In today’s fast paced and multitasking world, everything comes down to people and relationships. For almost three decades, our goal has been to engage and connect with our clients and to make their experience with our firm a positive one.

Trust

We believe that trust is built around communication and transparency. Because of this, we offer all of our clients a complimentary online “Case Portal” allowing for 24/7 secured access to case documents, upcoming calendar events and more. When the client needs important case information, it’s just a click or two away.

Our simple and intuitive client portal lets our attorneys and clients share case information and offers Facebook style notifications and alerts of important case developments. Clients can now log in and check document status and details involving upcoming dates and hearings at their convenience. They can also share private emails and comments on all case matters.

Client Satisfaction

A successful attorney/client experience means that we need to provide you with exemplary legal advice and services. Having said that, we also believe that in today’s fast paced “instant information” digital business environment, giving clients free 24/7 access to important case information helps improve the legal experience and is key to building a positive and professional relationship with each and every one of our clients.

The bottom line is that clients tell us they enjoy this new free service. They like having access to case information when they need it. We think you will too!

A lack of helmet use is one factor and age (biggest reason children are seen in ER rooms) is another. We talk about this and more in this month’s “You Should Know” newsletter. Please be safe and share this information you’re your family. Click the picture or here to read the free newsletter online…

Nicknamed “The Velvet Hammer™” by some of her adversaries, Washington State trial lawyer, Karen Koehler, is known for her creativity, tenacity and trial skills. Few plaintiff attorneys try more cases than Karen. Success in the courtroom means that she enjoys a strong reputation with insurance companies and corporate defendants who would rather opt to value cases properly for settlement instead of risk going to trial against her.

I’m a big fan of Karen’s blog and I invite you to add it to your reading list!

Here’s our Spreecast interview…

Amanda escaped Monday night after breaking out the bottom of a screen door and screaming “Help me, I am Amanda Berry. I’ve been kidnapped, and I’ve been missing for 10 years. And I’m here, I’m free now.” Neighbor Charles Ramsey was sitting down to a fast food meal Monday night when he heard screaming and ran over to help. She subsequently led Ramsey and police to the other two victims.

For those of you who don’t recall of the details of this tragic story, Amanda Berry was last seen on April 21, 2003. She had just gotten off work at Burger King and never made it home. Georgina “Gina” DeJesus, was 14 when she disappeared nearly a year later. Michelle Knight vanished on August 22, 2002, according to Cleveland Public Safety Director Martin Flask. A family member reported her missing the next day, Flask said. She was 21 years old at the time.

My Own Personal Thoughts

As a father of two, I have my own ideas about how justice should dispensed on these three suspects if found guilty. Having said that, I’ll let Cleveland police and the local criminal justice system adjudicate the facts and render justice.

After this story made the news, several clients called my office to get my take on the situation. They were wondering if the girls could sue one or more of the three men for civil damages in addition to the criminal charges they’ll be facing.

Although I’m not licensed to practice law in Ohio, I’m fairly certain the laws are similar to what we have in California. In California, the men would be charged by the District Attorney’s Office for kidnapping and false imprisonment. If one or more of the girls were sexually abused, additional charges, possibly including rape, would also be included. If found guilty, the defendants would spend a great deal of time, if not the rest of their lives, behind bars.

I told my clients that if this had happened in California, the victims could sue the men in civil court for civil actions including false imprisonment, rape and for substantial money damages.

What is Kidnapping and False Imprisonment?

Generally speaking, kidnapping occurs when a person, without lawful authority, physically moves another person without that other person’s consent, with the intent to use the abduction in connection with some other nefarious objective. Kidnapping may be done for ransom or political purpose or other purposes. Kidnapping can be of first degree or second degree. Kidnapping is a crime which is punishable upon successful prosecution.
False imprisonment is defined as the non-consensual, intentional confinement of a person, without lawful privilege, for an appreciable length of time, however short, which causes the plaintiff to suffer harm. It’s the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another. It can be prosecuted as a crime in California. Victims of false imprisonment may also be entitled to civil claim for money damages.

To prove that a false imprisonment took place, we usually need to show confinement and that the restraint was effectuated by means of physical force. This includes a threat of force or arrest; physical barriers; fraud or deceit or by means of any other form of unreasonable duress. We must show that it was non-consensual.

In California, we are required to show the act was intentional. Negligence is not enough. For example, the only mental state required to prove false imprisonment is the intent to confine, or to create a similar intrusion, not an intent or motive to cause harm.

It’s also required that we show that the confinement took place without lawful privilege. Detentions that are authorized by law do not constitute false imprisonment.

Generally speaking, the confinement must be for an appreciable length of time. Having said that, one California cases found that false imprisonment took place after only 15 minutes. Each case is different and it really does depend on the facts.

It is noted that imprisonment based on lawful arrest is not false and is not actionable in tort. On the other hand, since an arrest involves detention or restraint, false arrest always involves an imprisonment.

Damages

Victims of false imprisonment are entitled to certain remedies. These include nominal damages, compensatory damages (in addition to emotional distress damages, plaintiff is entitled to compensation for other resulting harm, such as loss of time, physical discomfort or inconvenience, any resulting physical illness or injury to health, business interruption and damage to reputation); emotional distress; punitive damages and even attorney’s fees.

Statute of Limitations

In California, the statute of limitations is one year. What this means is that a victim of false imprisonment must file a claim within one year from when he knew or should have known of the false imprisonment. The time period is of course tolled if the victim is unable to take action because of the actual false imprisonment.

California prohibits false arrest actions against a peace officer or public entity while related criminal charges are pending, and tolls the statute of limitations during this period.

Defenses

People charged with false imprisonment may have the following defense available to them- Statute of Limitations; Consent; Immunity; Peace Officer Immunity; Public Officer or Employee Immunity; Publication Privilege; Freedom of Religion; Parental Authority;

In addition to false imprisonment, other related causes of action we may also allege, depending on the facts of a case, include: Criminal False Imprisonment; Civil Assault; Criminal Assault; Stalking; Police Misconduct; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Trespass to Person; Sexual Harassment; and Unlawful Seduction.

Obviously, these three men are presumed innocent. I’m curious to see what happens during the legal proceedings and also interested in hearing what the victims have to report.

__________

This recent case reminds me of Elizabeth Smart, who was kidnapped at knife point at age 14 in 2002, sexually assaulted and held captive for nine months in Utah by a street preacher. It also brings back memories of Jaycee Dugard who was kidnapped in South Lake Tahoe in 1981, when she was 11, and held for 18 years in tents and a shack. I lived in South Lake during this time and remember the case well. In the Dugard case, the defendant, Phillip Garrido, was charged with 29 counts of kidnapping, rape and false imprisonment.

__________

Here’s a good article I came across on NBCNews.com entitled, “How to protect kids from predators and kidnappers”. Please feel free to share it with family and friends!

The first week of the wrongful death trial for pop sensation Michael Jackson wrapped up after testimony from a paramedic and a police detective that centered on the singer’s drug addiction and his doctor’s financial debts…

“Based upon my understanding of the opening statements and initial evidence, it does not appear that defendant, AEG, is coming in to court with clean hands,” says Jon Mitchell Jackson, a partner with Orange County personal injury firm Jackson & Wilson, who is not involved in the case. ”I think the email plaintiff’s attorney Brian Panish shared during opening statements says it all. It was written by [AEG Co-CEO Paul] Gongaware, and says, ‘We want to remind [Murray] that it is AEG, not MJ who is paying his salary. We want him to understand what is expected of him.’”

“They put Dr. Murray in a position where if he said Michael can’t go or can’t play, if he said I can’t give you those drugs, then he doesn’t get paid,” Panish told jurors Monday.

[click here to read the entire article and comments]

Click here to enjoy the issue…

A typical case…

Bad things happen to good people

Big insurance companies put profits over people

Having an experienced lawyer will help you level the playing field

Good lawyers will hold wrongdoers accountable

Justice is served!

_______________________

We invite you to click here to review client testimonials and case results…

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 at 11 am PST, I’ll be Spreecasting (live video) with Karen about what she looks for and how she selects her juries. If you’re interested in improving your trial practice skills and would like to learn from one of the best, then you will not want to miss this free event!

Make sure to visit our special Spreecast link and RSVP (below). If you don’t have a free Spreecast account, make sure to take about 60 seconds and set one up before the interview. This will allow you to ask live questions, enjoy the live chat, and even appear live via video to meet Karen and ask questions. Go here to RSVP and get started… http://www.spreecast.com/events/karen-koehler-the-velvet-hammer

Between now and then, stop by Karen’s blog and see why we think Karen is so special and, why the ABA Journal has included it in its Top 100 Law Blogs!

Again, to join the live free Spreecast, set up a free account, or to watch the recorded version 24/7, click here…

Our clients are Drew’s mother and father. They asked that we share this tragic story about what happened to their son so that this does not happen to another family. Because many consumers are not aware of the artificial MICRA caps, they also wanted to bring this harsh reality to the attention of other California consumers. At their request of balancing privacy issues with what happened to their beautiful son, here’s their story…

This is a case brought by our clients, Drew’s parents, for the wrongful death of their son. They allege, among other things, that a local ambulance company and its EMTS negligently restrained and transported Drew in the back of its ambulance resulting in his death. The defendants are the ambulance company and the two EMTs.

The jury trial in this case was set for last Monday. Because there were no available courtrooms in Orange County, the case was continued to July. What you read below is what happened to our clients and their family

Drew’s Story

After graduating from a local high school as a multisport star athlete and academic All American football player, Drew attended college and during this time, began to experience severe levels of anxiety and depression. Drew’s mom and dad asked him to come home so they could help him and make sure he was safe. Drew did and the family managed the situation as best they could.

One evening, our clients were at the mall holiday shopping. Drew was worried something was going to happen to him and so he called his mom and dad and asked them to come home.

After arriving home our clients’ realized Drew wasn’t there. Worried for his safety, they called 911. About the same time the police arrived at our client’s home, their son returned. Pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code Section 5150 and, at the request of our clients, Drew was taken to a local hospital without incident. At the hospital, Drew was medicated and cooperative.

Around 6 a.m. the following morning, our clients’ received a phone call from a nurse at the hospital advising them that Drew was doing much better and that he would be transported to another hospital that had more beds. When Drew’s father offered to come down to the hospital and help coordinate Drew’s relocation to the new hospital, he was told in no uncertain words by the nurse, “We’ve got it all taken care of.”

Before hanging up the phone, the nurse advised our clients they could visit Drew around 2 pm. that afternoon. Non-emergency interfacility transport was coordinated between the two hospitals with the defendant ambulance company.

The Ambulance EMTs Arrive at the Hospital

The defendant EMTs arrived at the hospital where Drew was located. They met with the nurse in charge who discussed Drew’s condition. She also provided the EMTs with Drew’s medical chart and 5150 documents. The EMTs were told Drew reported hearing evil voices and also having suicidal thoughts of jumping off a bridge. Despite the fact that Drew was not medicated, calm and cooperative, they were advised that Drew continued to be at risk of harming himself. The EMTs were placed on written notice via a checked box on the 5150 documents of this fact.

The EMT’s then went to Drew’s hospital room and found him friendly and cooperative. At their request, Drew stood up, walked over and sat in the gurney in a semi Fowler’s position (reclined position). Drew was taken outside to the ambulance and loaded without incident. After being loaded, the defendants’ applied soft wrist restraints on each of the Drew’s wrists.

EMT #1 rode in the back of the vehicle with Drew who was positioned such that he was looking towards the rear of the vehicle. EMT #1 was seated on a side bench providing him with full view and access to observe Drew and the soft restraints during the transport. Defendant EMT #2 drove the vehicle.

After about 5-10 minutes, the Drew asked EMT #1 to move behind him. EMT #1 complied and moved to the airway seat behind Drew. At all times, Drew was still in the raised Fowler’s position. His body, seatbelts and soft restraints were now blocked from the view of EMT #1.

According to EMT #1, shortly thereafter he observed Drew sit up and slide his feet off of the gurney. After a brief struggle, Drew exited the almost stopped vehicle and ran several times across multiple lanes on one of Southern California’s busiest freeways.

Drew was eventually grabbed by off-duty Orange County Sheriff Deputy. After a minute or two, Drew broke away from the Deputy and was immediately struck and killed by an oncoming truck. To this day, the defendants’ have refused to accept any responsibility for Drew’s death.

The Claim and Litigation

The triable issues in this case are those relating to whether or not the defendants negligently and carelessly restrained, monitored, and transported the decedent. Our clients’ EMT expert believes that the soft restraints should NEVER have come loose and were not applied correctly. Furthermore, had the EMT continued monitoring Drew from the position on the side bench, he would have been able to easily observe and prevent Drew from releasing himself from the soft restraints.

During the defendant EMT’s pre-trial depositions, both admitted they were responsible for Drew’s care and safety during the non-emergency transport.

During their depositions, the EMTs also admitted they were taught that constant observation of a 5150 patient was necessary to protect the patient.

The EMT’s further testified they were taught to sit at the foot of the side bench seat next to a patient such as Drew, so they could maintain a visual observation of the patient and soft restraints.

The EMT’s also admit that they, and not the patient, are in charge and in control of what happens in the back of the vehicle.

When EMT #1 applied the soft restraints to Drew’s wrists, he testified during his deposition that he knew that Drew was a danger to himself. He also testified that he and his partner were in charge of Drew’s safety.

During his deposition, EMT #1 was asked if he would do anything different if he had another chance to do this all over again. He answered under oath, “I would have paid more attention. I would have been on the bench seat.”

Plaintiffs’ expert testified during his deposition and is expected to testify at trial that the defendants failed to properly apply and monitor the Drew’s soft restraints. Furthermore, that EMT #1 and EMT #2 were a team and both were responsible for the safe care and transport of a 5150 patient such as Drew.

These soft restraints should never come undone and this fact alone means that onre or both of the soft restraints were not applied correctly in the first place.

Even the defendants’ EMT expert agreed during his deposition that this was a non-emergency transport. He testified that he is not aware of any information indicating anything other than Drew being “calm” during the transport. He also confirmed that it was the defendants’ job to properly apply the soft restraints to Drew’s wrists and to monitor him during the attempted transport.

A new trial date has been set for July. We’ll let you know what happens.

Final Thoughts

The defendants dropped the ball in this case and it ended up costing Drew his life. Our hearts go out to our clients and their family. We have done and will continue to do all we can to help them find justice.

The bottom line in this case is that had the soft restraints been properly applied and monitored, Drew would have been safely delivered to the hospital.

Unfortunately, what most consumers are not aware of and something our jurors are not allowed to hear, is the fact that the damages in this case are artificially capped by MICRA (California’s Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act). MICRA artificially caps the non-economic damages in this case to only $250,000.

This law was enacted in 1975 in response to a perceived but later discredited crisis in the rising cost of premiums for medical malpractice insurance. MICRA caps compensation for what are known as “non-economic” damages – including life-altering situations such as the loss of limbs or mobility, severe disfigurement, loss of vision or fertility, ongoing pain, loss of a parent or spouse or child.

It is noted that even after MICRA took effect, the insurance premiums continued to substantially rise. It was only after passage in 1988 of Proposition 103, which gave the state the power to regulate premium increases, that healthcare providers had the assurance they would not be gouged by malpractice insurers.

The way MICRA works is that even if a jury awards our clients substantial damages for their loss of Drew’s love, society and affection (wrongful death damages), after the jury is discharged the trial judge will reduce those damages to the $250,000 limit. This law really doesn’t give the defendants’ any financial incentive to do the right thing and pay the claim. Instead, defendants across the state simply deny these claims and roll the dice with conservative jurors. After all, the worse that can happen is to have their insurance company pay $250,000 on what might otherwise be a multimillion dollar case.

If you’d like to learn more about MICRA, click here. If you’d like to find out how the trial of this tragic wrongful death turns out, follow our blog. We’ll post updates.