Scarlett Law Group
Traumatic Brain Injury Attorneys - TBI

The Biomechanics of Traumatic Brain Injury

Rasmussen v. Shade

Links to a video demonstration of the biomechanical evidence and recreation used during the trial of Rasmussen v. Shade, et al., SCV 14935, Placer County Superior Court, Lincoln Division.

Work-up of the biomechanics of injury are especially required in the proper trial presentation of any traumatic brain injury case. The Scarlett Law Group works with the top experts in the world on this subject. Below, you will see the lengths to which the Scarlett Law Group routinely works with biomechanical experts in order to demonstrate the mechanics of injury.

On July 7, 2005, in Rasmussen v. Shade, et al., SCV 14935, Placer County Superior Court, Lincoln Division, the jury reached it's Verdict awarding Kim Rasmussen $1,248,024.00 as a result of injuries he sustained in a relatively minor rear end automobile accident occurring in Roseville, California. On August 19, 2002, Plaintiff Kim Rasmussen, was operating his 1997 Ford F-250 pickup truck on Eureka Road near Sunrise in Roseville, CA. Defendant Bruce Robert Shade caused his 1999 Dodge Durango to rear end plaintiffs' pickup at about 7mph - 12mph. Plaintiffs truck sustained $498.00 damage to the rear bumper. Despite the relatively minor property damage, counsel was able to establish that the rotational forces were sufficient to cause Mr. Rasmussen to sustain a traumatic brain injury. Leading experts throughout the United States testified on behalf of Mr. Rasmussen, and the Jury's Verdict should ensure that he receives the future medical care he so desperately needs.

On August 19, 2002, Plaintiff Kim Rasmussen, was operating a 1997 Ford F-250 pickup truck on Eureka Road near Sunrise and Interstate-80 in Roseville, CA. At said time and place, Defendant Bruce Robert Shade was then operating a 1999 Dodge Durango. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Shade's negligent operation of his Dodge Durango caused it to rearend (collide) with Plaintiff's F- 250 pickup truck, causing Plaintiff damages and injuries as hereinafter set forth. As a result of the accident, Plaintiffs Kim and Judy Rasmussen filed suit alleging causes of action for negligence (motor vehicle) and loss of consortium.

Plaintiff established at trial (12 to 0) that as a result of this low speed rear-end automobile accident, he sustained a mild traumatic brain injury, which necessitated future medical care and treatment, and which caused damage to Plaintiff's earning capacity. Mr. Rasmussen...had worked as an entry-level Accountant earning between $19,000 to $41,000 in the five years previous to the accident. Plaintiff Kim Rasmussen sought damages for past medical bills, past wage loss, future medical care, diminution to earnings capacity and emotional distress. Plaintiff Judy Rasmussen sought damages for loss of consortium-though she admitted that she did not know if she could continue with her relationship with her husband. Defendant Bruce Robert Shade contended, and his experts testified at trial, that Plaintiff Kim Rasmussen sustained no organic brain injury of any type. Defendant's neurologist, A. Reza Ehyai, M.D., testified that Plaintiff sustained no organic brain injury as a result of the accident, and further, that Plaintiff did not lose consciousness, and sustained no concussion. Defendant's expert mechanical engineer, Bahram Ravani, Ph.D., that the forces involved in the accident were not sufficient to give rise to a traumatic brain injury, and that at most, were only sufficient to cause a transient whiplash. Defendant's neuropsychologist, Alan Brooker, Ph.D., testified that Plaintiff suffered from pre-existing emotional stressors caused by his unemployment, and that, at most, his symptomology was caused by a psychiatric condition-conversion disorder. The jury's verdict on the issue of the existence of organic brain injury was 12-0 in favor of Kim Rasmussen.

The jury's verdict on the issue of the existence of organic brain injury was 12-0 in favor of Kim Rasmussen. The jury's verdict with respect to each of the damage awards was 12-0 for past medical expenses, 9-3 for future medical care and treatment (with the three wishing to award more than the $700,000), 12-0 for past lost wages, 10-2 for present value of future wage loss (with the 2 wishing to award more), 9-3 on the pain, suffering and emotional distress (with the 3 wishing to award more), 10- 2 on the injury to Judy Rasmussen (with the 2 not wishing to acknowledge an injury to her), and 9-3 on the issue of loss of consortium damages (with the 3 wishing to award her additional damages).