The Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Charities is an organization of trial lawyers that raises and donates money to help support education, our community in education, children issues and the homeless. Mr. Denove has been recognized as one of the original 24 members who founded the organization. Cheong, Denove, Rowell & Bennett encourages lawyers and non lawyers to support this worthwhile charity. To learn more about Los Angeles Trial lawyers Charities, go to: www.latlc.org.
John Denove and Shane Hapuarachy tried a Federal Civil Rights/Section 1983 case involving a claim of excessive force against the LAPD regarding a fatal shooting. The jury found in favor of the mother of the deceased. (LA Times)
Sophie Etemadi and Shane Hapuarachy tried a medical malpractice case in Torrance involving a client that underwent an unnecessary hysterectomy and received a verdict that was ten times the amount offered by the defense.
John Denove tried a medical malpractice action against Citrus Valley Medical Center. The client was co-administered antibiotics through an IV line. She developed complex regional pain disorder, myofascial pain disorder and chronic pain syndrome. The Hospital denied any wrongdoing, denied causation and disputed the nature and extent of the damages. After a three week trial, the jury found in favor of the injured client. The image at right is one of the trial exhibits used by trial attorney, Mr. Denove.
John Denove tried a forklift accident case. The client claimed that the forklift operator negligently struck him when he was in a cargo area. He suffered carpal tunnel syndrome, aggravated a pre-existing degenerative spine condition and developed a piriformis syndrome. He eventually underwent a piriformis/pudendal surgery. Despite the fact that their client did not complain of any back or piriformis complaints for 53 days, they were successful at trial. One of the exhibits prepared for trial is shown at left.
After beginning trial in Long Beach, John Denove settled a negligence case against Burger King for a injury wherein his 74 year old client broke her neck while leaving the restaurant. As part of the settlement, Burger King agreed to make the premises wheelchair accessible. In addition, Mr. Denove was able to negotiate the right to pursue an Unruh Civil Rights Act violation in arbitration for discrimination against his client who was denied wheelchair access. Mr. Denove contends that the failure to provide wheelchair access as required by the California Building Code was the cause of her injury. Burger King alleged that Mr. Denove’s client did not fracture her neck in the fall but had suffered from a chronic neck fracture for years. A comparison of x-rays taken before and after the fall disproved this defense.
John Denove settled two medical malpractice lawsuits against the United States of America. The clients are veterans. They went to the VA for treatment for macular edema. The doctors intended to treat the condition with Avastin. Each of them had injections into their eye but instead of Avastin, Velcade (a chemotherapy drug) was injected. Both men sustained serious loss of vision. A lawsuit was filed in federal court. A equitable settlement was reached. A third veteran was also mistakenly injected with Velcade. His case is scheduled to go to trial in the United States District Court in June.
Shane Hapuarachy settled a negligence lawsuit for a confidential mid-seven figure amount for a case involving a pedestrian hit by a slow-moving vehicle.
John Rowell and Wilkie Cheong represented a client in an insurance bad faith case. They alleged that the insurance company failed to defend their client. The insurance company argued that no defense was called for under the insurance policy. They were able to settle the case during a mediation in San Francisco that started in the morning and ended late that night.
The result of any case depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case; and case results listed below do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case undertaken by the this firm or any of its attorneys or associates.
A new Zimmer knee revision surgery lawsuit was filed, by John Rowell, in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles. The plaintiff contends that the defendant should be held liable for designing and manufacturing an allegedly defective product the NexGen Complete Knee Solution System. She claims significant and ongoing physical injuries as a result, and demands compensatory damages in excess of $25,000.
Plaintiff alleges ongoing physical complications
According to the lawsuit the Plaintiff underwent a total right knee replacement surgery. Although her specific medical condition at the time is unknown, this type of surgery is commonly performed in cases of severe arthritic damage or trauma to the knee. Usually, doctors recommend the surgery when the patient’s pain and limited mobility have not been improved by conservative treatment measures, such as physical therapy and medication. During a total knee replacement, the surgeon removes the damaged joint and replaces it with an artificial prosthesis.
In the case of the plaintiff, the surgeon replaced the knee with a metal-on-metal knee implant, known as the NexGen system. She had the surgery on January 6, 2012. However, just prior to November 2013, it was discovered that the knee implant had failed, leaving the plaintiff in considerable pain. Her disability necessitated a revision surgery, which she had in November 2013.
The plaintiff demands compensatory damages for her pain, disability, and emotional distress. In her complaint, she calls attention to the considerable medical costs and healthcare services she has required and is expected to continue to need in the future.
Lawsuit lists multiple allegations against Zimmer
According to the plaintiffs Zimmer knee lawsuit, the NexGen system is defective in design and manufacture. The lawsuit alleges that the product components failed, despite the product being used in a reasonable manner and in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
The plaintiff claims the system was manufactured in such a way as to become contaminated. She contends the defendants should be held liable because they allegedly knew of the defects and risks of the system prior to January 2012.
Despite this prior knowledge, the defendants failed to issue adequate warnings to the plaintiff and her healthcare professionals, according to the lawsuit. The plaintiff states that had she been informed of the risks, she never would have consented to have that particular Zimmer knee implant.
Zimmer faces hundreds of similar complaints
This plaintiff is hardly alone in her allegations. In fact, Zimmer is facing hundreds of revision surgery, lawsuits from patients who claim the NexGen system and other knee implant models are defective in design, and that the company did not warn them of the risks. Many plaintiffs point to the metal-on-metal design as being particularly prone to health risks. As the patient manipulates the joint, the metal components rub together. This friction releases metal ions into the bloodstream, which causes heavy metal poisoning, also known as metallosis. Additionally, the metallic debris can cause localized tissue damage.
John Rowell successfully settled a products liability case against a major tire manufacturer and a major automobile manufacturer. John contended the tire had suffered a tread separation while his two clients were driving the vehicle on the freeway. John contended that as a result of the tread separation and the pick-ups lack of stability, the vehicle rolled over at freeway speeds, causing serious injuries to both of John’s clients. After the accident, examination of the tire which came apart showed it had sufficient tread and did not exhibit any unusual wear patterns. John took depositions of key tire engineers and tire plant manager level employees of the tire manufacturer, and was able to show, using the manufacturer’s own documents and tire x-rays, that the tire contained manufacturing defects and was badly designed. John retained nationally renowned experts who were prepared to testify that the design and manufacturing defects were the cause of the tread separation. Using the pick-up manufacturer’s internal documents and publicly available materials regarding design of the front axle of trucks and pick-up trucks, John was also able to show the front axle and front steering design made the vehicle extremely difficult to control in the event of a tread separation. During the course of investigation of this case, it was also discovered that the automobile manufacturer had used a design which decreased roof strength. John secured experts that would have testified that the roof design was the cause of a collapse of the roof over one of this clients and made her injuries worse. At that point, both the tire and the automobile manufacturers agreed to settle.
After selecting a jury, John Rowell and John Denove successfully settled a products liability case against a major tire manufacturer. Mr. Rowell contended the yen year old tire had suffered a tread separation on the freeway and was then rear-ended by a big-rig. He further contended that as a result of the tread separation and the pick-ups lack of stability, the vehicle rolled over at freeway speeds, causing serious injuries to the client. After the accident, examination of the tire which came apart showed it had sufficient tread and did not exhibit any unusual wear patterns. John took depositions of key tire engineers and tire plant manager level employees of the tire manufacturer, and was able to show, using the manufacturer’s own documents and tire x-rays, that the tire contained manufacturing defects and was badly designed. John retained nationally renowned experts who were prepared to testify that the design and manufacturing defects were the cause of the tread separation. Using the pick-up manufacturer’s internal documents and publicly available materials regarding design of the front axle of trucks and pick-up trucks, John was also able to show the front axle and front steering design made the vehicle extremely difficult to control in the event of a tread separation. Prior to the start of trial Mr. Rowell, during the course of investigation of this case, discovered that the automobile manufacturer had used a design which decreased roof strength. Mr. Rowell secured experts that would have testified that the roof design was the cause of a collapse of the roof over one of his client and made her injuries worse. He was able to settle with the automobile manufacturer before starting trial against the tire manufacturer.
John Rowell and John Denove commenced trial in a products liability case against a major tire manufacturer. Mr. Rowell contended that the tire has suffered a tread separation causing the vehicle to lose control on the freeway. The vehicle was then struck by a big rig. Mr. Rowell asserted that tire was both defectively designed and manufactured. The tire manufacturer contended that it was not a fault and that the tire failed because it was more than 10 years old. Mr. Rowell’s tire expert established that the tire had less than 20,000 miles of wear and that the seller of the tire had represented that these tires were safe if there was adequate tread left on the tire. Before trial Mr. Rowell settled with the driver of the big rig who negligently failed to avoid striking the disabled car. After Mr. Denove conducted his Voir Dire and the jury was selected, the tire manufacturer settled the case. The injured client sustained a traumatic brain injury. The tire manufacturer argued that although she had suffered brain injury, her brain was much improved and would continue to improve. Mr. Denove had prepared the following medical illustrations that refuted the tire manufacturer’s claim.
Wilkie Cheong successfully arbitrated a case for an elderly disabled woman who was injured when her wheel chair fell off of a curb that was non-compliant with the Americans with Disability Act. This case was placed in arbitration following a settlement of the negligence action.
John Denove was appointed to serve a two year term on the Judicial Council of California’s Civil and Small Claims Advisory committee. Advisory committees are standing advisory groups created by rule of court or the Chief Justice to make recommendations and offer policy alternatives to the Judicial Council for improving the administration of justice within their designated areas of focus.
BAR ASSOCIATION EVENTS
American Board of Trial Advocates
As past president of the Los Angeles chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates, a nation-wide organization of trial lawyers founded in 1957, John Denove continues to attend executive committee meetings of the Los Angeles chapter.
Shane Hapuarachy was selected to participate in the ABOTA SideBar.
Sophie Etemadi was selected to attend the Jack Daniels Trial School.
To become a member, one needs a certain number of jury trials and must be voted in by a local chapter. The association is dedicated to preserving the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
John Denove attended the dinner meeting of ABOTA. Dean Erwin Chemerinsky was the guest speaker. He is founding Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law
To learn more about the American Board of Trial Advocates, go to www.abota.org.
Consumer Attorneys of California
John Denove was a speaker at the CAOC Annual Convention, presenting the topic: Predicting Your Presentation: Theme And Substance
John Denove is serving on the roundtable panel at the CAOC Sonoma Seminar, to discuss the topic: Trial Skills, The Ins And Outs Of Handling Witnesses.
Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles
John Denove was requested as a speaker at the CAALA New Lawyer Roundtable.
Wilkie Cheong, John Denove, Mary Bennett, Shane Hapuarachy, Kyle Tracy and Sophie Etemadi attended the annual CAALA convention in Las Vegas. John Denove was a speaker at the CAALA convention on the topic “Gathering the Evidence.”
John Denove has been selected as a prestigious member of the Plaintiff Trial Academy (PTA) Faculty. This is the second year of the PTA, and Mr. Denove has been selected each year to the Faculty. He will instruct plaintiff attorneys during a three day session on the art of Voir Dire.
To learn more about Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles, visit CAALA.org
Cowboy Lawyers Association
Wilkie Cheong attended the Cowboy Lawyers Ride at Caspers Wilderness Park.
To learn more about the Cowboy Lawyers Association go to CowboyLawyers.org
Italian American Lawyers Association
Wilkie Cheong, Mary Bennett, Michael Dan and Lorraine Jackson attended the IALA dinner when the guest speaker was Janet Napalatono. Ms. Napalatono was the United States Secretary of Homeland Security is now the president of UC San Francisco.
To learn more about the Italian American Lawyer’s Association, and to find about about their monthly events, go to iala.info
American Association for Justice
John Denove attended the AAJ convention in Los Angeles.
To learn more about American Association for Justice (AAJ) and to find about about their events, go to www.justice.org/
John Denove spoke at the Beverly Hills Bar Association on the topic of “Evidence.”
John Denove was a speaker at the recent CAALA annual convention on the topic: “Mirroring to Build Rapport with Judges, Jurors and Witnesses.”
John Denove was a speaker on “Proving Causation and Overcoming Defenses In Medical Malpractice Cases” at the recent CAOC annual convention.
Mr. Denove is a past president of CAALA and a recipient of their Trial lawyers of the Year Award. Mr. Denove is on CAALA’s Board of Governors and chairs the Governmental Relations Committee.
To learn more about the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles, go to www.caala.org.
John Denove received acknowledgement from the Advocate the Journal of Consumer Attorneys Associations for Southern California and Plaintiff , the magazine for Northern California plaintiffs’ attorneys, for his article, “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall.”
Mary Bennett is a former Assistant Editor of the Advocate.
John F. Denove, Mary Bennett and Michael Dan attended the reception for the Super Lawyers. John F. Denove and John Rowell were selected to be included on the list of Southern California Super Lawyers, an award for legal excellence earned by only 5 percent of lawyers in the state.
John Denove received the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) Award of Merit in recognition of his work to reform the injustices of MICRA.
John Denove was again selected as one of Los Angeles’ Best Lawyers by Best Lawyers in America.
To see more Awards & Recognition the firm has received, click here.