|
Post by Sweetjane on Mar 29, 2023 15:08:23 GMT -6
I don't find the brain scans to be any sort of evidence. Yes, there was a crash, yes his brain function may be deteriorating (I'm not a Dr), but the point is to decide who is at fault, right? How does that determine who is responsible? b/c he's claiming that she is at fault and is the reason/to blame for his (permanent) brain damage that resulted from the collision. make sense? But the scans don't prove she is at fault. If I get in a car accident and break my I arm, that's facts. But my broken arm could be a result of me running a red light, making the accident my fault. So yes, he may have a cognitive decline but because of his own doing. I just don't see it proving anything. If she was found to be at fault then he could use the information to get a settlement.
|
|
bloom
Gold
Posts: 986 Likes: 2,385
|
Post by bloom on Mar 29, 2023 15:08:59 GMT -6
b/c he's claiming that she is at fault and is the reason/to blame for his (permanent) brain damage that resulted from the collision. make sense? Is he diagnosed with dementia? It can be both that he was getting older and that a fall caused an issues in a brain I don't think he has an actual DX, but the neuro psych said it's not an if, but a when. she broke out reasoning/her opinion on other health issues he has that often lead down that path. it was a lot, I didn't give it my full attention. it can be both but they have before and after scans, so the doc was able to dissect and differentiate to some extent.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2023 15:09:26 GMT -6
b/c he's claiming that she is at fault and is the reason/to blame for his (permanent) brain damage that resulted from the collision. make sense? Is he diagnosed with dementia? It can be both that he was getting older and that a fall caused an issues in a brain I don't think he has a formal diagnosis. He's got a slew of other conditions that are not treated (sleep apnea that I remember off the top of my head), some that were being treated (insomnia, depression, anxiety, migraines, hydrocephalus, etc). Basically a LOT of things that could be the cause for his change in mental state.
|
|
McBenny
Unicorn
#sickomode
Posts: 52,186 Likes: 296,694
|
Post by McBenny on Mar 29, 2023 15:11:07 GMT -6
Yes Ramone said another ski instructor not the orginal one told him. This was after TS was gone. For me, (and only me I know) it looks negative for their side to be arguing that the broken ribs did not happen from the impact but from him falling and her landing on him. For me - it's not about when he broke them (impact or fall after). I know what it takes to break a rib and how much it hurst so I do not believe that he said he was ok etc. So that makes me look at GP side again very not credible. I thought she said Ramone said it while the patroller/emt was initially assessing TS. & I thought all three (patroller, Ramone, and TS) went down in the toboggan together. also, if the defense can prove that the ribs were broken on impact with the hill, then it lends itself that he was uphill from her. so that makes sense to me to push that narrative. Ramone testified that he and he alone was helping TS down. That the instructor was rude and asking all kinds of questions and that TS did not answer or agree to anything. Then the instructor left them. He said he was attempting to get TS down the hill together and he flagged down help. That help then came and took him down via tobaggan. Then he said after all of that is when another instructor (not the orginal one) told him who the woman was specifically. Now, I did not watch and hear it with my own ears. This is what 3 different sites reported. I can give you the links if need be. This is why I said up thread those are really big lies to say - That you were the one trying to physically help him and that you were the one to flag down help. I do not see why this could not be verified by some record. Ramone testified that it was common courtesy to exchange info and that he was surprised that the person left so quickly. So his version does not have all of them coming down together. Again, this was my understanding. I would have to check my notes when I get home.
|
|
|
Post by SweetPotato on Mar 29, 2023 15:13:21 GMT -6
b/c he's claiming that she is at fault and is the reason/to blame for his (permanent) brain damage that resulted from the collision. make sense? But the scans don't prove she is at fault. If I get in a car accident and break my I arm, that's facts. But my broken arm could be a result of me running a red light, making the accident my fault. So yes, he may have a cognitive decline but because of his own doing. I just don't see it proving anything. If she was found to be at fault then he could use the information to get a settlement. That’s essentially what he’s trying to do. He’s using the medical stuff to justify the damages he is claiming
|
|
McBenny
Unicorn
#sickomode
Posts: 52,186 Likes: 296,694
|
Post by McBenny on Mar 29, 2023 15:25:52 GMT -6
I don't find the brain scans to be any sort of evidence. Yes, there was a crash, yes his brain function may be deteriorating (I'm not a Dr), but the point is to decide who is at fault, right? How does that determine who is responsible? I have not looked at the scans yet. I am going to tell you what stands out to me just by hearing the neurologist today. If you see brain damage in 2009 then you should see brain damage in 2016. At least no change or there is progression. I do not understand how you would say that you see NONE after the accident. This has been my experience since 1999. I have never had someone that had brain damage as seen in imaging, lose it later on. I just asked 4 of my coworkers and they are rolling. I will have to ask one of our neurologists later. On a side note - it is little things like this and like the SA comment etc that is making me thing negatively of her side.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2023 15:30:24 GMT -6
I don't find the brain scans to be any sort of evidence. Yes, there was a crash, yes his brain function may be deteriorating (I'm not a Dr), but the point is to decide who is at fault, right? How does that determine who is responsible? I have not looked at the scans yet. I am going to tell you what stands out to me just by hearing the neurologist today. If you see brain damage in 2009 then you should see brain damage in 2016. At least no change or there is progression. I do not understand how you would say that you see NONE after the accident. This has been my experience since 1999. I have never had someone that had brain damage as seen in imaging, lose it later on. I just asked 4 of my coworkers and they are rolling. I will have to ask one of our neurologists later. On a side note - it is little things like this and like the SA comment etc that is making me thing negatively of her side. I interpreted the testimony differently.. not saying that the damage disappeared from 2009 to further. They noted issues in 2009, those same issues exist in 2017, they didn't see any *new* brain damage that would be attributed to this accident that didn't exist in the prior scans.
|
|
McBenny
Unicorn
#sickomode
Posts: 52,186 Likes: 296,694
|
Post by McBenny on Mar 29, 2023 15:38:25 GMT -6
Is he diagnosed with dementia? It can be both that he was getting older and that a fall caused an issues in a brain I don't think he has a formal diagnosis. He's got a slew of other conditions that are not treated (sleep apnea that I remember off the top of my head), some that were being treated (insomnia, depression, anxiety, migraines, hydrocephalus, etc). Basically a LOT of things that could be the cause for his change in mental state. The issue with that, those would be a progressive change in mental status and not an acute change. The hydrocephalus could be acute change if there was a shunt placed and it failed but usually again those are progressive. His side is arguing that he had an acute change from his baseline pre accident.
|
|
McBenny
Unicorn
#sickomode
Posts: 52,186 Likes: 296,694
|
Post by McBenny on Mar 29, 2023 15:39:14 GMT -6
I have not looked at the scans yet. I am going to tell you what stands out to me just by hearing the neurologist today. If you see brain damage in 2009 then you should see brain damage in 2016. At least no change or there is progression. I do not understand how you would say that you see NONE after the accident. This has been my experience since 1999. I have never had someone that had brain damage as seen in imaging, lose it later on. I just asked 4 of my coworkers and they are rolling. I will have to ask one of our neurologists later. On a side note - it is little things like this and like the SA comment etc that is making me thing negatively of her side. I interpreted the testimony differently.. not saying that the damage disappeared from 2009 to further. They noted issues in 2009, those same issues exist in 2017, they didn't see any *new* brain damage that would be attributed to this accident that didn't exist in the prior scans. Ok this makes way more sense. I haven't read anything on it today except for here since I am in the office today.
|
|
McBenny
Unicorn
#sickomode
Posts: 52,186 Likes: 296,694
|
Post by McBenny on Mar 29, 2023 15:42:48 GMT -6
I have a lot of people allege all kinds of things. Like many of you said you can already have health problems and the like prior to an event.
What we look at is established mental and physical baseline prior to an alleged event. You don't have to be in tip top shape.
Like I once had a woman who had an established neck impairment and prior neck fusion. She was then on a plane and experienced severe turbulence. She sued. Anyway, they argued she already had a neck issue before the plane. Which she did. However, she had a baseline of where she was before the plane. While she may not have been 100% prior to (100 meaning no issues), there was an event (the plane) and it caused her an acute decline at that time and she was dx with whiplash.
She won her case.
|
|
McBenny
Unicorn
#sickomode
Posts: 52,186 Likes: 296,694
|
Post by McBenny on Mar 29, 2023 15:46:07 GMT -6
I was looking for her daughter to say a different version of the accident. I was over it when she said she didn't see it. Insert eye roll for me. I don't need to know how GP was after the accident.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2023 15:48:03 GMT -6
I don't think he has a formal diagnosis. He's got a slew of other conditions that are not treated (sleep apnea that I remember off the top of my head), some that were being treated (insomnia, depression, anxiety, migraines, hydrocephalus, etc). Basically a LOT of things that could be the cause for his change in mental state. The issue with that, those would be a progressive change in mental status and not an acute change. The hydrocephalus could be acute change if there was a shunt placed and it failed but usually again those are progressive. His side is arguing that he had an acute change from his baseline pre accident. The defense expert witnesses are arguing that the "acute" changes post accident are all self reported. On the objective matters and competency tests (wrong word for it, sorry), he scored very high/functioning. On the self-reported symptoms, he reported a lot of issues, and his claim is that the issues got worse over time, vs. staying similar or improving, as TBI's normally would do. (I don't know anything about how that stuff works) He previously "had a history of overreporting" subjective symptoms.. was in the doctors office something like 70+ times in the one year prior to the accident. I don't know what to make of that. So far, if I were a juror, I don't think either side has presented a compelling case to say TS or GP was at fault. I think GP's side has provided enough evidence that I could not confidently say that the issues TS claims to have are because of the accident, regardless of who was at fault.
|
|
McBenny
Unicorn
#sickomode
Posts: 52,186 Likes: 296,694
|
Post by McBenny on Mar 29, 2023 15:59:06 GMT -6
The issue with that, those would be a progressive change in mental status and not an acute change. The hydrocephalus could be acute change if there was a shunt placed and it failed but usually again those are progressive. His side is arguing that he had an acute change from his baseline pre accident. The defense expert witnesses are arguing that the "acute" changes post accident are all self reported. On the objective matters and competency tests (wrong word for it, sorry), he scored very high/functioning. On the self-reported symptoms, he reported a lot of issues, and his claim is that the issues got worse over time, vs. staying similar or improving, as TBI's normally would do. (I don't know anything about how that stuff works) He previously "had a history of overreporting" subjective symptoms.. was in the doctors office something like 70+ times in the one year prior to the accident. I don't know what to make of that. So far, if I were a juror, I don't think either side has presented a compelling case to say TS or GP was at fault. I think GP's side has provided enough evidence that I could not confidently say that the issues TS claims to have are because of the accident, regardless of who was at fault. Based on what you posted I agree with you that it doesn't appear TS has proven his issues are from the accident. I thought her side would focus more on this and not the crazy stuff that it seems they wasted time on. Are they not going to share the video? Was that mentioned?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2023 16:03:59 GMT -6
McBenny, I haven't heard about the video at all today. Today's the only day I've been able to watch vs. just keep up with articles. They're going to call TS back to the stand. TS has another 2:23 and GP has 1:35 left, including closing arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2023 16:21:10 GMT -6
Oh TS is interesting.. since the accident, he's visited more countries than I'll ever go to, hiked every moutain he could find, mountain biking, hiked Machu Picchu, rock concert, escape rooms, volunteered, skied after the collision, etc., many of those things by the summer after the accident. By all means, it sounds like post accident, his life more active than many of ours.
I dislike GP's counsel implying that just because someone is smiling they are happy and feeling great, or that because he isn't posting on FB about his problems they don't exist, since we all know that's not true.
|
|
|
Post by oreobitsy on Mar 29, 2023 16:44:14 GMT -6
Account of who was where and did what after and going down a slope, but still does nothing to prove who crashed into who. This is my sticking point. It doesn’t seem that either side made a compelling case about who was at fault.
|
|
|
Post by Sweetjane on Mar 29, 2023 18:57:46 GMT -6
Account of who was where and did what after and going down a slope, but still does nothing to prove who crashed into who. This is my sticking point. It doesn’t seem that either side made a compelling case about who was at fault. Exactly. That was my point about the scans, they don't contribute to the equation of trying to produce who hit who. So why even, except for $$
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2023 19:24:41 GMT -6
This is my sticking point. It doesn’t seem that either side made a compelling case about who was at fault. Exactly. That was my point about the scans, they don't contribute to the equation of trying to produce who hit who. So why even, except for $$ To win, TS has to prove GP was at fault AND that he was damaged. If GP can show that his injuries were minor, even if GP is found to be at fault, it would limit what he’s potentially awarded.
|
|
|
Post by SweetPotato on Mar 29, 2023 19:51:34 GMT -6
This is my sticking point. It doesn’t seem that either side made a compelling case about who was at fault. Exactly. That was my point about the scans, they don't contribute to the equation of trying to produce who hit who. So why even, except for $$ Because the $$ is the entire point of the lawsuit.
|
|
McBenny
Unicorn
#sickomode
Posts: 52,186 Likes: 296,694
|
Post by McBenny on Mar 29, 2023 20:10:55 GMT -6
One would think if you're going to go to court you at least have medical records to document your allegations.
|
|
|
Post by SweetPotato on Mar 29, 2023 20:16:22 GMT -6
So maybe it’s helpful to kind of clear up that there are two different lawsuits happening simultaneously.
Lawsuit 1 is Dude against Goop. He’s claiming she is at fault and asking for 300k. In order to win he needs to prove that 1) she was at fault and 2) due to her conduct he suffered damages.
That’s why the medical stuff is brought up. He’s claiming these damages and she is defending against those claims.
|
|
|
Post by oreobitsy on Mar 29, 2023 21:18:02 GMT -6
That county only has around 40,000 people and I’m sure some jurors have some connections to the ski life. My guess is they’ll be indecisive of the fault and won’t even get to the second part.
|
|
|
Post by oreobitsy on Mar 29, 2023 21:18:34 GMT -6
That’s my uninformed opinion. I definitely could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2023 10:27:48 GMT -6
TS's own expert witness just said that his version of events (GP hitting him so hard he went airborne) was impossible based on the laws of physics. He was the last witness in the case, on vacation, zoom failed, and had a choppy phone call for his testimony. It was really bad. That's the note the trial ended on. Not good for TS.
|
|
bloom
Gold
Posts: 986 Likes: 2,385
|
Post by bloom on Mar 30, 2023 10:30:05 GMT -6
TS's own expert witness just said that his version of events (GP hitting him so hard he went airborne) was impossible based on the laws of physics. He was the last witness in the case, on vacation, zoom failed, and had a choppy phone call for his testimony. It was really bad. That's the note the trial ended on. Not good for TS. the connection was cringe. I felt for TSs side in that moment.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2023 10:34:54 GMT -6
I can't remember if it was brought up yesterday, they asked TS about being blind in one eye. He said he's not blind. Defense said.. it's noted in three of your medical records that you self reported you're blind in one eye. He says.. "I use the term blind loosely." Defense is like.. "that's unusual for an OPTOMETRIST."
|
|
bloom
Gold
Posts: 986 Likes: 2,385
|
Post by bloom on Mar 30, 2023 10:56:47 GMT -6
I can't remember if it was brought up yesterday, they asked TS about being blind in one eye. He said he's not blind. Defense said.. it's noted in three of your medical records that you self reported you're blind in one eye. He says.. "I use the term blind loosely." Defense is like.. "that's unusual for an OPTOMETRIST." oh my yes. even more cringe. that was not a good look.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2023 11:07:19 GMT -6
So if I'm understanding right.. if TS is found at fault, the most she can be awarded, excluding legal fees, is $1. I didn't hear a cap on what he can be awarded if she is found at fault (I didn't hear them note that $300k was the max).
|
|
|
Post by icedcoffee on Mar 30, 2023 11:09:32 GMT -6
I think he has a low chance of winning at this point, he hasn't really proven anything in court, but I still believe GP had more to do with what happened than she claims. I do believe he was injured but not to the extent he claims.
I'm also not sure he should get 300k, but still think he should have been compensated for medical expenses occurring after the collision
Idk. It seemed to be a cluster fuck all around
|
|
|
Post by SweetPotato on Mar 30, 2023 11:17:47 GMT -6
I think he has a low chance of winning at this point, he hasn't really proven anything in court, but I still believe GP had more to do with what happened than she claims. I do believe he was injured but not to the extent he claims. I'm also not sure he should get 300k, but still think he should have been compensated for medical expenses occurring after the collision Idk. It seemed to be a cluster fuck all around But paid by whom? Any why? If he can’t prove it was her fault, why should she have to pay? Because she’s rich? Because we don’t like her?
|
|