Success Stories

SLIP AND FALL AT GROCERY STORE

Attorneys Tracy Owensby and Kevin Cleveland recently settled a case for $150,000 against a major grocery store chain for injuries related to a slip and fall inside one of its stores in Sacramento. Client Jane Doe, who was accompanied by her husband, John Doe, was walking down an aisle in the grocery store when she slipped on an unidentified oily substance and suffered an injury to her hamstring and low back. She was taken by ambulance to a local hospital and was then bed-ridden for several weeks and treated thereafter. The grocery store chain denied any liability for the incident, claiming that Jane Doe wasn’t watching where she was walking, that defendant didn’t know who put the substance there nor how long it had been there, and that defendant had no notice of the dangerous condition before the incident. When it was clear that the Arnold firm was willing and ready for trial, the case settled on the eve of trial. 

A GREAT BATTLE

The fatal collision between Plaintiffs’ Jeep Liberty and defendant’s Volvo truck left Ryan Eisenbrandt’s surviving wife and parents with a judgment of 3.9 million dollars, but the defendant’s insurance company refused to pay.  This resulted in a second, intense legal battle between Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s insurance company.

During the pendency of the wrongful death case, Defendant’s insurance company had filed a federal court action to rescind the defendant’s $1,000,000.00 insurance policy, claiming that defendant had made misrepresenations when applying for that policy.  Initially, the federal court agreed with the insurance company, granting summary judgment that effectively denied recovery to the Eisenbrandts given the defendant was otherwise insolvent.  The Arnold firm and the Eisenbrandts refused to accept this unfair outcome. They appealed the federal judge’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court and sent the case back to the same federal judge for a trial on the merits. 

Kirk Wolden and Christine Doyle of the Arnold Firm tried the case in February 2011, in front of the same judge who had previously thrown out the Eisenbrandts’ case.  A unanimous advisory jury and the trial judge, after hearing the true facts about the insurance company’s effort to avoid responsibility, found in the Eisenbrandts’ favor.  After four years of fighting for what is right,  the insurance company was ordered to pay up.   

MAKING THE EXTRA EFFORT TO RESOLVE A CLAIM

A man was on his way home from work, driving his 2003 Chevy S-10 pickup eastbound on Mills Station Road in Rancho Cordova when he stopped for a red light at the intersection of Mather Field Drive. He waited for the light to change well back of the intersection and beyond the railroad tracks that parallel Mather Field Drive.

The light turned green, and he crossed the tracks and the southbound lanes. He was within feet of the other side of the street when a woman ran the northbound red light and struck the truck broadside, driving it across the intersection and into a pole.

The accident report gave the man’s explanation of the events, but listed no witnesses. When the police talked to the woman, she said she had a green light when she entered the intersection.

It was the man’s word against the woman’s when the man came to the Arnold Law Firm. The man was looking at more than $100,000 in medical and other costs as a result of the accident. Even though details of the accident supported his side of the story, without a witness his case was not promising.

While deposing the police officer who wrote the accident report, the Arnold Law Firm attorney noticed the officer had brought some notes along. He asked to look at the notes and discovered that the notes included the names and phone numbers of two witnesses. One number was no longer in service, but the other number belonged to a couple who had been in a vehicle behind the man and witnessed the collision. They confirmed that the light was green for them and red for the woman.

The Arnold Law Firm was able to get the woman driver’s insurance to pay its policy limits and then secured additional money from the man’s uninsured motorist coverage.

A CIVIL LAW CHRISTMAS STORY

On Christmas Day 2006, a man was visiting his employer’s house when he was shot in the leg, suffering crippling injuries to his knee. The man came to the Arnold Law Firm after several other firms had refused to take up his case. Recovery from the homeowner was highly unlikely. Gunshot injuries are not something homeowner’s insurance covers.

While other law firms had dismissed the claim as unprofitable, Carter established that the man who fired the gun was a previously convicted felon and was under court order to not possess a gun or be in the house where the shooting took place. Everyone in the home at the time of the shooting knew of the court order and knew that the previously convicted felon had access to the gun. However, no one in the home did anything to prevent access to the gun or to prevent the shooter gunman from gaining access to the gun. Instead, they conspired to allow him to visit Christmas Day which ultimately led to this unfortunate shooting.

Attorney Clifford Carter’s exhaustive research and investigation established both negligence on the part of the homeowners and a conspiracy to allow the situation that resulted in the gunshot injury. Ultimately, this allowed the client to recover for an event which is normally not covered by homeowners insurance and make sure that the client was properly compensated for his injuries.

A FAIR, STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT

A volunteer at Senior Gleaners was helping out on the loading dock of the warehouse when he was struck by a forklift. The forklift operator knocked the man down and rolled on top of him. He then backed off him, compounding the injury. Senior Gleaners claimed immunity. The injured volunteer came to the Arnold Law Firm seeking a reasonable settlement for the disabling injuries he suffered which prevented him from working in the future.

The Arnold Law Firm represented the volunteer and pleaded his case for general damages, past and future medical costs, and past and future lost earnings. After extensive work on behalf of the injured man, an agreement was reached with the insurance company that paid the man a monthly income for the rest of his life. In addition, the monthly payments were guaranteed for 15 years to the man’s heirs in the event of his untimely death.

THE PRICE OF A DOG BITE

The owner of a 3-year-old male pitbull became extremely afraid of the dog when it bit him. The report of the attack showed the owner thought the dog should be euthanized. But instead, the dog was left in its yard.

The very next day, a woman who rented a room on the property arrived home. She considered herself friends with the dog as she entered the yard. But the feeling of friendship quickly evaporated when the dog sunk its teeth into the flesh below the woman’s right breast. The dog then savagely tore into both of the woman’s hands and arms. The woman was rushed to a nearby hospital. The worst bites were to her left hand, her dominant hand.  She was in excruciating pain for weeks afterward.  With both hands bandaged, she had to be fed, clothed and bathed by her boyfriend.

A year and a half after the attack, both of the woman’s hands were scarred and her left hand was numb in places, the fine motor skills permanently impaired. Worse, she was now extremely fearful of all dogs.  The attack was a horrifying event that will impact the rest of her life.

After much hard work and negotiation by Attorneys at the Arnold Law Firm, the case was settled for a confidential amount which was sufficient to compensate the woman for her terrible injuries.

THE PAIN OF CALIFORNIA’S MICRA LIMITS

A baby girl was born severely premature in Redding, California in August of 2005. She was immediately airlifted to the neonatal intensive care unit at U.C. Davis Medical Center in Sacramento.

At UCD Medical Center, a peripherally inserted central catheter, or “PICC” line, was inserted into the baby girl in order to administer medicine necessary to maintain her blood pressure. But instead of being placed in a vein leading to the heart, it was placed in an artery. The doctors discovered the PICC line in the left ventricle of Rebekah’s heart, which alerted them to the mistake. Instead of correcting the error, the PICC line was pulled out of the heart but left it in the artery.

High doses of a medication were administered via this line directly to the baby girl’s right hand. The resulting loss of blood flow damaged her hand and caused her to lose four fingers and the tip of her thumb.

The baby’s parents came to the Arnold Law Firm. Attorney Kirk Wolden’s diligent research and the testimony of expert witnesses identified the errant procedure and the failure of the hospital to follow established care guidelines. However, the doctor and hospital denied any liability and said the little girl wouldn’t suffer any future economic damages as a result of losing the fingers of her right hand.  The question of economic damages is important because California’s 35-year-old Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) limits jury awards in medical malpractice cases to $250,000 for pain and suffering. Beyond that, only future medical expenses and lost wages can be recovered.

After a full day of mediation, the child was awarded the $250,000 maximum award for the loss of her fingers and another $200,000 to pay for surgery to increase function of her hand and post-surgical rehabilitation.

This paltry $450,000 settlement for the permanent, disfiguring injuries to this beautiful girl provides a telling example of the inadequacy of the MICRA damages cap.

JUSTICE FOR YOU AND THE DEFENDANT

A man was hired to hang gutters on the roof of a property.  On the first day of work, the man fell and suffered compound fractures of his right leg. The injured man came to the Arnold Law Firm.

The Arnold Law Firm then sued the general contractor who owned the property for negligence and for damages, arguing that under the Labor Code the injured worker was his statutory employee and, therefore, the property owner/general contractor could be held liable.

The property owner’s insurance carrier begged to differ. The carrier said there was no liability insurance coverage for the injuries under any of the theories the Arnold Law Firm advanced, and the carrier in turn asked the court to find there was no coverage.

The property owner was now by himself, his insurance carrier having abandoned him.  The Arnold Law Firm reached a deal with the property owner where the plaintiff and defendant agreed upon a judgment and the Arnold Law Firm agreed to defend the property owner against the carrier’s action if and when the carrier did not agree to pay the amount of the judgment. In short, if the Arnold Law Firm prevailed, the insurance company would have to pay several hundred thousand dollars to the injured worker.

The agreement was reached and the Arnold Law Firm took the case to trial and convinced the judge there was insurance coverage for the accident despite the carrier’s adamant argument that its policy exclusions applied. As a result the injured worker was fully compensated for his injuries.

IDENTIFYING DANGERS AND RESPONSIBLE PARTIES

An 8-year-old boy was riding his bicycle in the parking lot of his apartment complex at 10 p.m. without any lights or reflective material. As he rode across a driveway he was struck and run over by a truck. The boy suffered fractures of his pelvis and sacroiliac joint.  Arnold Law Firm attorney Douglas Stein took up the child’s claim. His research determined that the apartment complex’s pathway design encouraged children to ride their bikes across the very driveway where the accident occurred. The Arnold Law Firm brought an action against the apartment complex and eventually proved that the lack of lighting and the design of the paths were dangerous and major causes of the accident.  Stein secured a $350,000 settlement, with the apartment complex paying 95 percent of the settlement.

JUSTICE FOR FAMILIES AND ACCOUNTABILITY ON OUR ROADS

A 20-year-old man who had been married for just 12 days left home on May 25, 2006, on his way to work. He was driving on Pleasant Grove Road in Sutter County at about 6:45 a.m. when he came upon a slow-moving truck. As he pulled out to pass the truck, the truck driver turned left in front of him. The young man attempted to steer back into his lane but his vehicle struck an unflagged piece of metal extending from the back of the truck. He died in the resulting crash.

Expert witnesses brought in by Arnold Law Firm attorney Kirk Wolden proved that the truck, owned and operated by a hauling firm, should never have been on the highway that morning. Specifically, the rear and side turn signals did not work and the rear-view mirror was in a poor state of adjustment at the time of the collision. As a result, the driver, who had failed to property inspect the vehicle before setting out that morning, couldn’t see the young man’s vehicle as it attempted to pass.

The poor condition of the truck, its lack of maintenance and the manner in which it was operated were found to be substantial factors in causing the collision that killed the young man. The testimony also established that the man had been making a lawful pass at the lawful speed limit and acted reasonably when he attempted to avoid the collision.

The man’s 20-year-old widow was awarded $3,767,000.77, his parents were awarded $185,131 and the family was reimbursed $11,899 in funeral expenses. Though money is a poor substitute for a young man’s life, this verdict demonstrates that drivers who endanger the lives of others will be held accountable for their actions.

PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF CLIENTS ON APPEAL - Doug Stein

Arnold Law Firm attorney Douglas Stein has won an appeal of a Sacramento Superior Court judge’s ruling that the city of Sacramento was not liable for injuries caused by a dangerous intersection at J and 48th streets. Stein appealed the Sacramento judge’s decision throwing out the claims of the driver, who is represented by Stein, and his passenger.

Both were injured when the car struck the center divider after the driver steered to avoid a car that had encroached on their lane.  The Court of Appeals examined the evidence from expert witnesses brought in by Stein and Greenblatt, who represents the co-plaintiff in this case, and said that the evidence was sufficient to convince a reasonable juror that the hazardously narrow lanes and proximity of the center divider created a dangerous condition that caused the injuries. The court also rejected the city’s suggestion that a lack of prior claims involving that intersection was sufficient to meet the city’s burden to show that the center median was not dangerous at the time of the injury. “It is possible other drivers collided with the divider, and suffered resulting injuries, but never thought to hold the city liable and therefore never filed a tort claim with the city,” the Court of Appeals ruled. “Thus, even if it had been provided, evidence the city never received any other claim relating to the divider would not have established a ‘complete absence of any similar accidents,’ as the city contends.”

Stein’s hard work and strategically written arguments convinced the Court of Appeals to protect his client’s interests by preserving his client’s right to have a jury decide the merits of the claim against the city.

---

TWO LAW FIRMS COULDN’T DO IT; THE ARNOLD LAW FIRM COULD - Doug Stein

What appeared to be a simple fender-bender in a parking lot was anything but that for a passenger in a car that struck another vehicle while backing out of a parking space.  Two weeks after the accident, the passenger suffered a debilitating stroke. By the time the injured passenger contacted the Arnold Law Firm, two other law firms had tried and failed to convince the driver’s insurance company that the accident could have caused a stroke, let alone a stroke two weeks after the event.  Arnold Law Firm attorney Douglas Stein took up the case. Through his research and the deposition of his client’s treating neurologist, Stein learned that minor traumas can tear the wall of the vertebral artery in the neck causing a stroke. This type of stroke is often called “beauty-parlor syndrome,” which refers to the practice of extending the neck backward over a sink when washing hair in beauty parlors. With this information and the neurologist’s testimony, Stein was able to convince the insurance company to pay its full policy limits.

---

Earl Bode v. County of Sacramento, Sacramento Superior - Kirk Wolden

40 year old Earl Bode and his wife Christine walked into the Arnold Firm in March, 2007, with three garbage bags of medical receipts and insurance documents handed to them by their prior attorney.  Accused of causing an accident that was not Earl’s fault and with his own insurance company claiming he was uninsured, Mr. Bode was dazed and hurt.  He had suffered a permanent brain injury and multiple other physical injuries when two Sacramento County probation officers, speeding without cause down the center turn lane of a busy Sacramento thoroughfare during rush hour, struck Earl Bode’s vehicle broadside at 50 miles per hour as Bode attempted to make a lawful left turn.  Despite a police report (authored by acquaintances of the probation officers) that blamed Bode 100% for the collision, The Arnold Firm believed Earl’s version of how the collision occurred, and undertook his representation. 

The Arnold Firm first succeeded in suing Earl Bode’s own insurance company to establish the coverage necessary to sue the County.  In the ensuing lawsuit against the County of Sacramento, Earl was wrongfully accused of faking his brain injury, an injury which kept him from his life’s work as a commercial construction site supervisor.  The Arnold Firm and its experts proved through accident reconstruction that Earl’s version of the collision was in fact what had happened, and that the County probation officers were at fault.  Using sophisticated medical technologies, including EEG and PET scan, to show the damage to Earl’s brain, plaintiffs forced the County’s medical experts to take back their charges that Earl was faking.  After four, hard fought years of battle for redemption and compensation, Earl and Christine Bode settled their lawsuit against the County of Sacramento for $3,500,000.00—an amount sufficient to provide Earl with the care and replace the financial opportunities taken from him and his family. 

---

Doe v Roe Restaurant - Doug Stein

Douglas Stein obtained a confidential settlement on behalf of our clients for the wrongful death of their adult son against a commercial retail restaurant and another drive thru lane customer.  The lawsuit arose from the death of our client’s adult son, which occurred in the drive-thru lane of the restaurant when he was run over by a car as he laid unconscious in the drive-thru lane as a consequence of being attacked by a gang of young African American males.  We alleged that the restaurant was partially at-fault for the death of their son because the restaurant did not have proper video security cameras, and, that the restaurant did not properly train its employees to respond to emergency situations, which caused a delay in calling “911”.  Our clients faced the likely dismissal of their case against the restaurant by a Motion for Summary Judgment because there was no history of gang related violence or beatings.  Instead,  the matter resolved for a confidential amount which allowed our clients to “let go” of the case on their own terms and focus on moving through their grieving process rather focused on litigation surrounding the untimely and tragic death of their son.

---

Mr. E

Mr. E was on his way to work one very ordinary fall morning when an inattentive driver ran a red light, collided with his vehicle, and changed his life forever.  In that moment, although he didn’t realize it at the time, a chain of events was set into motion that affected every aspect of his life: his marriage, his career, his finances, and, worst of all, his health and his ability to earn a living. After the smoke cleared, literally and figuratively, he found himself in a situation with which he was utterly unfamiliar.  Insurance companies called him immediately and, in friendly, helpful tones, requested recorded statements.  He received medical bills that were represented to be “liens” in the mail that demanded immediate payment of large sums. The teenage girl (driving with a learner’s permit only) who had struck his vehicle, now represented by her insurance company, denied that the collision was her fault and, instead, claimed that Mr. E had caused this accident.  Worst of all, Mr. E’s neck was causing him severe pain of a type and intensity that he had never experienced before. 

The attorneys at the Arnold Law Firm were fortunate enough to have the opportunity to represent Mr. E for his injuries and other damages.  Following their handling of Mr. E’s case, all of his outstanding medical bills were resolved, the defendant admitted that the collision was her fault, and a settlement of the defendant’s automobile insurance policy limits of $200,000.00 was obtained.  Although Mr. E wishes this accident had not occurred, he is satisfied with the professional services provided by the Arnold Law Firm. 

---

Letter from Andrea M. - Doug Stein

After months of finding an attorney to take my case and being told there was no case or that was not an area of expertise in personal injury due to negligence in regards to ADA codes or lack thereof, I was determined to find an attorney that specialized in the area of falls and the ADA regulations and rules.

You were the attorney who specialized in falls and the ADA regulations and rules.  Thank you for all your expertise, long hours of research, consistent communicating with me regarding what was or was not happening with my case, meeting with me and discussing the strategies that were being pursued, and taking my many telephone calls and responding to my emails and letters.  Thank you for driving me home after one of our meetings.

Through persistency and determination we agreed to meet and discuss a settlement.  Although no amount of money will ever take away the constant pain and suffering I feel due to the injury, I am grateful for the settlement.

I appreciate all the work you put into my case and I thank you for being so patient when I was so persistent.

Andrea M. 

---

Stevens v. Security Contractor Services, Sacramento Superior - Kirk Wolden

Wrongfully blamed: What really happened to Randy Stevens

Randy Stevens opened his eyes and saw his wife standing over him in a hospital room. He had no idea what had happened. His last memory was of standing next to his truck trailer and watching as a Security Contractor Services forklift driver struggled to load an ungainly pallet of 12-foot by 6 foot sections of chain-link fencing.

When Stevens asked what had happened to him, he was told he had slipped or fallen out of his truck trailer and struck his head. But that didn’t make any sense.  When he examined himself he realized he didn’t have a scratch on him.  How do you fall 4 feet from the truck trailer that hard without scraping something?

But the worst was yet to come.

The blow to Stevens’ head caused permanent, disabling damage to his brain. He can no longer accomplish simple tasks without a detailed to-do list and is easily confused and agitated. Resulting personality changes have adversely affected his relationships with his family and friends and most importantly with his loving wife of 37 years.  A man who earned his commercial truck-driving license at age 15, today finds himself no longer able to work.

Stevens came to the Arnold Law Firm for help, and Clayeo Arnold and Kirk Wolden took up his case against a defendant who blamed Stevens for the incident and claimed his brain injury was “not that bad.”

It took the resources of professional safety experts and physicians brought in by the Arnold Law Firm to scientifically establish that the alleged scrape-free tumble could not have been the cause of Stevens’ permanent brain injury. No, the forensic investigation showed that the 3,000 pound bundle of chain-link fencing struck Stevens’ head with a frightening force of 50gs when the forklift driver lost control of his load and dropped it on Stevens.

The Arnold Law Firm took the case to trial. By the time they had finished presenting their evidence, they had convinced the jury of both the severity of Stevens’ debilitating injury and the negligence of the Security Contractor Services employees.  The jury awarded Stevens and his wife $2.6 million.