Skip to main content
James Geagan

James Geagan’s Legal Cases

6 total

  • Attorney Malpractice/Stockbroker Liability/Breach of Trust (Confidential)

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Outcome:
    The identities of the parties and the amount of the settlement were made confidential as a condition of settlement by the defendants.
    Description:
    In an action brought against a Trustee of a Trust, the attorney who advised the Trustee and set up various legal vehicles for the trustee's use and the brokerage firm which held the trust assets, the firm negotiated a substantial settlement on behalf of the Trust. The allegations were that the brokerage and the attorney both knew or had reason to know that the Trustee was raiding the Trust for his own benefit, but failed to notify the Trust of that information and, in the case of the attorney, enabled the Trustee in that conduct by creating certain legal vehicles that facilitated that conduct.
  • Kuhlmann v. Sprayway

    Practice Area:
    Personal Injury
    Outcome:
    The identities of the parties and the amount of the settlement were made confidential as a condition of settlement by the defendants.
    Description:
    The case alleged product liability as a result of the plaintiff's use of an aerosol spray product. When the plaintiff used the moisture-proofing product as it was intended to be used, she suffered severe pulmonary injury involving prolonged hospitalization and permanent lung damage. The manufacturer of the product was sued as well as distributors of the product and the manufacturer of components used to make the product. The firm is supporting research and efforts to have the harmful component of the product, a fluoropolymer, banned, as these compounds present severe danger of injury if used in an aerosolized form.
  • Bergman v. Chin

    Practice Area:
    Elder Law
    Outcome:
    the plaintiffs received a jury verdict of $1,500,000
    Description:
    The case was based on a claim of elder abuse of their then-deceased father during the last 8 days of his life. It was alleged that the defendant doctor committed elder abuse by failing to prescribe adequate pain medication to William Bergman while he was hospitalized at Eden Hospital for probable terminal cancer. The verdict has been characterized by several commentators as a landmark case for a number of reasons. First, it is believed to represent the first verdict against a physician under the Elder Abuse statutes in California. Secondly, the verdict is the first in California to establish that a failure to provide adequate pain management may constitute elder abuse. The verdict has attracted widespread attention in the medical community and has resulted in both heightened awareness in health care providers of the need to make pain management a high priority and in legislation requiring physicians to have regular training in pain management.
  • Kimura v. Regents of the University of California

    Practice Area:
    Medical Malpractice
    Outcome:
    The jury awarded the plaintiff $3,600,000.
    Description:
    This a case in which a 45 year old pharmacist underwent surgery at the University of California Medical Center in San Francisco for a large benign tumor in her thigh. It was alleged that the surgeon performed an improper surgery and that a different surgical technique should have been used. The result of the surgery was that the plaintiff had a permanent partial loss of function in her lower leg. She was required to wear a brace daily to assist her in walking.
  • Lowe v. Coalthard

    Practice Area:
    Wrongful Death
    Outcome:
    The Napa County jury awarded him $792,500
    Description:
    the plaintiff was a 16 year old boy whose father had died when his automobile was struck in a collision with a large farm machinery vehicle on a public highway. The plaintiff did not live with his father, but saw him several times a week.
  • Misclassification Case

    Practice Area:
    Employment & Labor
    Outcome:
    The Napa County jury found for the employees on all counts, awarding them back overtime pay, penalties for missed breaks and lunches, other penalties, interest and reimbursement of their attorneys fees.
    Description:
    James Geagan represented four former employees of a large wine production facility in Napa County. The employees were classified by the Company as salaried employees not eligible for overtime. The employees stated that they were performing mainly production line duties and should have been paid overtime for their many hours of overtime work and should be compensated for missed breaks and lunches.