Unfortunately, when a civil lawsuit is filed, sometimes defendants do everything in their power to prevent the plaintiff from even being allowed to explain their story to a judge or jury. Instead, as any Illinois brain injury lawyer knows, many tactics are used to delay the process and get a case thrown out of court before it actually goes to trial. One way that is done is by getting a claim thrown out of court claiming that the theory under which a case is based can never lead to recovery. In each civil case there are certain elements that a plaintiff must prove. However, if the plaintiff fails to even mention one of those elements, for example, then the case should not get to the jury. Yet, many defendants and their lawyers often try to convince a judge that a claim made by a plaintiff was insufficient, even though the basic elements and standards are met. From the defendant’s perspective there is often little to lose by trying to get a judge to throw out the case, even if there is little chance that he will.
Occasionally, a judge will dismiss a case, even with merit, based upon mistaken beliefs about the law. Often this means the end for a lawsuit, but sometimes those rulings are appealed to a higher court and reversed. That is what happened in a brain injury case recently reported on by the Bellingham Herald. In this case, a woman filed a brain injury lawsuit after she suffered a diabetic reaction while driving. She was injured, but she claims doctors who assisted her following the injury failed to take steps that should have been taken which diminished her chance of recovery.
According to documents filed with the court, the woman was discharged from the hospital even though she couldn’t even walk by herself to the car and had to be carried to bed once she arrived there. She was not given any treatment information or instructions about head injuries. It wasn’t until that following day that her husband brought her back to the hospital, because she was lethargic. An MRI was taken which proved that she had a stroke. The woman’s two sons, who are both medical doctors, worked for hours trying to have a CT angiogram performed. When it was finally done, it was discovered that the woman had a dissected carotid artery. Even then, the suit claims that there was insufficient treatment provided to the woman whose family eventually had her transferred to a different facility.
The brain injury lawsuit that was filed after the event accuses the doctors and medical facility involved with failing to timely diagnose her problem or provide timely treatment. According to the suit the woman’s chance of recovery was diminished by at least 50 to 60 percent because of the problems. She may have had no disability or at least significantly less disability if that were the case. Originally, the trial court decided that this “diminished chance of recovery” claim was insufficient under the law. However, the case was appealed up to the highest court in the state which ultimately found otherwise. They noted that a jury could find the requisite elements of a proper claim were met based upon the information provided in the lawsuit.
See Our Related Blog Posts: