 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McFann v. Southwestern Power Electric Co.12/14/2005
d that her neighbor wanted the wood from the fallen limb for his fireplace and wanted to make sure the wires were dead. She testified that Lindsey told her the wires were dead. For this reason, she said Otis was sent to trim the limb.
McFann further testified that when she came home, Otis was standing with the clippers (attached to the wire) shaking, and had to be pulled off the clippers. She did not state who pulled him from the clippers. She said after they pulled him from the clippers, they brought him inside the house and placed him on the couch. She said she shook him and he woke up, and he was sweating. She said she called an ambulance and then called SWEPCO and complained that her son just got electrocuted. The only burn mark she saw was under Otis's eye and that his eyebrows were burned off. Otis also complained his foot was hurting.
Ms. McFann said that she waited for the ambulance, but it did not come timely, so she took Otis to the emergency room herself. She said they gave him medication and put a Band-Aid over (i.e, above) his eye. She said Otis complained of his right eye and right foot. She said that she asked the ER physician about his foot. She said there was a hole in his foot where the electricity came out. By "hole" she meant a circle. The circular spot on Otis's foot was the size of a quarter and red. Otis stayed in the hospital four days under observation. She said that Otis subsequently suffered embarrassment because his eyebrows were burned off, and attributed several illnesses to the incident.
After leaving the hospital, Ms. McFann kept Otis home from school for approximately one month. She took him to Dr. Rousseau on October 24, 2002. Dr. Rousseau saw Otis again in January, September and November of 2003. Ms. McFann also took Otis to see Dr. Jeffrey E. Faludi, an opthamologist on March 6, 2003 and Dr. David M. Cooksey, a dermatologist on March 18, 2003. The depositions of these three physicians are in the record.
Dr. Rousseau stated that he first saw Otis in May of 2002 for dermatitis and gastroenteritis. He next saw Otis on October 24, 2002, one month after the accident, but said his records did not indicate that Otis reported that he had been electrically shocked. At this visit, Otis reported pain in his right leg, but did not mention his foot, nor did he report problems with his eye. Dr. Rousseau concluded that the pain in his leg was due to some trauma, such as a fall. He said that it was possible that he sustained the injury if he fell after being electrically shocked. The subsequent visit in January was regarding asthma. In September 2003, Otis complained of pain in his left foot which Dr. Rousseau attributed to flat feet, and the November 2003 visit concerned gastroenteritis.
Dr. Rousseau reviewed the ER records. He said the usual concern of an injury from electrical shock is the heart, indicated by the EKG and urinalysis. These records indicated Otis had 20/20 vision (normal), his EKG was normal, and there was no blood in his urine. The records also indicated that Otis denied any chest pain, headaches, numbness, tingling in his hands, arms or legs, and denied skin changes in his extremities or muscle pain indicative of electrical shock.
Otis visited Dr. Faludi, an opthamologist, on March 6, 2003, complaining of blurred vision which he attributes to the accident. Initially a nurse tested Otis's vision and recorded results of 20/60 vision in one eye and 20/30 in the other. Dr. Faludi then examined Otis and concluded that Otis had 20/20 vision. He said the examination revealed no abnormalities and there was nothing to indicate any superficial injury to the eye. When asked to explain the discrepancy between the v
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|