case, Sandra Pinkney Parker, was the wife of deceased Anthony Owens Parker. Parker demanded a jury trial to address claims that the defendant, Phoebe Putney Health System, caused unnecessary pain, suffering, and the eventual death of her deceased husband. Anthony Owens Parker.

The Defendant: Sandra Pinkney Parker v. Phoebe Putney Health System

The defendant in the case, Phoebe Putney Health System, presented several defenses arguing they are not liable for the death of Parker, responding to 59 complaints from the original filing individually. Specifically, Phoebe Putney Health System Inc. claimed they did not employ any nurse, physician, advanced practice provider, or other healthcare provider who provided medical care or treatment to Anthony Owens Parker and, therefore, should be released from the lawsuit.

What is the Legal Definition of an Employee?

Under common-law rules, any person who performs services is an employee. If the individual or organization benefits from the services and can control what will be done and how it will be done, the worker is an employee. If an employer retains the right to control the details of how a worker performs specific duties or services, they are working with an “employee.” Determining liability for services provided for wrongful death or traumatic brain injury cases can be difficult when the employer/employee relationship is not direct. For example, if a company utilizes the services of another company or accepts temp workers, etc.

The Case: Sandra Pinkney Parker v. Phoebe Putney Health System

In the case Sandra Pinkney Parker v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Parker seeks to recover on behalf of Anthony Owens Parker’s estate for his pain and suffering and eventual death on June 6, 2022. She also seeks medical, burial, and other related expenses incurred as a result of the alleged negligence of the defendant. However, the defendant claims that employees of their company did not provide the healthcare/services provided to Parker, so they are not liable.

If you have questions about how to file a California traumatic brain injury lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced traumatic brain injury attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Defective Swing Set on Playground Leads to Traumatic Brain Injury Lawsuit

In the case of Carl Thompson v. Lamplight Village Homeowners Association, the plaintiff was allegedly injured by a defective swing set on a playground.

The Case: Carl Thompson v. Lamplight Village Homeowners Association

The Court: U.S. District Court of Nevada

The Case No.: 2:19-CV-1152 JCM (VCF)

The Plaintiff: Carl Thompson v. Lamplight Village Homeowners Association

The plaintiff in the case, Carl Thompson, was allegedly injured by a defective swing set on a neighborhood playground. In March 2014, Thompson sued the swing set manufacturer, the installer, and Lamplight Homeowner’s Association.

The Defendant: Carl Thompson v. Lamplight Village Homeowners Association

The defendant in the case, Lamplight Village @Centennial Springs Homeowners Association (“Lamplight), allegedly installed swing sets made with defective parts on their neighborhood playground. According to court documents, the top bar of the playground swing set repeatedly broke and fell. The homeowner’s association would repair the swing set only to have the same part on the swing set break again. Lamplight sought and received a replacement from the swing set manufacturer. When the replacement swing set’s top bar also broke, the swing set manufacturer sent a second replacement swing set. When the second replacement swing set’s top bar broke, the top cross bar swung down and allegedly struck the plaintiff, Thompson, in the head, crushing his skull and causing bleeding in his brain.

The Case: Carl Thompson v. Lamplight Village Homeowners Association

The case, Carl Thompson v. Lamplight Village Homeowners Association, went to trial, where the court considered the case of a teenager who suffered a traumatic brain injury allegedly caused by a swing set when the top crossbar broke and hit him in the head as it fell. The court found in favor of the plaintiff awarding $20 million ($10 million compensatory and $10 million punitive).

If you have questions about how to file a California traumatic brain injury lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced traumatic brain injury attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Dangerous Snow Sled Allegedly Results in Injuries and Death

In recent news, the Estate of Xiaoyan Kolodgy-Nagy filed a wrongful death lawsuit after the decedent sustained injuries and later died due to the use of a defective snow sled.

The Case: Kolodny-Nagy et al. v. Weanas, Inc. et al.

The Court: California Central District Court.

The Case No.: 2:23-cv-02588

The Plaintiff: Kolodny-Nagy et al. v. Weanas, Inc. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, the Estate of Xiaoyan Kolodgy-Nagy, filed claims that Dahveed Kolodny-Nagy, the decedent, suffered injuries and died after using a defective snow sled manufactured and sold online by Weanas, Inc. The plaintiff purchased the allegedly defective sled for $29.76. The dangerous snow tube was labeled as Weanas 47-inch Snow Sled.

The Defendant: Kolodny-Nagy et al v. Weanas, Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case, Weanas, Inc., is the manufacturer and seller of the Weanas 47-inch snow sled purchased by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff’s claims, the defendant concealed or suppressed material facts. As the designer, manufacturer, and distributor of the snow tube, Weanas allegedly failed to complete adequate testing before placing their product on the market. The snow sled also allegedly failed to include proper warnings and instructions.

The Case: Kolodny-Nagy et al. v. Weanas, Inc. et al.

In the case Kolodny-Nagy et al. v. Weanas, Inc. et al., the plaintiff’s counsel argues that the defendant failed to test their product properly, failed to provide adequate warnings of danger or instructions for proper use, and as a result of the dangerous defective design, injury, and death occurred. The plaintiffs’ counsel also argued that the defendants sold the dangerous snow tube to the plaintiffs after other consumers who purchased the product complained about safety issues. According to court documents, other Weanas customers reported that the Weanas 47-inch Snow Sled was dangerous and caused injuries before the product was delivered to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also indicated that the company did not attempt to contact them to warn them of the potential dangers or problems other consumers were reporting about the product. Instead, the company promoted the product as safe for multiple people up to 500 pounds. The plaintiffs’ counsel claims the defendant acted knowingly and maliciously and that their actions resulted in severe physical, mental, and emotional injuries after the out-of-control snow tube crashed into a rock on a hill the plaintiffs were sledding, which ultimately resulted in the death of Xiaoyan Kolodny-Nagy. The plaintiffs claim the defendant’s actions caused them to suffer property damage, wrongful death and survivor damages, and significant physical, mental, and emotional injuries due to the loss of their wife/mother, Xiaoyan Kolodny-Nagy, and other injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Traumatic Brain Injury Case for Mother and Daughter Settled Directly with Company

In recent news, a mother and her daughter suffered traumatic brain injuries after being hit from behind while stopped in traffic on the Interstate.

The Case: Shields and Kelly v. Edwards and Fleetmaster Express, Inc.

The Court: Roanoke County Circuit Court

The Case No.: CL22000088-00 and CL22000097-00

The Plaintiff: Shields and Kelly v. Edwards and Fleetmaster Express, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case is a mother and her daughter. On February 7, 2021, the two were stopped in Roanoke County's Interstate 81 North for traffic when a tractor-trailer struck their vehicle from behind. As a result of the collision, the plaintiff's vehicle struck the vehicle in front of them, killing a passenger and leaving the driver of that vehicle quadriplegic. The plaintiff sustained orthopedic and traumatic brain injuries.

The Defendant: Shields and Kelly v. Edwards and Fleetmaster Express, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Edwards and Edwards Fleetmaster Express, Inc., operated a tractor-trailer vehicle that struck the plaintiff's vehicle from behind on Interstate 81 North on February 7, 2021.

The Case: Shields and Kelly v. Edwards and Fleetmaster Express, Inc.

Due to the collision, three personal injury cases and one wrongful death case were filed. The defendant's coverage was limited to $5 million, and the damage to the vehicle's occupants in front of the plaintiff's car exceeded the maximum coverage and the defendant's assets. The parties held a joint mediation to avoid the elimination of any recovery for the plaintiff. However, mediation failed to resolve the case. Since mediation failed, the plaintiffs' counsel approached the company directly after the cases were set for trial. The company settled with the plaintiffs, providing special damages to Kelly for $145,980 and Shields for $63,228. The parties also agreed on a $1,550,000 settlement.

If you have questions about how to file a California traumatic brain injury lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced traumatic brain injury attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Jury Rejects $34.7M in Roller Coaster Brain Injury Lawsuit

In recent news, a Los Angeles jury found in favor of Six Flags Magic Mountain, clearing them of all liability in a long-running lawsuit claiming one of the amusement park’s roller coasters caused a visiting girl’s traumatic brain injury.

The Case: Talia Wise v. Six Flags, et al.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The Case No.: BC679307

The Plaintiff: Talia Wise v. Six Flags, et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Talia Wise, claimed the Green Lantern ride at Six Flags Magic Mountain caused damage to her brain in 2015 when she was 13 years old. Wise claimed the Green Lantern rollercoaster ride’s individually spinning seat design was unsafe. (The ride was closed in 2019 after generating some controversy among coaster enthusiasts). The plaintiff argued that due to the rollercoaster design causing her head to snap back and forth violently, she started suffering physical symptoms, including nausea and weakness, immediately after leaving the ride. Wise claims the symptoms escalated into symptoms of alleged traumatic brain injury in the following months. Wise’s counsel argued that Six Flags Magic Mountain should have responded after 44 other first aid incidents related to the Green Lantern rollercoaster and riders allegedly complaining of head-related symptoms.

The Defendant: Talia Wise v. Six Flags, et al.

The defendant in the case, Six Flags Magic Mountain, responded to arguments that no riders on the Green Lantern rollercoaster, including Wise, were subjected to g-forces that could have caused any brain injuries at any time. According to Six Flags Magic Mountain spokespersons and experts, Wise’s initial symptoms at the park resulted from dehydration, and the symptoms that developed over the following months resulted from underlying psychological issues. The legal team for Six Flags Magic Mountain also pointed out repeatedly that medical specialists hired by the plaintiff’s legal team failed to find any physical evidence of a brain injury. According to the Magic Mountain spokesperson, the safety of guests at Magic Mountain is one of the most important aspects of the Six Flags park operation. During the trial, park employees and experts presented information regarding the many safety tests and inspections in place to maintain visitor safety.

The Case: Talia Wise v. Six Flags, et al.

The plaintiff in the case sought approximately $34.7 million in damages. However, Six Flags Magic Mountain successfully argued that the medical records provided by the plaintiff contradicted her injury claims. They also pointed out to the jury that Wise led a productive life after visiting Magic Mountain, even gaining admission to several colleges post-high school. The trial began on August 4th. One day after hearing closing arguments, the Los Angeles jury rejected the plaintiff’s claims and the $34.7M in damages she sought. In a 10-2 decision, the jury found that Magic Mountain’s Green Lantern rollercoaster did not cause traumatic brain injuries to 13-year-old Talia Wise in 2015.

If you have questions about how to file a California traumatic brain injury lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced traumatic brain injury attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Northern California’s Plum Healthcare to Pay $30.9M in Wrongful Death Lawsuit

In recent news, a Sacramento jury returned a $30.9 million verdict against long-term care provider Plum Healthcare in wrongful death lawsuit.

The Case: Sam Rios Jr., et al. v. Pine Creek Care Center, Plum Healthcare Group, LLC, et al.

The Court: Sacramento Superior Court

The Case No.: 34-2018-00244263

The Plaintiffs: Sam Rios Jr., et al. v. Pine Creek Care Center, Plum Healthcare Group, LLC, et al.

The plaintiffs are the Rios family, Sam Rios, Jr., deceased, his wife, and his eight adult children. They filed a wrongful death lawsuit against long-term care provider Plum Healthcare and its skilled nursing facility in Roseville, California, known as Pine Creek Care Center. Sam Rios, Jr. was married to Christina for 40 years and had eight children. He was a military veteran, civil rights activist, community pillar, and Chicano Studies professor at Sacramento State for over 30 years. In April 2017, the 86-year-old spent two weeks as a Pine Creek Care Center patient. According to the lawsuit, during his short stay at the skilled nursing facility, Mr. Rios acquired severe bedsores resulting from a pattern of neglect and understaffing at the nursing home facility. The plaintiffs allege that the main cause for the failures in Mr. Rios’ care was purposeful understaffing at the facility to maximize profits. As a result of the facility management’s purposeful staffing changes to increase profits, Mr. Rios suffered from a Stage IV to-the-bone pressure ulcer for almost a year before he died.

The Defendant: Sam Rios Jr., et al. v. Pine Creek Care Center, Plum Healthcare Group, LLC, et al.

The defendant in the case is Pine Creek Care Center of the Plum Healthcare Group, a long-term care provider. Pine Creek is one of Plum Healthcare Group’s skilled nursing facilities in Roseville, California.

The Case: Sam Rios Jr., et al. v. Pine Creek Care Center, Plum Healthcare Group, LLC, et al.

The case was at trial for ten weeks before a Sacramento jury found the defendant, Plum Healthcare (and its parent company), liable for reckless, malicious, and fraudulent conduct in Sam Rios, Jr.’s care. The jury’s award of $30.9 million appears to be the largest nursing home elder abuse verdict ever seen in the greater Sacramento and San Francisco Bay Area. The total verdict in favor of the plaintiffs was $5.9 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Parties Reach a Settlement in Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against LA County Sheriff's Department

The parties in an inmate wrongful death lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department agreed on a $1,500,000 settlement to resolve the case.

The Case: Joseph Charles Evans et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

The Court: USDC Central District of California

The Case No.: 2:19-cv-00793

The Plaintiff: Joseph Charles Evans, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

The plaintiffs in the case are the family members of Mr. Tony Evans, the deceased. Evans was survived by three adult sons who filed a wrongful death lawsuit on February 1, 2019. The men claim that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department failed in their duty to protect under the U.S. Constitution 14th amendment, 42 USC section 1983, and California state wrongful death claims.

History of the Case: Joseph Charles Evans et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

Court records indicate that on January 17, 2018, Tony Joseph Evans, Sr. and Franklin Reveter were in LA County Sheriff’s Dept. custody at the Inmate Reception Center (where incoming male arrestees are processed before being assigned a LASD-maintained housing location). While sitting in the clinic’s waiting area, the two were said to engage in a verbal altercation that escalated into a physical altercation. The altercation was caught on the building’s security video footage. Evans was transported to a local hospital for treatment after sustaining injuries in the fight. He underwent several surgeries during a 2-month hospitalization before being transferred to a nursing facility. He eventually died on August 15, 2018.

Resolution of the Case: Joseph Charles Evans et al. v. County of Los Angeles et al.

According to the record, the court denied the County’s motion for summary judgment. Following the denial, the plaintiffs settled with LA County, agreeing to a settlement of $1,500,000 to settle the wrongful death case before it proceeded to trial. 

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.