Scarlett Law Group
Traumatic Brain Injury Attorneys - TBI

The Scarlett Law Group are National Trial Lawyers based in San Francisco, California with outstanding results in cases involving automobile accidents, airplane crashes, traumatic brain injury, head injury, personal injury, catastrophic personal injuries, mass torts, medical malpractice , professional negligence, class actions, civil rights, environmental disasters and wrongful death.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Despite this, some trial lawyers think it is a mortal sin to try a case in an interesting manner. They seem to think it is beneath their dignity to make a case a living, pulsating, experience; a vivid portrayal of the tragedy that occurred. Try a case in a humdrum manner and the result will be a humdrum verdict. Your lawyer must capture and hold the imagination and the interests of the jury, as well as garner their respect. Your lawyer must make the jurors live your case; make them participate in the joint endeavor of righting a wrong; make them feel that theirs is the voice of the community.

"Condensed to its most simplistic, there are three major mechanisms which contribute to traumatic brain injury. These include: (a) impact of the brain against the skull; (b) shear between layers of the brain; and (c)cavitation."

Sadly, more often than not, this is not done. If anything, technology has hindered society´s ability to "see" through words. Many jurors, used to watching a drama unfold on television, are ill-equipped to follow a trial devoid of demonstration. If anything, the words of the lawyer may do nothing more than lull the juror to sleep. This is particularly so where complex events occur. In many instances the only way we can possibly understand the true sequence of an event is to see it, as well as hear about it.

This having been said, it is also true that a trial is about moderation. Simply because we can present certain evidence through a multimedia event, does not mean that we necessarily should. But where the complexity necessitates the need and the capability is present, then not to use the technology will guarantee a bad outcome.

It was only 50 years ago that lawyers struggled to use a blackboard at trial. Today, plasma monitors, and videotapes of real-time teleconferencing are commonplace. Computer reenactment, animation, and utilization of high-tech substances, such as brain gel, can be used with proper foundation. Dramatic impeachment through replay of videotaped depositions is now an essential part of any trial.

Blackboards, easels, charts, graphs, aerial photography, photographic blow ups, power point presentations, models, computer reenactments, plasma monitors, visual presenters, trial demonstration software, even holograms are used in today´s trials. A proper demonstration of how an accident or injury occurred may be the difference between a verdict for the plaintiff or defendant.

Traumatic brain injury or a closed head injury can occur when the head is subjected to a direct external impact (such as where the head is struck, or where the head strikes an object).

Likewise, injury can occur when the head is subjected to a sudden acceleration and then is suddenly stopped. A sudden acceleration/deceleration (often times causing diffuse axonal shearing), (and other times causing coup/contra coup injuries) often follows a violent flexion - extension movement of the head. This response is extremely common in rear-end vehicle collisions.

Condensed to its most simplistic, there are three major mechanisms which contribute to traumatic brain injury. These include: (a) impact of the brain against the skull; (b) shear between layers of the brain; and (c) cavitation.

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.

In the first instance, the Scarlett Law Group represented Claude Herndon as a result of traumatic brain injury which occurred when the stool upon which Mr. Herndon was sitting fell into a concealed hole in the casino floor, causing Mr. Herndon to be propelled forward where he hit his head upon the casino´s slot bank table. First, accurate photographs were taken of the actual location of the fall. Friction measurements were taken of the table top, together with appropriate documentation of the concealed hole and stool.

Lastly, based on the casino surveillance videotape obtained by the Scarlett Law Group during discovery, actual re-enactment of Mr. Herndon´s fall was duplicated in order to analyze the impact forces. The result indicated that the forces involved were clearly sufficient to cause traumatic brain injury.

Body Motion	Cavitation Demo	Cavitation	Impact	Neuron Shear
Brain Skull Impact	Shear Demo	Side Demo	Slow Motion	Hybrid III Head Drop Test (Flash file)
User Notes: Click on the hyperlinks above and the site will open a pop-up window allowing you to choose from a Quicktime or Windows Media file for both Cable/DSL or modem.
SEE FLASH VERSION HERE

The Scarlett Law Group likewise represented Mr. Jamil Keegan after he sustained a traumatic brain injury from a construction site accident. Mr. Keegan´s shirt was caught by pipe then being threaded in a pipe threading machine. The operator was oblivious to the problem experienced by Mr. Keegan as his shirt became entangled with the pipe, wrapping tighter and tighter, before Mr. Keegan was thrown over, striking his head on the concrete workplace floor. The Scarlett Law Group obtained an identical pipe threading machine, and in essence, reenacted the accident.

Take the following scenario into account:
On August 19, 2002, plaintiff Kim Rasmussen, was operating at his 1997 Ford F-250 pickup truck on Eureka Road near sunrise Boulevard in Roseville, California. Plaintiff had earlier been shopping at a Sam´s Club, and had departed the Sam´s Club parking lot and was driving on Eureka Road in order to return home via Interstate 80. Traffic on Eureka Road was stop and go. Mr. Rasmussen testified that due to stopped traffic immediately in front of his vehicle, he safely brought his Ford pickup truck to a stop. With his vehicle at stop, Mr. Rasmussen, enjoying the good weather, was looking to his left out the driver side window.

Unbeknownst to Mr. Rasmussen, defendant Bruce Robert Shade had also been shopping at Sam´s Club and had departed the Sam´s Club parking lot immediately behind plaintiff´s vehicle. Mr. Shade was operating a 1999 Dodge Durango sports utility vehicle. Mr. Shade testified that after entering Eureka Road, he was traveling approximately 2 car lengths behind Mr. Rasmussen´s vehicle. Mr. Shade further testified that due to the stop and go nature of the traffic, and the downhill grade of Eureka Road, his maximum speed was no more then 3 to 7 mph.

While Mr. Shade searched for a piece of gum he had dropped in his lap, Mr. Shade´s Dodge Durango rear-ended plaintiffs Ford pickup truck. Mr. Shade testified that due to the downhill grade of Eureka Road, he had only lifted his foot off of the brake pedal (without accelerating) immediately before impact occurred. Total damage to plaintiff´s Ford pickup truck was less than $500. The police were not called. The plaintiff drove from the scene of the accident in his Ford pickup truck.

Unfortunately, this seemingly minor rear end automobile accident caused profound injuries to Mr. Rasmussen. Because Mr. Rasmussen was looking out his left side window, rotational forces were brought to bear on Mr. Rasmussen´s head and brain. Thy diffuse axonal shearing occurred of from the saddened acceleration and deceleration forces involved. When Mr. Rasmussen´s head struck the headrest in the Ford pickup truck, and then went on to move forward in a rotational movement, the forces microscopically caused axonal shear to numerous axons with in Mr. Rasmussen´s brain.

And so with the above factual scenario in mind, ask yourself what the best manner of presentation of these issues would be to a prospective jury. Given that this accident involved seemingly minor forces resulting from an everyday accident in, how would you demonstrate to a jury exactly what happened to Mr. Rasmussen´s brain as a result of the rear end impact? The demonstration which follows is part of the actual trial demonstration utilized by Mr. Scarlett during the trial of the case. It is important to understand that before the demonstration was utilized, several hours of foundational testimony were given by a biomechanical expert. This testimony first established the vehicle dynamics, including the delta V. computations. Secondly, the testimony established the human body dynamics, including the forces working upon Mr. Rasmussen´s body at impact. Lastly, the testimony established that the forces experienced by Mr. Rasmussen were of a sufficient level so as to cause injury to the human brain. In the brain gel demonstrative evidence used during this trial was the first of its kind in the nation. Mr. Scarlett was the first attorney in the United States to use in the brain gel evidence during trial. I think that you will agree this demonstrative evidence was extremely forceful in assisting the jury to understand Hal seemingly minor forces could result in catastrophic injury and harm.

After Mr. Scarlett´s biomechanical expert determined the vehicle dynamics and the human body dynamics, the expert was in a position to reenact the forces, together with rotational impact upon a skull containing brain gel. Accordingly, the front seat from plaintiffs Ford pickup truck was removed from the truck itself. Mr. Scarlett´s expert utilized a high-speed camera, together with the skull containing brain gel, along with an accelerometer in order to demonstrate what the rear and collision, and forces resulting therefrom, did to plaintiffs brain upon impact with the seat back.

Click on the brain and dynamic testing presentation here in order to see the demonstrative evidence used at trial.

Rasmussen v. Shade

Claude Herndon

Jamil Keegan

On April 7, 2005, plaintiff Celia Shi´s life was forever altered when a COACH USA Grey-Line Tours Bus made an illegal left-hand turn striking Ms. Shi in the crosswalk.

The Scarlett Law Group utilized the latest in cutting-edge demonstrative evidence, describing in details the four extensive, life-saving surgeries performed. Click here for a Flash demonstration.

After being struck by the tour bus, Ms. Shi was thrown to the ground and sustained skull factures with internal bleed. Ms. Shi underwent four life-saving surgeries with the expert neurosurgical team at San Francisco General Hospital, led by renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Geoffrey T. Manley.

On March 13, 2007, a San Francisco Superior Court Jury recognized the care necessary to assist Ms. Shi who sustained severe traumatic brain injuries as a result of the avoidable tragedy. The jury awarded Ms. Shi 22.8 Million.

The jury awarded 1.3 for past economic loss, including lost earnings and medical/healthcare related expenses. The jury awarded 6.4 Million for future economic loss, including lost earnings/lost earnings capacity and medical and healthcare related expenses. The jury awarded 4.8 Million for past non-economic loss, including pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment, inconvenience, grief, anxiety, humiliation and emotional distress. The jury awarded 10.3 Million for future non-economic loss.

This is thought to be one of the highest non-punitive verdicts for an individual sustaining brain injury in the State of California.

Ms. Shi was a 49 year old woman who had been earning approximately $15-20 per hour working part time at an on-line bookstore at the time she was struck by the tour bus. Plaintiff´s counsel effectively argued that the jury´s most difficult task was to assess a monetary award for the loss of one´s cognitive capabilities. As a result of her massive brain injuries, Ms. Shi sustained frontal lobe syndrome and executive dysfunction. Click here for more details.