SUPPORT THE LEGAL FUND TODAY

https://www.spotfund.com/story/88e93d31-3915-409e-b4ac-e29a5d1fd6d6

https://webapps.sftc.org/ci/CaseInfo.dll?CaseNum=CGC21594102&SessionID=4B07E941790CCC96BB854B7E939368CBEAB7F12F

Justice for Rosario: A Husband, Father, and Grandfather in Need of Compassion and Support

On February 4, 2021, life changed forever for Franciscus Dylan Rosario—a loving husband, devoted father, caring grandfather, and determined startup founder. While simply crossing the street in San Francisco, Rosario was tragically struck by a van in a hit-and-run. The driver left him severely injured and clinging to life on the pavement, only to deny fault after confessing to 911.

Rosario survived—but just barely. He suffered a traumatic brain injury, broken ribs, and spinal damage, each day now defined by pain, uncertainty, and the desperate need for ongoing care. His family—who depends on him for love, guidance, and financial support—faces a daunting new reality.

Yet, Rosario’s greatest challenges extend far beyond his physical injuries. Despite a recorded 911 call and an eyewitness account pinpointing the driver, the justice system has repeatedly failed him, allowing a clear culprit to walk free and forcing Rosario to endure an exhausting legal battle. Even though the facts are undeniable, powerful interests seem determined to avoid accountability, leaving Rosario and his loved ones burdened with astronomical medical bills and legal fees.

Why Your Help Matters

Rosario’s case is about more than just one man’s fight—it highlights the vulnerability that pedestrians and their families face when corporate clout and institutional shortcomings overshadow the truth. By supporting Rosario, you’re standing up for:

• Safety for All: No one should fear for their life simply by crossing the street.

• Accountability: Corporations and individuals alike must be held responsible for their actions—no matter how influential or powerful they may be.

• Human Dignity: Rosario’s life has value, and his struggles deserve compassion, care, and justice.

How You Can Help

Rosario can’t face this alone. He needs the moral and financial support of all who believe in fairness and decency. Your contribution—no matter how modest—will help cover the ever-growing medical bills, ongoing rehabilitation, and legal expenses that he and his family are juggling every single day.

1. Donate Today: Every dollar goes directly toward Rosario’s medical care, therapy, and the legal fight to uncover the truth.

2. Share His Story: Bring attention to this injustice. The more people who know, the more pressure builds for honest accountability.

3. Stand Up for Justice: Let the system know that human lives, not profits, come first.

Join Us in Seeking Justice and Compassion

Rosario’s life, once filled with hopes of expanding his startup and cherishing moments with his grandchildren, has been forever altered. With your help, we can ease his family’s burden, shine a light on injustices that affect all of us, and move closer to a day when no victim is left to fend for themselves in a time of crisis.

Please stand with Rosario today. Your kindness and generosity can restore hope to a family who has lost so much—and deserves so much better.

SUPPORT THE LEGAL FUND TODAY

https://www.spotfund.com/story/88e93d31-3915-409e-b4ac-e29a5d1fd6d6

A. The Incident

1. On February 4, 2021, Subhi Abdelhalim (owner of Sonoma Liquor on 5th & Jessee in San Francisco) was driving a white Ford cargo van in the vicinity of Tehama and 5th Street, San Francisco.

2. Abdelhalim struck Victim, (Rosario) a pedestrian while Rosario was in a cross walk, causing catastrophic injuries, including traumatic brain injury (TBI), fractured ribs, and spinal damage.

3. Following the collision, Abdelhalim fled the scene without rendering aid, in violation of California Penal Code § 20001(a).

4. Minutes later, Abdelhalim returned on foot and attempted to bribe the injured victim, further demonstrating consciousness of guilt.

B. Evidence of Abdelhalim’s Guilt

1. A 911 call transcript confirms that Abdelhalim acknowledged the hitting victim with van..

2. Independent eyewitness testimony corroborates that Abdelhalim struck Petitioner and fled the scene.

3. Physical evidence, including injuries sustained by Victim and vehicle markings at the scene, supports the account of events.

VIOLATIONS BY Abdelhalim

1. Hit-and-Run (California Penal Code § 20001)

• Abdelhalim fled the scene of a collision causing injury, failing to comply with the mandatory requirements to stop, render aid, and provide information.

2. Attempted Bribery

• Upon returning to the scene, Abdelhalim attempted to bribe Victim, further demonstrating consciousness of guilt and intent to obstruct justice.

FAILURES BY THE RESPONDENT (SFPD)

A. Suppression of Evidence

1. The SFPD failed to acknowledge or act upon:

2. • Abdelhalim’s admission during the 911 call.

   • Eyewitness testimony supporting Petitioner’s account.

   • Surveillance footage and other physical evidence available at the scene.

3. These omissions violate California Penal Code § 135, which prohibits the suppression or concealment of material evidence.

B. Failure to Arrest Abdelhalim

1. Despite probable cause and overwhelming evidence, the SFPD failed to arrest Abdelhalim for a felony violation of Penal Code § 20001.

2. The deficient Report made in favor of the driver (based solely on his statement at the scene) placed blame on the victim.

3. This inaction enabled Abdelhalim to evade arrest and deny accountability with critical evidence.

4. SFPD later failed to record the evidence and witness statements, effectively obstructing jusice as a result of

C. Procedural Bias and Misconduct

1. The SFPD demonstrated bias by favoring Abdelhalim’s narrative, neglecting the rights and evidence supporting Petitioner.

2. Coercive interrogation of the injured Petitioner while hospitalized and gravely injured contravenes the constitutional right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and California Penal Code § 422.6.

911 Transcripts & Audio Recording

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1cIdJLjq6f8mfnv0ElMqfTQoifjWtJZlY?usp=sharing

911 Calls Audio: https://shorturl.at/XUpoC

KIND CALLER: "IT IS A HIT AND RUN ... NO VEHICLE , AND NOBODY HELPING HIM."

SONOMA LIQUOR OWNER: " I HIT HIM, HIT HIM. "

FALSE POLICE REPORT

Police Bodycam Footage: (WITH EYE WITNESS)

[NOTE] : THE POLICE REPORT FAILS TO MENTION THE EYE WITNESS HERE

• THE EYE WITNESSES [MISSING FROM REPORT]

• THE IMPACT MARKS ON THE VAN (IN PICS BELOW) [MISSING FROM REPORT]

• NEITHER OF THE 911 CALLS [MISSING FROM REPORT]

SUPPORT THE LEGAL FUND TODAY

https://www.spotfund.com/story/88e93d31-3915-409e-b4ac-e29a5d1fd6d6

LISTEN TO THE AUDIO OF THE FACTS [CLICK HERE]

Fact #1: The defendant operated as a businessman under the name “Sonoma Liquor.” Business License Documentation shows the defendant doing business as “Sonoma Liquor” in San Francisco; local regulatory filings and Secretary of State DBA forms confirm the legal business use of that name, and public photographic evidence of the storefront or signage clearly identifies “Sonoma Liquor” as the trade name. (Score: 4.5)

Fact #2: The defendant operated a liquor store in San Francisco, California. Operating Business License and Utility Bills list the store’s address, confirming its operation in San Francisco; the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) License in the defendant’s name verifies the liquor store permit; and public photographs of the premises and displayed permits corroborate the operation. (Score: 5.0)

Fact #3: The defendant’s place of business is covered by a Liberty Mutual insurance policy. The Declarations Page and Policy Documents from Liberty Mutual explicitly list the liquor store address or name the business as insured; correspondence from the insurance agent verifies the policy coverage; and the mandatory Certificates of Insurance required for commercial liquor store operations are on file with the authorities. (Score: 4.0)

Fact #4: The defendant’s commercial vehicle used for business is covered by AAA insurance. The Auto Insurance Policy from AAA (CSAA) designates the vehicle for commercial purposes; the VIN number and documented operational usage indicate that the vehicle is classified for business, regardless of any claim that it is personal; and Vehicle Registration records along with policy endorsements confirm its commercial coverage. (Score: 4.0)

Fact #5: On February 4, 2021, the defendant, acting as the driver, struck the plaintiff while the plaintiff was in a public crosswalk. The Police Report confirms the date, location, and parties involved; eyewitness statements by Dustin Rosemond and subsequent depositions verify that the plaintiff was in the crosswalk; and Certified official SFPD Body Camera Footage document the eyewitness statement regarding the collision. (Score: 5.0)

Fact #6: The driver–defendant failed to yield the right of way to the plaintiff and struck the plaintiff from behind with his commercial cargo van. Witness testimonies state that the plaintiff was ahead while the defendant’s van approached from behind; standard anatomical forensics and the official medical examination at SF General Hospital Emergency Room confirm that the bodily impact and the estimated vehicle velocity required to cause such injuries could only be produced by a vehicle; and photographs of the vehicle, along with evidence of leather polish transfer from the victim’s leather jacket to the vehicle, are consistent with the defendant’s confession, the victim’s account, and that of the eyewitness. (Score: 5.0)

Fact #7: The defendant notified the police that he was operating as an employee of his retail liquor store located on Sixth and Jesse Streets in San Francisco, California. Police bodycam footage logs record the defendant stating his employment at the SONOMA LIQUOR store; his recorded statement acknowledges his employment status and the store’s location; and employer tax and payroll records link the defendant to that retail establishment. (Score: 4.5)

Fact #8: The defendant’s commercial van is a Ford Transit 250, equipped with commercial storage and a loading cage, and is classified as a commercial vehicle. DMV Vehicle Registration Records list the van as a Ford Transit 250 with commercial plates; manufacturer documents confirm that the van has cargo modifications, including a loading cage and no rear passenger seats; and the defendant’s use of the vehicle, along with its consistent parking in a commercial loading zone in front of his retail store, validates the vehicle’s functional and actual commercial status despite any claim that it is personal. (Score: 4.5)

Fact #9: Vehicles of this type are used for commercial purposes; the defendant’s claim that it is a personal vehicle is inaccurate because the van is regularly parked in front of his retail store. Photographic and surveillance evidence show the van parked outside the business on a regular schedule; signage and branding on the van indicate its commercial use; and DMV and employer documents contradict any claim of personal use only. (Score: 3.0)

Fact #10: The defendant maintains a handicap sign on his vehicle and parks it in a clearly marked commercial loading zone with yellow markings in front of his business. Photos and video evidence show the van parked in the loading zone with a handicap placard displayed; parking enforcement citations and logs document parking in a commercial loading area; and witness affidavits from local merchants or pedestrians confirm the van’s location. (Score: 3.5)

Fact #11: The defendant uses the vehicle to deliver and pick up materials and products sold at his place of business. Invoices and receipts directly tie inventory deliveries to that vehicle; public photos and local security surveillance camera footage show the vehicle being used to load and unload products into the SONOMA LIQUOR retail store; and a deposition of the defendant confirms that the vehicle is used for store supply runs. (Score: 3.5)

Fact #12: After the incident, the defendant now claims the vehicle is used for personal purposes. Deposition transcripts and recorded statements document the defendant’s claim of personal use; contradictory insurance documents classify the vehicle as commercial, impeaching his statements; and cross-examination highlights inconsistencies between his sworn testimony and the documentary evidence. (Score: 4.0)

Fact #13: The defendant driver struck the plaintiff while the plaintiff was walking as a pedestrian in a crosswalk on Fifth Street and Tehama at 2:35 p.m. on February 4, 2021. The Police Report indicates the location (Fifth & Tehama) and includes a timestamp of 2:35 p.m.; surveillance footage from nearby businesses or traffic cameras captures the incident; and emergency services logs verify the 911 calls and corresponding arrival times. (Score: 5.0)

Fact #14: After striking the plaintiff with his commercial cargo van at speeds close to 20 mph, the defendant fled the scene by moving his vehicle at least 100 feet from the point of impact. Witness statements confirm that the defendant drove further down the block after the collision; video bodycam footage and photographs by the plaintiff and police corroborate the measurements and accident reconstruction estimates that place the van’s final position about 100 feet away; and additional video footage documents the defendant’s attempt to conceal the vehicle based on its distance from the victim. (Score: 5.0)

Fact #15: The defendant left the plaintiff on the street without providing assistance. Eyewitness testimony confirms that the defendant did not remain to render aid; police and EMT reports indicate that the driver had already left upon their arrival; and a second 911 call audio recording references the plaintiff lying injured with no immediate help from the driver. (Score: 4.5)

Fact #16: After fleeing the scene, the defendant did not return or offer immediate help, as required under the California Vehicle Code. The applicable sections of the California Vehicle Code (e.g., § 20001 or 20002) require drivers to remain at the scene of a collision; both the plaintiff’s and eyewitness statements clearly state that there is no record of the defendant offering assistance before fleeing; and the defendant’s own statements contradict any claim that he returned. (Score: 4.0)

Fact #17: A passing driver, arriving immediately after the defendant fled, made a 911 call reporting that the plaintiff was found lying on the ground without assistance, in violation of the California Vehicle Code. 911 audio recordings and transcripts document the caller’s description of the plaintiff’s condition and the absence of the at-fault vehicle; timestamped cell phone records from the caller are on file; and eyewitness as well as victim statements corroborate that the defendant had left the plaintiff alone and injured. (Score: 5.0)

Fact #18: The 911 caller explicitly stated that they had passed the scene minutes earlier and were now reporting what they had seen, indicating a clear time gap between the collision and the call. A detailed 911 transcript verifies the timing and the caller’s statement regarding having passed the scene at an earlier time; call-log printouts from dispatch with exact times support that the caller observed the absence of an at-fault vehicle. (Score: 4.5)

Fact #19: The time between the caller’s observation and the 911 call shows that the caller, after retrieving their phone, dialed 911 and reached the service approximately 30 seconds after the defendant had returned and called 911. The caller’s deposition clarifies the timeline from observing the collision to placing the call; phone records with timestamps confirm that the call was made 30 seconds after the van left. (Score: 3.0)

Fact #20: An eyewitness, Dustin Rosemond, directly observed the collision. An eyewitness affidavit or deposition by Mr. Rosemond describes the collision in detail; contact information and interview notes from Dustin verify his observation of the van striking the plaintiff; and police interview video body camera statements reference Rosemond’s immediate account. (Score: 5.0)

Fact #21: The eyewitness reported to the police that he saw the defendant strike the plaintiff with his vehicle. The official police body cameras include Rosemond’s recorded verbal statement; bodycam footage captures Rosemond’s statement onsite, clearly pointing out the driver and victim; and a certified body camera recording reaffirms his account. (Score: 5.0)

Fact #22: Both the 911 call from the witness who observed the hit-and-run and the eyewitness’s statements recorded on police bodycam footage are preserved in the public record by emergency services and the San Francisco Police Department. SFPD evidence inventory logs reference the bodycam footage; a public records request (FOIA/CPRA) produced audio and video of the 911 call; and dispatch logs along with internal record indexes confirm that these statements were preserved. (Score: 5.0)

Fact #23: These recordings have been made available to the defense, specifically to Liberty Mutual and AAA Insurance, who now conveniently claim no knowledge of the record despite being obligated to investigate. Discovery correspondence shows that both insurers acknowledged completing a thorough investigation; proof of requests from the defense counsel PSA Law confirms the receipt of the video containing the eyewitness Dustin Rosemund statement to defendants fault; the insurer was aware of the 911 confession and eyewitness account since 2021; and metadata plus email trails document that the defense had timely access while the insurer failed to offer a settlement in good faith once the evidence of the defendant driver’s admission was known, constituting bad faith fraud against the victim. (Score: 4.0)

Fact #24: The defense, Liberty Mutual, and AAA Insurance had a duty to investigate the circumstances of the collision, including any criminal activity by their insured. Insurance policy language mandates a thorough investigation of claims and collisions; relevant insurance regulations under the California Insurance Code require a good-faith investigation; and communications from the insurers confirm that an investigation was conducted, though no mention was made to the plaintiff of the confession or hit-and-run witness. (Score: 4.5)

Fact #25: Both Liberty Mutual and AAA failed in their duty to investigate, either through deliberate omission or gross negligence. Claims handling guidelines from each insurer outline required steps that were not followed; internal memos and emails show that the insurers had knowledge of the collision without subsequent follow-up; and depositions of claims adjusters clarify the discrepancy between the actions taken and what was required. (Score: 3.0)

Fact #26: Despite overwhelming evidence, both insurance companies ignored live eyewitness statements, photographic evidence, police bodycam recordings, and the plaintiff’s statements. Timelines show that evidence was provided before the insurers’ denial; the evidence indicates that the insurers’ denial was unlawful and a violation of the law; 911 audio logs and body camera recordings captured the defendant’s confession and admission of liability; the negligent oversight of the police and 911 records, and the subsequent denial by the insurer, was fraudulent; insurance denial letters omit any reference to the significant evidence on record; and internal email strings and adjuster notes demonstrate an intentional denial of the fault and liability statement in the recorded evidence. (Score: 3.5)

Fact #27: The defendant’s 911 call at approximately 2:54 PM—over 10 to 12 minutes after he struck the victim—contains an audio recording with three separate direct admissions (“I hit him”) and one indirect admission of fault when, upon being asked if the driver hit a pedestrian, he replied “Yeah.” Collectively, these statements substantiate a confession to the operator that the defendant did indeed strike the victim with his vehicle. A full audio recording and certified transcript capture these admissions; an audio forensic expert confirms that the voice is the defendant’s; and chain of custody documentation verifies the integrity of the recording. (Score: 5.0)

Fact #28: In the audio recording, the defendant claims he was calling 911 on behalf of the plaintiff. The 911 log and call transcript reference the defendant’s statement that he was calling for the victim; a timestamped recording shows his voice at the moment of the call; and there is no contradictory testimony regarding who called 911. (Score: 4.0)

Fact #29: In the audio recording, the plaintiff declared a message to 911 services and his family, expressing fear of dying on the sidewalk. The 911 audio captures the plaintiff’s voice describing his fear of fatal injury; affidavits and depositions from the 911 operator and paramedics confirm the plaintiff’s statements; and timestamps verify that the call occurred shortly after the collision. (Score: 4.5)

Fact #30: In the audio recording, the plaintiff informed 911 services that the caller, the driver–defendant, had hit him with a vehicle. The 911 transcript and official call notes confirm the plaintiff’s direct statement naming the defendant as the driver; testimony from the 911 operator and first responders verifies the conversation’s content; and corroborating injury evidence matches the plaintiff’s statement regarding the collision. (Score: 5.0)

Fact #31: The plaintiff’s real-time statement during the 911 call constitutes an admissible record under evidence law, preserving a contemporaneous account of the incident. Evidentiary rules under the “excited utterance” or “present sense impression” exceptions to hearsay (Evid. Code §§ 1240, 1241) apply; the 911 call recording serves as an official record of the plaintiff’s immediate outcry; and responding EMTs confirm that the plaintiff’s injuries match his statement. (Score: 5.0)

Fact #32: During the 911 call, the defendant clearly admitted fault to the emergency services operator. The transcript captures the defendant stating or implying that he struck the plaintiff; an audio forensic expert confirms the authenticity of the recording; and the operator’s declaration verifies the defendant’s admission. (Score: 5.0)

Fact #33: Based on the defendant’s statements and confession during the 911 call, emergency services—including the fire department, EMTs, and police—were dispatched to the scene at Fifth and Tehama. Dispatch logs from the relevant date and time indicate an immediate response triggered by the confession; fire department run sheets verify the callout reason as stated in the dispatch notes; and the police report references the defendant’s 911 call as the basis for a swift response. (Score: 5.0)

Fact #34: The 911 call establishes a record of both parties’ admissions regarding fault and liability; the driver–defendant states to the operator that he struck the plaintiff, and the plaintiff corroborates this by informing 911 that the caller was the defendant driver. The full 911 recording contains both the defendant’s and the plaintiff’s statements to the 911 operators; the recorded transcript aligns each statement with the respective speaker; and time-synced watermarks confirm that it is a single, unaltered conversation. (Score: 5.0)

Fact #35: The statements by the defendant and the plaintiff at the scene provide substantial evidence establishing causation, fault, and liability on the part of the driver. Accident reconstruction conclusively places the defendant’s vehicle as the direct cause of the injury; a comparative analysis of the defendant’s admission with physical evidence such as skid marks and collision angles supports this finding; and additional witness testimony confirms that both statements align with the actual events. (Score: 5.0)

Fact #36: The driver’s statement to the 911 operator qualifies as an “excited utterance” and is admissible under the hearsay exception. The legal foundation under Evidence Code § 1240 supports the excited utterance exception; the audio recording shows the driver’s emotional state immediately after the collision; and expert or judicial notice confirms the application of this exception. (Score: 4.5)

Fact #37: The victim–plaintiff made a real-time statement to the 911 operator reporting the situation, which is admissible under the hearsay exception. The 911 recording captures the plaintiff’s immediate statement made under stress; an evidentiary code citation for “spontaneous statement” or present sense impression applies; and the dispatcher’s declaration confirms the immediacy and context of the statement. (Score: 4.5)

Fact #38: The 911 call made by the defendant from his cell phone triggered the dispatch of police and emergency services to the scene. Phone records and cellular tower data show an outgoing 911 call from the defendant’s phone; the dispatch timeline confirms that the call initiated the official response; and the defendant’s own admission verifies that he placed the call. (Score: 4.0)

Fact #39: The defendant called 911 only after the plaintiff informed him that images of the incident existed and that the defendant would not escape liability by leaving the victim unattended. The plaintiff’s contemporaneous declaration states that he confronted the defendant regarding the photographic evidence; witness testimony from bystanders confirms the exchange; and phone call records show a delay that supports this sequence of events. (Score: 3.5)

Fact #40: Initially, the defendant refused to call 911 and instead moved his vehicle to conceal his involvement, parking it nearly 100 feet down the street before returning on foot. Surveillance footage and local CCTV capture the defendant relocating the van; eyewitness statements confirm that the defendant resisted immediate calls to dial 911; and onlooker testimony shows that the defendant returned to the scene only after stashing the vehicle. (Score: 4.0)

Fact #41: The defendant attempted to bribe the victim–plaintiff rather than report the collision to the authorities. The plaintiff’s contemporaneous notes or recordings reference the offered bribe; witness corroboration confirms that the defendant attempted to pay off the plaintiff on the spot; and the defendant’s statements are contradicted by the plaintiff’s evidence. (Score: 4.0)

Fact #42: After the driver fled the scene, the victim–plaintiff contacted his family, fearing for his life and uncertain of his exact location, while a passerby reported the collision site to the victim’s family. Phone records show calls made by the victim in distress to family members; family member depositions verify that they received location information from a bystander; and GPS or E911 data links these phone calls to the incident location. (Score: 4.0)

Fact #43: The defendant’s 911 call was the trigger for the dispatch of emergency services, police, and the fire department to the scene. Dispatch protocols establish that an official response is triggered by a 911 call, and records confirm that the defendant’s call initiated the dispatch. (Score: 3.0)

Fact #44: Upon arrival at the scene, police and fire emergency officials began recording evidence and conditions on body cameras. Bodycam footage from responding officers documents the recording of evidence; incident reports reference the time at which evidence collection began; and evidence logs detail the items documented upon arrival. (Score: 4.5)

Fact #45: Police Officer Thompson interviewed eyewitness Dustin Rosemond, who clearly stated that he observed the driver striking the plaintiff. The officer’s official report summarizes Rosemond’s interview; bodycam video captures Rosemond’s statement firsthand; and Rosemond’s deposition corroborates his account as provided to Officer Thompson. (Score: 5.0)

Fact #46: The police did not incorporate the plaintiff’s statements regarding the driver’s fault and failed to record an accurate account of the plaintiff’s claims. Inconsistent police reports omit the plaintiff’s statements; the plaintiff’s written complaints and attempts to correct the record are documented; and bodycam footage shows that the plaintiff’s statement was made but not included in the official narrative. (Score: 3.0)

Fact #47: Instead of accepting the plaintiff’s account, the police misquoted and took his statement out of context, resulting in the victim being cited for a violation despite suffering a life-threatening injury. Discrepancies between the police report and the plaintiff’s known account and injuries are evident; issued citations indicate a misapplication of the facts; and a comparison of the original bodycam or audio with the final police report reveals misquotations. (Score: 3.0)

Fact #48: The police bodycam footage and the 911 record do not show the plaintiff admitting to any violation of the law. Complete bodycam footage for the entire incident confirms the absence of any such admission; 911 call transcripts verify that the plaintiff never confessed to wrongdoing; and audio analysis confirms there are no splices or omissions. (Score: 4.5)

Fact #49: The police records do not include any witness, other than the defendant, claiming that the victim was mounted on a scooter. The police report lists all witness statements, none of which mention a scooter; deposition summaries from each witness confirm that the plaintiff was not on a scooter. (Score: 4.0)

Fact #50: The defense has produced no evidence indicating that a scooter was in use at the time of the collision. Discovery requests and responses do not mention or provide proof of a scooter; cross-examination of the defendant and defense witnesses reveals no tangible evidence supporting the scooter claim. (Score: 4.0)

Fact #51: The evidence shows that the victim–plaintiff was walking with the scooter by his side rather than operating it. Eyewitness observations and the plaintiff’s own statement confirm that the scooter was not in motion; photographic evidence from the scene clarifies the scooter’s stationary position; and forensic analysis indicates there were no skid marks or signs of motor engagement. (Score: 3.5)

Fact #52: Neither the police records nor the defendant have any direct statement from the plaintiff indicating that he was operating a motorized scooter at the time of the collision. Police transcripts and interviews show that the plaintiff did not state he was riding a scooter; comparative testimony from the defendant does not reference a running scooter; and depositions verify that the plaintiff never claimed to be riding a scooter. (Score: 4.0)

Fact #53: The police and the defendant altered the account, including fabricating a false admission by the plaintiff, to fit a narrative that absolves the driver of liability. Original bodycam footage reveals inconsistencies with the final police statements; the plaintiff’s affirmative statements clearly disclaim any acceptance of fault; and witness testimony confirms that the official narrative differs from what was actually said. (Score: 3.0)

Fact #54: A review of the police bodycam recordings confirms that the plaintiff–victim never declared he was operating a motorized scooter at the time of the collision. A comprehensive review of the bodycam footage and transcripts shows no such statement; an officer’s deposition confirms that no such declaration appears in the footage; and the plaintiff’s affirmation accurately describes what was captured on camera. (Score: 4.0)

Fact #55: The police relied on the defendant’s claim regarding the plaintiff’s direction to cite the victim for riding on the wrong side of the street, an accusation that is inaccurate. Citation documents or traffic violation notices reference the “wrong side of the street”; a map or diagram of the intersection shows a crosswalk or pedestrian path that refutes the claim; and officer bodycam footage captures the rationale behind issuing the citation. (Score: 3.5)

Fact #56: The police used the traffic violation as a justification to exonerate the defendant. Official rationale and final report language blame the plaintiff for an improper crossing; dismissal and exoneration documents, along with statements from the investigating officer, reference the alleged violation; and contradictory physical evidence shows that the plaintiff was crossing lawfully. (Score: 3.0)

Fact #57: The defendant capitalized on this narrative by using it to deny any fault or liability during discussions with the officers. Recorded statements and transcripts show the defendant claiming the plaintiff committed a “traffic violation”; officer notes confirm that the defendant’s stance was accepted; and social media or public comments from the defendant assert that he is “not at fault” due to the plaintiff’s violation. (Score: 3.5)

Fact #58: The police officer recorded images of marks on the defendant’s vehicle. Digital photo logs and the officer’s camera memory card data document the marks on the vehicle; evidence tags reference the vehicle damage; and the officer’s testimony confirms that multiple photographs were taken at the scene. (Score: 4.5)

Fact #59: Officer Fernandez’s police report states there were no images of marks on the vehicle, despite bodycam footage clearly showing both the marks and the officer photographing them. Bodycam footage shows Officer Fernandez photographing the vehicle damage; a comparison between the report and the video demonstrates the discrepancy between the claim of “no images” and the actual footage; and cross-examination of Officer Fernandez will address this contradiction or omission against the body camera record. (Score: 4.0)

Fact #60: The bodycam evidence proves that Officer Fernandez omitted crucial information from his report. A detailed timeline comparing the bodycam footage to the final report highlights the omissions; video stills capture details that were not documented in writing; and Officer Fernandez’s deposition or clarifications prove that certain facts were excluded from the official record. (Score: 4.0)

Fact #61: Officer Fernandez omitted eyewitness statements from Dustin Rosemond. Bodycam and police records show that Rosemond’s statement was taken but not included in the official narrative; Rosemond’s recorded statement confirms he provided a statement to Officer Thompson; and certified body camera records indicate that his statement was known but never reported. (Score: 3.5)

Fact #62: Officer Fernandez omitted from his report the fact that a second 911 call was made, during which the defendant was seen fleeing the scene. Secondary 911 call logs reference the defendant’s flight; a comparison of dispatch records with the final police report shows no mention of that call; and witness testimony from the second caller describes the defendant’s flight. (Score: 4.0)

Fact #63: By failing to record or include all pertinent statements and substantive information, Officer Fernandez violated the victim–plaintiff’s constitutional rights and neglected his duty as a police officer. Federal, state, and local laws as well as departmental policies establish how officers must perform thorough and unbiased reporting; these laws and regulations establish the obligation for police officers to record all material information; civil rights precedent confirms that material omissions infringe on the plaintiff’s due process and impede access to justice; and internal affairs records and filed complaints document the incomplete reporting. (Score: 3.5)

Fact #64: Insurance companies are legally obligated to conduct a thorough investigation and cannot rely solely on police reports when determining liability or processing claims. Insurance codes and regulations (e.g., Cal. Ins. Code § 790.03) mandate proper investigation and prohibit unfair claims practices; California state laws require an independent review of statements, including all 911 calls, body camera footage, and witness accounts; and insurance adjusters have a legal duty to investigate beyond merely reviewing police reports. (Score: 4.5)

Fact #65: Insurance companies are required to access all pertinent information, including 911 recordings and police records. Formal request-for-evidence subpoenas from the insurer’s legal counsel confirm that all records were obtained; subpoena correspondence with law enforcement and the insured verifies that 911 recordings and police records were accessed; and regulatory guidance advises insurers to gather all relevant data in bodily injury claims. (Score: 4.5)

Fact #66: Insurance companies are required to conduct an unbiased and fair analysis of the evidence. The California Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations provide the legal authority for unbiased analysis; claim file audits must demonstrate that evidence was weighed appropriately; and depositions from claims personnel confirm their statutory obligations to remain impartial. (Score: 5.0)

Fact #67: When an insurance company determines that its insured driver or business owner is at fault, it is obligated to inform the other party and settle the claims or provide compensation for valid third-party claims. The policy handbook describes the standard claims settlement procedure upon acceptance of liability; claim denial letters from the insurer demonstrate a consistent practice of denial despite evidence and the driver’s confession; correspondence and emails with the plaintiff confirm that settlement obligations and liability were denied with no evidence of the investigation materials used beyond an incomplete police record; and the use of only police records by insurance companies violates California Insurance Policy and Laws. (Score: 5.0)

Fact #68: If an insurance company learns that its insured driver or business owner violated the California Vehicle Code or committed another legal breach, the company is required to report the offense to authorities and cannot conceal or deny that fact. California Vehicle Code provisions and the Insurance Code mandate the reporting of certain violations; the insurer’s internal policies and compliance manuals specify the duty to report under specific circumstances; and recorded body camera footage and 911 records show that there was internal knowledge of the wrongdoing by the driver, yet that knowledge was concealed without any steps taken to inform authorities or the plaintiff. (Score: 5.0)

Fact #69: The failure to investigate 911 calls or police records constitutes a deliberate avoidance of liability by the insurance company; willful ignorance is not a valid defense. Case precedents establish that “willful ignorance” is not acceptable in claims handling; regulatory complaints document that insurers have been sanctioned for ignoring known evidence; and subpoena records confirm that the SFPD body camera footage containing the recorded eyewitness statement by Dustin Rosemond, which discloses the defendant's fault in the collision, were retrieved in January of 2024. (Score: 4.0)

Fact #70: Insurance companies use avoidance tactics to evade liability, even when they are aware that their insured customer committed wrongdoing, by failing to disclose such knowledge and thereby avoiding payment of liability claims. Patterns of practice, including prior suits and regulatory orders, document that the insurer employed such tactics; comparative cases show that insurers withheld or downplayed evidence to avoid payouts; and the insurance company’s failure to investigate and admit fault despite the eyewitness record exposes an intentional strategy to withhold or not reveal key evidence. (Score: 4.0)

Fact #71: AAA Insurance and Liberty Mutual, representing the defendant and his business, are fully liable for damages arising from their bad faith investigative practices and fraudulent actions. Bad faith lawsuit precedents have established insurer liability for failing to settle or investigate properly; claims files reveal a deliberate or reckless disregard for available evidence; and legal expert opinions from insurance bad faith specialists support the claim of full liability. (Score: 3.5)

Fact #72: These insurance companies are liable for denying a legitimate claim despite clear evidence of the defendant driver’s fault and liability, including a certified confession and supporting proof. A certified 911 transcript or validation by 911 emergency services confirms the authenticity of the evidence; official denial letters from the insurers document that the claim was denied or neglected and are retained by the plaintiff; and specific insurance code violations are recorded for ignoring conclusive evidence of liability. (Score: 4.0)

Fact #73: In speaking with the police, the defendant asserted that he had valid insurance coverage. Bodycam footage or a police interview recorded the defendant stating, “I have insurance,” while referencing AAA/Liberty Mutual’s intent to cover the victim’s damages; the officer’s body camera verifies the defendant’s conversation about insurance and his intention to cover the costs through insurance; the defendant’s AAA (CSAA) insurance card and policy reference were present at the scene for a 2009 Toyota; and the defendant, in his capacity as an employee of Sonoma Liquor and while operating the commercial Ford Transit van involved in the collision, confirmed his insurance coverage. (Score: 4.5)

Fact #74: The police statement, “That's why you have insurance. Right?” was made to inform the defendant that his insurance should cover the costs and damages suffered by the plaintiff–victim. Certified recorded bodycam footage captures the officer informing the defendant about his insurance liability as an option to cover the victim’s damages; the defendant’s reaction acknowledged his duty and the liability of his insurance to pay for the victim’s damages; and insurance communications verify that such coverage for accidents is standard. (Score: 4.5)

Fact #75: The defendant clearly stated on police bodycam footage that he had an insurance policy and that it was the insurance company’s responsibility to cover these costs. An exact bodycam segment records the defendant saying, “Yes, I have insurance;” an officer’s official certified body camera recording verifies that this statement was made; and comparative follow-up from the insurer confirms the reported coverage. (Score: 5.0)

Fact #76: The defendant left the scene of the collision without providing the plaintiff the necessary insurance information mandated under the California Vehicle Code. The relevant California Vehicle Code section (e.g., § 16025) requires the exchange of insurance details after an accident; the plaintiff’s statement and witness testimony confirm that no exchange of insurance data occurred; and there is an absence of any documents from the defendant indicating that insurance information was provided. (Score: 5.0)

SUPPORT THE LEGAL FUND TODAY

https://www.spotfund.com/story/88e93d31-3915-409e-b4ac-e29a5d1fd6d6

SUPPORT THE LEGAL FUND TODAY

https://www.spotfund.com/story/88e93d31-3915-409e-b4ac-e29a5d1fd6d6

Here you can see the motions that PSALaw , the attorneys that were retained by AAA and Steve Dorenzo of CSAA (here is the big insurance company executive who lives in several multimillion dollar homes that has decided that he was going to deny my claim 100%, he thinks that he's going to be able to do this by using his standard denied delay depose tactics), in order to protect the defendant. despite the evidence being irrefutable about the hit and run, as well as the eyewitness testimony in the prior page, the defense, AAA, and PSA Law still maintain the concept in their minds that they are not liable. This information is available here so you can see what AAA and the defense is afraid of coming out in the trial itself, it's very important for people to have context. The question you might ask yourself is why are they afraid of the 911 calls, why are they afraid of the body cams, why are they afraid of people expressing anything about their pain, almost all of these motions incorporate some kind of broad spectrum categorical omission of evidence. Such tactics will not stand up in court. And we addressed those issues in our motion to demand relief under California civil procedure 473.

DEFENSE IS AFRAID OF 911 CALL : ABDELHALIM ADMITS TO HITTING THE VICTIM PEDESTRIAN (ROSARIO) IN THE EMERGENCY SERVICES DISPATCH.

These motions reflect a consistent pattern: the defendant and his insurer (AAA) are using every possible procedural angle to strip away the plaintiff’s evidence, witnesses, and arguments. The fact that the defendant apparently lied to the police about striking the plaintiff—only minutes after calling 911 to admit that he was involved—signals a willingness to distort facts and deny responsibility. Add to that the concerns about drug trade facilitation around his place of business, and it becomes clear why the defense wants to limit the plaintiff’s narrative.

Ultimately, these motions illustrate how insurance companies leverage procedural rules to tilt the playing field and limit a plaintiff’s chance at a full, honest hearing. By suppressing key evidence, blocking witnesses, excluding claims for significant damages, and obscuring the defendant’s resources or misconduct, the defense hopes to secure a verdict that downplays or ignores the real harm caused. Such tactics highlight an attempt to evade accountability rather than face and address the allegations on their merits.

2:18 PM

The victim rents a Lime scooter.

2:19 PM

Electric motor malfunctions; Victim continues using the rented non-motorized Lime as a kick scooter.

2:39 PM

The victim arrived at 5th and Tehama, where he was walking west bound along 5th street pushing the malfunctioning scooter along a pedestrian crosswalk.

2:40 PM

The driver ignores a double yield sign, crosses a bicycle lane, and strikes the Victim in a crosswalk. An eyewitness sees the incident.

• Relevant Code: California Vehicle Code § 21950(a) mandates that drivers yield the right of way to pedestrians in marked crosswalks. The driver's actions constitute a prima facie violation.

2:41 PM

The driver flees the scene without calling 911 or providing assistance.

• Relevant Code: California Vehicle Code § 20001(a) (felony hit-and-run); California Penal Code § 135 (destruction or concealment of evidence, implied by fleeing).

2:42 PM

An unknown passerby while driving down 5th street, observes the victim alone on the sidewalk. No vehicle or person is providing aid; hit-and-run confirmed.

• Relevant Code: California Vehicle Code § 20001(c), addressing the failure to fulfill duties after a collision causing injury.

2:44 PM

The victim calls his sibling, Emily, fearing he will die and be identified as "John Doe"

2:45 PM

The victim crawls to a corner to seek help; Driver is nowhere in sight.

• Relevant Code: California Civil Code § 1714 (general duty of care), highlighting the duty to render aid under dangerous conditions.

2:49 PM

The driver returns with the vehicle.

• Relevant Code: California Penal Code § 20001(b)(2), addressing delayed return to the scene without just cause.

2:50 PM

The victim takes a photo of the Driver as he returns to the scene, possibly to conceal or modify evidence.

2:51 PM

The driver attempts to bribe the Victim with a $5 bill. The victim informs Driver that evidence will lead to his arrest.

• Relevant Code: California Penal Code § 67.5 (attempted bribery of a witness), potentially enhancing criminal charges.

2:53 PM

The driver reluctantly calls 911 after repeated demands. During the call, the Driver admits hitting the Victim (excited utterance) but then a few mins later changes story and lies to 911 operator, fabricating a narrative that the Victim fell while riding the scooter. The Driver's statement during the 911 call, "I hit the Victim," can be argued as an excited utterance under § 1240. At the time of the call, the Driver was still under the stress of the collision and the realization of his actions, which would likely qualify the statement as spontaneous and thus admissible. Conversely, the Driver's later, calculated denial to the police ("I never hit or touched the Victim") lacks the spontaneity required under § 1240 and could be excluded as unreliable or deliberate fabrication.

• Relevant Code: California Evidence Code § 1240 (excited utterance exception); Penal Code § 118 (perjury by false testimony).

• Excited Utterance Exception

• Code Reference: California Evidence Code § 1240

• Violation: Permits the driver's initial admission ("hit the Victim") during a high-stress moment to be admissible as evidence despite being hearsay.

• Perjury by False Testimony

• Code Reference: California Penal Code § 118

• Violation: The driver knowingly provides false statements to law enforcement by fabricating that the Victim fell while riding a scooter.

• Hit and Run (Leaving the Scene of an Accident)

• Code Reference: California Vehicle Code § 20002

• Violation: Failing to stop and remain at the scene after causing injury to a pedestrian.

• Failure to Stop and Render Aid

• Code Reference: California Vehicle Code § 20004

• Violation: Not providing necessary assistance or information after the accident.

• Providing False Information to a Public Official

• Code Reference: California Penal Code § 136.2

• Violation: Misrepresenting the facts of the accident to police or during legal proceedings.

• Reckless Driving

• Code Reference: California Vehicle Code § 23103

• Violation: Operating the van with a willful disregard for safety, leading to the accident.

• Negligent Operation of a Vehicle

• Code Reference: California Vehicle Code § 23103.5

• Violation: Driving in a manner that falls below the standard of care expected, resulting in the accident.

• Failure to Report a Serious Accident

• Code Reference: California Vehicle Code § 20001

• Violation: Not reporting the accident to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or relevant authorities within the required timeframe.

• Tampering with Evidence

• Code Reference: California Penal Code § 136.1

• Violation: Attempting to hide or destroy evidence related to the accident, such as damaging the van’s black box or altering the accident scene.

2:54 PM

An unknown passerby calls 911, reports to the 911 operator that they had observed the scene of a hit-and-run a few minutes prior, the call is adamant that there was no vehicle in sight, and no persons offering assistance at the time when they passed the scene of the crime, the called expressed absolute certainty by describing that there was “no van” and no one providing assistance provided by the Driver.

• Relevant Code: Reinforces Penal Code § 20001(a) and Civil Code § 1714 for failure to assist.

2:55 PM

First responders are dispatched.

2:58 PM

EMTs from the fire department arrive. The Driver immediately denies hitting the Victim, contradicting earlier excited 911 call utterances and eyewitness accounts.

• Relevant Code: California Penal Code § 148.5(a) (knowingly providing false information to peace officers).

3:00 PM

Officer Thompson records eyewitness testimony that the Driver struck the Victim. The body cam captures critical testimony.

• Relevant Code: Penal Code § 135 (concealment or suppression of recorded evidence, later noted in the case).

• Penal Code § 135 – Concealment or Suppression of Recorded Evidence

• Description: This statute prohibits the intentional concealment, suppression, destruction, or falsification of any evidence that has been lawfully obtained. This includes recorded evidence such as body cam footage or eyewitness testimonies.

• Application: Officer Thompson intentionally hides, destroys, or fails to present the body cam footage or eyewitness testimony, they would be violating this code.

• Penal Code § 148 – Tampering with Evidence

• Description: This section makes it unlawful to tamper with, alter, or destroy evidence with the intent to prevent its discovery or use in a legal proceeding.

• Application: Failing to Enter the witness testimony in the body cam footage, manipulating eyewitness statements, or any action that changes the integrity of the evidence would constitute tampering under this code.

• Penal Code § 132 – Obstruction of Justice

• Description: This statute prohibits any act that obstructs, influences, or impedes the due administration of justice. This includes hindering investigations, prosecutions, or the execution of legal processes.

• Application: Concealing or suppressing evidence to impede an investigation or legal proceeding directly falls under obstruction of justice.

• Penal Code § 118.3 – Perjury

• Description: Defines perjury as the act of willfully providing false statements under oath during any official proceeding.

• Application: IOfficer Thompson knowingly provides false or omits false testimony or misrepresents facts in official reports or court testimonies, they would be committing perjury.

• Penal Code § 135.5 – Resisting, Delaying, or Obstructing a Peace Officer

• Description: This section addresses actions that resist, delay, or obstruct a peace officer in the performance of their duties.

• Application: If someone actively interferes with Officer Thompson’s efforts to record or present evidence, it may fall under this violation.

3:01 PM

Officer Simmons interrogates the Victim. Driver lies to Officer DeLeon, denying any contact with the Victim or involvement in the incident.

• Relevant Code: Penal Code § 148.5(a) (false report to law enforcement).

3:12 PM

The SFPD claims to have obtained an alleged verbal confession from the Victim admitting to breaking motor vehicle traffic laws during an interrogation conducted only minutes after the Victim sustained life-threatening injuries. This confession is entirely absent from any body cam video. Subsequently, the police use the alleged confession to assign fault to the Victim and submit an official police incident report stating that the Victim is responsible for being hit and abandoned to die by the driver. This report is completely devoid of the eyewitness account of the vehicle vs pedestrian collision, this testimony was recorded in Officer Thompson's body cam footage yet never appeared in the official police report.

• Relevant Code: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (deprivation of constitutional rights via due process violations).

• Constitutional Violations

• Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (U.S. Constitution): USC 5 & USC 14: Due Process and Equal Protection

• • By using the victim's testimony obtained under coercive or compromised conditions and suppressing the driver's confession, the police have violated the victim's due process rights.

  • The failure to treat the victim equitably and to investigate the incident impartially constitutes a denial of equal protection under the law.

• 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Deprivation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of Law

• • The police acted under the color of law to suppress critical evidence and unfairly assign blame to the victim. This provides a basis for a civil rights lawsuit against the officers and the police department.

• California Penal Code Violations

• California Penal Code § 118.1: False Reporting by a Peace Officer

• • If the officers fabricated or misrepresented facts in the police report to shift blame onto the victim, they may be guilty of false reporting.

• California Penal Code § 135: Suppression or Concealment of Evidence

• • The deliberate suppression of the driver's confession constitutes a violation of Penal Code § 135, which criminalizes the willful destruction or concealment of evidence.

• California Penal Code § 422.6: Interference with Civil Rights

• • If the police acted with bias or discrimination (e.g., targeting the victim unfairly or protecting the driver), they may have violated Penal Code § 422.6, which prohibits interference with an individual’s civil rights.

• California Civil Code Violations

• California Civil Code § 52.1 (Bane Act): Coercion or Threats

• • Coercing a gravely injured victim into providing testimony and suppressing exculpatory evidence violates the Bane Act, which protects individuals from interference with their constitutional rights through coercion, threats, or intimidation.

• California Government Code Violations

• California Government Code § 815.6: Failure to Perform Mandatory Duty

• • The police have a mandatory duty to conduct a thorough, impartial investigation and to preserve all evidence. Failing to perform these duties makes the officers and their department liable for negligence.

• File a Civil Rights Lawsuit

• Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

• • The victim can sue the individual officers and the police department for violating constitutional rights, including due process and equal protection.

  • Claims may include suppression of evidence, coercive practices, and bias in the investigation.

• Under the California Bane Act (Civil Code § 52.1):

• • The victim can file a lawsuit for interference with their constitutional rights through coercion or intimidation.

• Pursue Criminal Charges Against the Officers

• False Reporting (§ 118.1) and Suppression of Evidence (§ 135):

• • The victim can request the District Attorney to investigate and prosecute the officers for these crimes. Evidence of misconduct (e.g., body cam footage, missing confessions) will strengthen this request.

• File a Civil Suit for Negligence

• Government Code § 815.6:

• • The victim can sue the police department for failing to perform their mandatory duties, resulting in harm.

3:15 PM

Despite eyewitness testimonies and evidence of felony hit-and-run, police fail to arrest the Driver, allowing him to leave the scene.

• Relevant Code: California Penal Code § 849(b) (arrest without warrant when probable cause exists); Penal Code § 135 (implied suppression of evidence supporting arrest).

• Constitutional Violations

Fifth Amendment: Protection Against Self-Incrimination

• Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 (1966)): Failure to advise the victim of their Miranda rights prior to an interrogation violates their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. If the police claim the victim "confessed" to violating the law during this interrogation, such statements may be inadmissible in court.

Fourteenth Amendment: Due Process and Equal Protection

• Deprivation of Liberty Without Due Process: Interrogating the victim without reading Miranda rights and using an alleged confession to assign fault violates the victim’s right to due process. The police may also have violated equal protection under the law by favoring the driver’s narrative and failing to impartially assess the facts of the case.

• 42 U.S.C. § 1983: The victim may have a civil claim against the officers or the police department for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law, particularly if the interrogation resulted in a prejudicial determination against the victim without fair legal treatment.

• California State Law Violations

California Penal Code § 118.1: False Reporting by a Peace Officer

• If the police report falsely claims the victim violated the law, leading to an improper determination of fault, the officers may be guilty of filing a false report, which is a criminal offense under California Penal Code § 118.1.

California Penal Code § 135: Destruction or Concealment of Evidence

• Ignoring or failing to preserve evidence that supports the victim’s account (e.g., eyewitness statements, physical evidence, or surveillance footage) may constitute evidence suppression under Penal Code § 135. This could include omitting key details that exonerate the victim or implicate the driver.

California Penal Code § 149: Unlawful Assault or Battery by Public Officers

• If the police coerced the victim into a confession during the interrogation (e.g., through intimidation, threats, or physical coercion), they may have violated Penal Code § 149, which prohibits unlawful use of force or threats by public officers.

California Penal Code § 422.6: Interference with Civil Rights

• The police may have violated Penal Code § 422.6 if their conduct involved discrimination or bias against the victim, resulting in the denial of equal protection or fair treatment under the law.

California Civil Code § 52.1 (Bane Act): Interference with Constitutional Rights

• Using intimidation, coercion, or threat to compel a confession or shift blame to the victim may violate the Bane Act. This law protects individuals from interference with their constitutional rights by state actors.

• Evidentiary and Procedural Violations

Improper Assignment of Fault

• California Vehicle Code § 21950(a): Drivers are required to yield the right of way to pedestrians in crosswalks. The police’s assignment of fault to the victim, despite the absence of evidence or a citation, contradicts this statutory duty and may reflect procedural bias.

California Evidence Code § 1240: Excited Utterance Exception

• The driver’s statements during the 911 call or on-scene admissions (if any) may qualify as admissible evidence under the excited utterance exception. Ignoring or suppressing these admissions could constitute evidentiary misconduct.

Improper Use of Victim’s Statements

• Statements obtained during a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings are inadmissible in criminal proceedings. If the police relied on such statements to justify their conclusion, this evidentiary violation undermines the credibility of the investigation.

• Administrative and Ethical Violations

California Government Code § 815.6: Breach of Mandatory Duty

• Law enforcement has a mandatory duty to conduct impartial investigations and protect all parties’ rights. The failure to hold the driver accountable while blaming the victim may constitute negligence in performing this duty.

Law Enforcement Code of Ethics

• Officers are bound by professional ethics to uphold justice and avoid misconduct. Interrogating a victim without legal basis and relying on coerced statements violates these ethical obligations.

3:18 PM

Despite multiple eyewitness testimonies and clear evidence of a felony hit-and-run under California Vehicle Code § 20001(a), law enforcement officers failed to exercise their statutory authority under California Penal Code § 849(b), which permits the arrest of an individual without a warrant when probable cause exists. By allowing the Driver to leave the scene, the officers not only undermined the immediate administration of justice but also potentially facilitated the destruction or alteration of evidence critical to the investigation.

Legal Implications

1. Failure to Arrest Under Probable Cause California Penal Code § 849(b) grants officers the authority to arrest an individual involved in a crime if probable cause exists. In this instance, the Driver’s:

2. • Admission of hitting the Victim during a 911 call (excited utterance, California Evidence Code § 1240),

   • Witness statements confirming the hit-and-run,

   • Actions of fleeing the scene, provided ample justification for immediate arrest. The failure to do so constitutes a dereliction of duty and raises concerns about procedural integrity.

3. Suppression of Evidence Under California Penal Code § 135, the suppression or failure to report material evidence constitutes a criminal offense. In this case:

4. • Eyewitness testimony and body cam footage clearly identified the Driver’s culpability.

   • The delay in taking decisive action allowed the Driver the opportunity to alter or destroy evidence, such as tampering with the vehicle or other physical materials connected to the collision.

5. Violation of Victim’s Due Process Rights The officers’ failure to detain the Driver and preserve the scene violates the Victim’s constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, as outlined in 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The failure to secure evidence and act on probable cause deprived the Victim of equal protection and fair treatment under the law, further compounding the prejudice faced in this matter.

6. Neglect of Public Duty The officers' inaction contradicts the fundamental principles of public safety and law enforcement. By neglecting to enforce the law as mandated, they failed in their duty to protect the public and ensure accountability for serious criminal offenses such as felony hit-and-run.

Consequences of the Officers’ Inaction

• Compromised Investigation: The decision to allow the Driver to leave the scene hindered the collection and preservation of critical evidence, including the condition of the vehicle and the Driver’s immediate statements and demeanor. By permitting the Driver to depart without securing the scene, the officers may have violated California Penal Code § 135 (Concealment or Suppression of Recorded Evidence) and Penal Code § 148 (Tampering with Evidence). These actions potentially obstructed the proper administration of justice by impeding the gathering of essential evidence necessary for a thorough investigation.

• Potential Collusion or Bias: The officers’ decision not to arrest raises concerns of procedural bias, implying a potential violation of California Government Code § 815.6, which imposes liability on public entities for failure to perform mandatory duties. Additionally, this decision may constitute Obstruction of Justice under California Penal Code § 132, as it could be seen as an intentional act to impede the investigation and prosecution of the Driver. Such bias undermines the integrity of law enforcement procedures and may reflect underlying misconduct or collusion intended to skew the legal process.

• Reputational Damage: The failure to act reflects poorly on the law enforcement agency and undermines public trust in the criminal justice system. By not adhering to established protocols and ethical standards, the officers may have breached California Penal Code § 835 (Misconduct in Public Office), which addresses the misuse of public authority for personal gain or to the detriment of public trust. Such misconduct not only damages the agency’s reputation but also erodes community confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of law enforcement, potentially leading to broader implications for accountability and transparency within the criminal justice system.

Requested Remedies

The failure to arrest and report the Driver’s violations necessitates:

1. Judicial Review: An independent review of the officers’ conduct under Penal Code § 135 and § 849(b) to determine accountability.

2. Suppression Hearing: Motion to exclude any evidence fabricated or altered by the Driver post-incident due to the delay caused by the officers' inaction.

Sanctions or Disciplinary Measures: Imposition of administrative sanctions against the officers for failing to fulfill their duties as mandated by law.

SUPPORT THE LEGAL FUND TODAY

https://www.spotfund.com/story/88e93d31-3915-409e-b4ac-e29a5d1fd6d6

Medical Evidence Log + Diagnosis + Prognosis

Summary of Medical Evidence:

1. 5 Fractured Ribs: Right side, causing severe pain and breathing difficulties.

2. Pneumothorax: Collapsed lung on the right side, treated with a pigtail chest catheter.

3. Spinal Injuries:

   1. Multi-Disc Bulges: In the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine.

   2. Chronic Pain: In the neck, mid, and lower back, requiring ongoing physical therapy and facet injections.

4. Mobility Issues:

   1. Use of a walking cane due to hip and back pain.

   2. and difficulty walking, standing.

   3. and performing daily activities.

5. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI):

   1. Structural Changes: Reduced white matter volume in critical brain areas.

   2. Cognitive Impairment: Potential cognitive and neurological deficits due to TBI, including difficulties in concentration, headaches, and dizziness.

   3. Loss of Equilibrium: Resulting in impaired balance and coordination.

6. Indirect Injury (June 10, 2021):

   1. Broken Shoulder: Right shoulder fracture due to a fall caused by loss of equilibrium from the TBI (permanent acromioclavicular (AC) joint separation) of the right shoulder clavicle .

   2. Primary Hand: Being right handed , loss of capacity to lift and use the right arm 1as would typically be expected.

7. Cognitive and Emotional Impact:

   1. Difficulty concentrating and performing work-related tasks (e.g., coding).

   2. Persistent headaches and dizziness.

   3. Marked difficulty in memory and concentration.

   4. Emotional distress from the inability to work and pursue pre-accident activities, compounded by the secondary injury.

1. February 4, 2021 - Date of Collision:

• Incident: Plaintiff, Franciscus Dylan Rosario, was hit by a Ford Transit 250 van while walking through a crosswalk.

• Initial Injuries (as observed by SFFD EMTs , victim was treated at the time and on the site of the collision):

  • Severe pain on the right side.

  • Difficulty breathing.

  • Immediate right-sided chest pain.

2. February 5, 2021 - Day After Collision:

• Diagnosis (X-Ray):

  • 5 broken ribs in 8 locations on the right side.

  • Right-side pneumothorax (collapsed lung).

• Treatment:

  • Hospitalized for 2.75 days in a critical care unit.

  • Pigtail chest catheter inserted for treatment of pneumothorax.

  • Manipulation of thoracic rib cage placement for setting rib due to fracture

  • Released evening February 8th 2021

3. Post-Hospitalization (February 2021 - June 2021):

• Ongoing Physical Issues:

  • Excruciating spinal, chest , cranium, and neck pain.

  • Debilitating spinal and thoracic pain prevented walking for months

  • Difficulty standing straight and breathing.

  • Severe pain affecting daily activities and an inability to care for himself.

  • Required home care provided by a relative (acupuncturist and massage therapist).

  • Interrupted sleep due to pain.

4. June 10, 2021 - Secondary Incident (Fall Due to Loss of Equilibrium):

• Incident: Plaintiff experienced a loss of equilibrium, likely due to neurological damage from the traumatic brain injury (TBI), resulting in a fall.

• Injury: Fractured right shoulder.

• Impact: This fall exacerbated the plaintiff’s physical limitations, further impairing his ability to perform daily personal tasks and worsening his overall physical condition.

5. July 13, 2021 - MRI Scans:

• Diagnostic Results:

  • Underwent cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine MRIs at Kaiser.

  • MRIs revealed multi-disc bulges in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine.

6. Post-MRI Scans (July 2021 - Early 2024):

• Ongoing Treatment:

  • Prescribed physical therapy.

    • Underwent cervical facet injections.

      • Continued suffering from neck, mid, and low back pain.

      • Use of a cane for back pain.

      • Significant impact on work and daily activities.

• Mobility Issues:

  • Persistent pain in the back, chest, and ribs.

  • Difficulty sitting, standing, and performing work tasks.

7. Spring & Summer 2024 - Brain MRI Findings (TBI Diagnosis):

• SimonMed Imaging Van Ness Ave, San Francisco CA - STUDY 8-15-2024

• Imaging Technique: T1 Axial post-contrast MPRAGE MRI with 3D AssemblyNet-based AI algorithm. Software and analysis is a new method of TBI discovery, where in 2006 with the FDA approval and clearance of NeuroQuant®, a commercially available, computer-automated software program for measuring MRI brain volume in human subjects. Studies using these and similar methods have found that most patients with chronic traumatic brain injury have brain volume abnormalities, and several of these studies found—surprisingly—more abnormal enlargement than atrophy. Due to the improvements in technology over the years, these brain volumetric techniques are practical and readily available for clinical or forensic use, and thus they are important tools for detecting signs of brain injury. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9027332/

• Summary of Findings:

  • Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI): Structural changes consistent with a TBI, likely caused by a coup-contrecoup mechanism.

Key Findings:

• Grey and White Matter Volume:

  • Significant reduction in white matter volume, particularly in regions adjacent to the cranial base, such as the basal forebrain, lateral orbital gyrus, and inferior temporal gyrus.

  • Disparity between grey and white matter volumes, a typical indicator of TBI-related changes.

• Regional Volume Reduction:

  • Notable volume loss in the bilateral basal forebrain, right lateral orbital gyrus, temporal lobe structures adjacent to the cranial base (including the right fusiform gyrus and bilateral inferior temporal gyrus), left temporal pole, and cingulate gyrus (especially the posterior cingulate gyrus).

• Interpretation:

  • The imaging findings support the diagnosis of a marked TBI, with damage patterns typical of coup-contrecoup injuries. The reduction in white matter volume, particularly in critical brain regions, correlates with TBI-related cognitive and neurological impairments.

8. Ongoing Symptoms (Present - August 2024):

• Pain and Mobility Issues:

  • Persistent severe back, chest, neck, shoulder and rib pain.

  • Continued use of a walking cane.

  • Chronic pain leading to difficulty sitting, standing, and performing work tasks.

• Cognitive Issues:

  • Frequent headaches, episodes of dizziness, memory loss, and difficulty concentrating.

  • Likely cognitive and neurological impacts from TBI, as evidenced by MRI findings.

Comprehensive Medical Injury Report for Franciscus Dylan Rosario

I. Overview of Injuries and Diagnosis

Franciscus Dylan Rosario sustained extensive injuries, both direct and indirect, as a result of a collision on February 4, 2021, where he was struck by a Ford Transit 250 van while walking through a crosswalk. The injuries encompass traumatic brain injury (TBI), spinal damage, chest and rib fractures, and subsequent musculoskeletal injuries due to a secondary fall. The cumulative impact of these injuries has resulted in significant cognitive, physical, and emotional impairments that are expected to persist for the remainder of his life.

Head and Brain Injuries:

• Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI): MRI findings revealed significant structural changes in the brain, including a reduction in white matter volume, particularly in the basal forebrain, lateral orbital gyrus, and inferior temporal gyrus. These changes are indicative of a coup-contrecoup injury, with notable volume loss in regions such as the bilateral basal forebrain, right fusiform gyrus, and left temporal pole. The TBI has resulted in cognitive deficits, including difficulties in concentration, memory problems, headaches, dizziness, and a loss of equilibrium, leading to further physical injuries.

Neck and Spinal Injuries:

• Cervical, Thoracic, and Lumbar Spine: MRI scans identified multi-disc bulges across the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine regions. These bulges are causing chronic pain, which has severely limited the plaintiff’s mobility and ability to perform daily activities. The chronic pain in these areas is persistent and requires ongoing physical therapy, facet injections, and the use of a cane for mobility.

Chest and Rib Injuries:

• Fractured Ribs and Pneumothorax: The plaintiff sustained five fractured ribs on the right side, leading to a collapsed lung (pneumothorax), which was treated with a pigtail chest catheter. Despite treatment, chronic chest pain persists, making it difficult for the plaintiff to breathe, stand straight, and sleep comfortably.

Musculoskeletal and Mobility Issues:

• Fall and Shoulder Injury: On June 10, 2021, the plaintiff experienced a fall due to a loss of equilibrium caused by the TBI, resulting in a fractured right shoulder. This injury further compromised his ability to perform daily personal tasks, exacerbating his overall physical condition and contributing to a permanent reduction in the range of motion and strength in his shoulder.

General Symptoms and Emotional Impact:

• The plaintiff suffers from chronic sleep disruption due to ongoing pain and emotional distress. The combination of physical limitations, chronic pain, and the psychological impact of his injuries has led to emotional distress, anxiety, depression, and a significant reduction in quality of life. The ongoing need for psychological support is anticipated, along with a risk of social isolation due to the compounded challenges.

II. Long-Term Prognosis and Expected Permanent Damage

The long-term prognosis for Franciscus Dylan Rosario is characterized by permanent disabilities that will significantly impact his quality of life. At best, he may achieve partial disability, as his capacity to return to work, which requires long sessions at a keyboard and standing or moving for presentations, will be severely limited. The cumulative effects of the TBI, spinal injuries, chest and rib fractures, and the secondary shoulder injury are expected to result in lifelong pain, mobility impairments, and cognitive deficits.

Head and Brain Injuries (TBI):

• Cognitive and Neurological Impacts: The TBI has led to permanent cognitive impairments, including problems with memory, concentration, and executive function. These deficits are expected to persist and may worsen over time, particularly without specialized cognitive rehabilitation. The neurological symptoms, such as headaches, dizziness, and loss of balance, are also likely to remain chronic, necessitating ongoing management with medications and physical therapy.

Neck and Spinal Injuries:

• Chronic Pain and Mobility Issues: The multi-disc bulges in the spine are causing chronic pain that will likely persist for the remainder of the plaintiff’s life. The pain will continue to impair mobility, requiring the long-term use of assistive devices such as a cane. Progressive spinal degeneration is anticipated, which could lead to further loss of mobility and the need for surgical interventions in the future.

Chest and Rib Injuries:

• Persistent Chest Pain: Although the rib fractures may heal, the plaintiff is expected to experience ongoing discomfort in the chest, particularly during activities involving heavy breathing or physical exertion. This chronic pain may be due to nerve damage or musculoskeletal issues and will contribute to the overall reduction in quality of life.

Musculoskeletal and Mobility Issues:

• Permanent Mobility Impairments: The combined impact of the spinal injuries, chronic pain, and the broken shoulder will result in permanently reduced mobility. The plaintiff will likely face a progressive loss of independence over time, requiring more assistance with daily tasks and possibly in-home care or assisted living arrangements. The risk of future falls remains high due to the loss of equilibrium, which could result in additional injuries.

General Symptoms and Emotional Impact:

• Ongoing Psychological Challenges: The plaintiff is expected to continue experiencing chronic sleep disruption, emotional distress, and a compromised quality of life. Long-term psychological support will be necessary to manage conditions such as depression and anxiety, which are likely to arise from the ongoing pain, reduced independence, and social isolation.

Overall Long-Term Prognosis:

• Permanent Disability and Reduced Life Expectancy: Franciscus Dylan Rosario is likely to be classified as permanently disabled due to the combined effects of TBI, spinal injuries, chronic pain, and mobility impairments. The chronic health conditions, especially those involving significant pain and neurological damage, may reduce his life expectancy. He will require ongoing medical care, including physical therapy, pain management, neurological monitoring, and psychological support. Significant lifestyle adjustments will be necessary to manage daily activities, with a reliance on assistive devices and potentially requiring assisted living arrangements. The cumulative impact of these injuries is expected to result in a severely compromised quality of life, with limited ability to engage in work, hobbies, and social activities.

III. Itemized List of Long Term Physical Injuries

Head and Brain Injuries:

1. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI):

• Structural Changes: Reduction in white matter volume, particularly in the basal forebrain, lateral orbital gyrus, and inferior temporal gyrus.

• Regional Volume Loss: Significant reduction in regions such as the bilateral basal forebrain, right lateral orbital gyrus, right fusiform gyrus, bilateral inferior temporal gyrus, left temporal pole, and cingulate gyrus.

• Cognitive and Neurological Impacts: Likely to include difficulties in concentration, headaches, dizziness, and potential long-term cognitive deficits.

• Loss of Equilibrium: Resulting in impaired balance and coordination, leading to further physical injuries.

Neck and Spinal Injuries:

• Cervical Spine Injuries:

  • Multi-Disc Bulges: Identified through MRI scans.

  • Chronic Pain: Persistent neck pain requiring cervical facet injections and ongoing physical therapy.

• Thoracic Spine Injuries:

  • Multi-Disc Bulges: Identified through MRI scans.

  • Chronic Pain: Persistent thoracic (mid-back) pain affecting mobility and ability to sit or stand for extended periods.

• Lumbar Spine Injuries:

  • Multi-Disc Bulges: Identified through MRI scans.

  • Chronic Pain: Persistent lower back pain, requiring the use of a cane and affecting the ability to perform daily activities.

Chest and Rib Injuries:

1. Fractured Ribs:

• 5 Fractured Ribs: Located on the right side.

• Pneumothorax: A collapsed lung on the right side, treated with a pigtail chest catheter.

1. Chronic Chest Pain:

• Ongoing pain in the right side of the chest, making it difficult to breathe, stand straight, and sleep.

Musculoskeletal and Mobility Issues:

1. Mobility Impairment:

• Use of Cane: Due to persistent back pain, the plaintiff requires a cane for mobility.

• Difficulty Walking and Standing: Pain in the back, ribs, and chest affects the plaintiff’s ability to walk, stand, and perform daily activities.

• Loss of Equilibrium: As a result of neurological and brain damage, the plaintiff's balance is severely impaired.

1. Indirect Injury – June 10, 2021:

• Fall Resulting in Shoulder Injury: On June 10, 2021, the plaintiff experienced a loss of equilibrium due to neurological damage from the TBI, resulting in a fall that broke his shoulder.

• Additional Mobility and Functional Impact: The shoulder injury further compromised the plaintiff’s ability to perform daily personal tasks and worsened his overall physical condition.

Upper Extremities (Arms and Shoulders):

1. Broken Shoulder:

• Right Shoulder Fracture: Resulting from the fall on June 10, 2021, due to impaired balance.

• Loss of Function: The shoulder injury compounded the plaintiff’s difficulties in performing tasks that require the use of his arms and shoulders.

Lower Extremities (Hips, Legs, and Feet):

1. Pain Radiating to Lower Extremities:

• Chronic lumbar spine issues could lead to pain radiating down to the hips, legs, and feet, further impairing mobility.

General Symptoms:

1. Headaches and Dizziness:

• Likely related to the TBI, contributing to cognitive difficulties and overall discomfort.

1. Sleep Disruption:

• Chronic pain from the various injuries has led to interrupted sleep, exacerbating fatigue and affecting the plaintiff’s daily functioning.

Emotional and Psychological Impact:

1. Emotional Distress:

• Resulting from the chronic pain, cognitive issues, and inability to work or engage in pre-accident activities.

1. Further Emotional Trauma:

• The fall and subsequent shoulder injury likely added to the plaintiff’s emotional distress, as it further diminished his independence and ability to manage daily life.

Summary of Full-Body Injuries:

• Head and Brain: TBI with structural brain changes, cognitive difficulties, headaches, dizziness, and impaired balance.

• Spine: Multi-disc bulges in cervical, thoracic, and lumbar regions with chronic pain.

• Chest and Ribs: 5 fractured ribs, pneumothorax, chronic chest pain.

• Mobility: Use of cane, difficulty walking, standing, and performing daily activities. Loss of equilibrium leading to falls and further injuries.

• Upper Extremities: Broken right shoulder due to a fall resulting from loss of balance.

• Lower Extremities: Pain radiating from lumbar spine to hips, legs, and feet.

• General Symptoms: Sleep disruption, emotional distress, and overall reduced quality of life.

Prognosis for Recovery and Long-Term Expectations

Given the extensive injuries sustained by Franciscus Dylan Rosario, the prognosis for recovery and long-term expectations can be outlined as follows:

Head and Brain Injuries (Traumatic Brain Injury - TBI)

• Recovery Prognosis:

  • Cognitive Deficits: The reduction in white matter volume and regional brain damage is likely to result in persistent cognitive difficulties, including problems with memory, concentration, and executive function. These issues are likely to be chronic and may worsen over time, especially if not managed with cognitive rehabilitation.

  • Neurological Symptoms: Symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, and loss of balance (equilibrium) are expected to persist. Given the brain's structural changes, complete recovery is unlikely. The patient may require long-term management, including medications for pain and dizziness, as well as physical therapy to help with balance.

  • Emotional and Psychological Impact: The TBI is also likely to contribute to emotional and psychological challenges, including mood swings, depression, and anxiety. These conditions may require long-term psychological or psychiatric care, including therapy and medication.

• Long-Term Expectations:

  • Permanent Cognitive Impairments: The cognitive deficits are likely to be permanent, affecting daily life activities, work capabilities, and overall quality of life.

  • Risk of Further Neurological Decline: There is a risk of further neurological decline over time, particularly if the brain injury predisposes the patient to neurodegenerative conditions such as chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

Neck and Spinal Injuries

• Recovery Prognosis:

  • Chronic Pain: The multi-disc bulges in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine are expected to cause chronic pain. This pain is likely to persist despite ongoing physical therapy and facet injections. The use of pain management techniques, including medications, physical therapy, and possibly interventional procedures, will be necessary long-term.

  • Mobility Impairments: The pain and spinal injuries will likely continue to impair mobility, requiring the use of assistive devices such as a cane. This limitation in mobility is expected to be a long-term or permanent condition.

• Long-Term Expectations:

  • Progressive Degeneration: There is a likelihood of progressive spinal degeneration, leading to worsening pain and potential further loss of mobility.

  • Increased Risk of Secondary Conditions: The ongoing spinal issues may lead to secondary conditions such as muscle atrophy, joint problems due to altered gait and posture, and possibly the need for surgical interventions in the future.

Chest and Rib Injuries

• Recovery Prognosis:

  • Chronic Chest Pain: The fractures and pneumothorax have led to chronic pain that is expected to persist. Although the fractures may heal, the pain could remain due to nerve damage or chronic musculoskeletal issues.

• Long-Term Expectations:

  • Permanent Discomfort: The plaintiff may experience ongoing discomfort in the chest, particularly during activities that involve heavy breathing, lifting, or any form of physical exertion.

Musculoskeletal and Mobility Issues

• Recovery Prognosis:

  • Limited Mobility: The combined impact of spinal injuries, chronic pain, and the broken shoulder will likely result in permanently reduced mobility. The use of a cane and possibly other assistive devices will be necessary to manage daily activities.

  • Increased Risk of Falls: The loss of equilibrium and coordination due to TBI makes future falls likely, which could result in additional injuries.

• Long-Term Expectations:

  • Progressive Loss of Independence: Over time, the plaintiff may experience a progressive loss of independence, requiring more assistance with daily tasks and possibly needing in-home care or assisted living.

  • Compromised Quality of Life: The combination of pain, limited mobility, and the psychological impact of these conditions will likely result in a significantly compromised quality of life.

Indirect Injury – June 10, 2021 (Fall and Broken Shoulder)

• Recovery Prognosis:

  • Limited Shoulder Function: Recovery from the shoulder fracture is likely to be incomplete, particularly given the underlying balance issues. The plaintiff may experience reduced range of motion, strength, and chronic pain in the shoulder.

  • Impact on Daily Tasks: The broken shoulder will further impair the ability to perform daily tasks, particularly those that require the use of both arms.

• Long-Term Expectations:

  • Permanent Disability: The shoulder injury, combined with other impairments, is likely to contribute to a permanent disability, further limiting the plaintiff's ability to perform personal and work-related tasks.

General Symptoms and Emotional Impact

• Recovery Prognosis:

  • Chronic Sleep Disruption: Sleep disruption is expected to continue, exacerbated by chronic pain and emotional distress. This can lead to further health issues such as fatigue, cognitive decline, and a weakened immune system.

  • Psychological and Emotional Health: The ongoing physical limitations and pain, coupled with the emotional trauma from the injuries and reduced independence, are likely to contribute to long-term psychological issues.

• Long-Term Expectations:

  • Ongoing Need for Psychological Support: Long-term psychological support, including therapy and possibly medication, will be necessary to manage depression, anxiety, and other emotional issues.

  • Social Isolation: The combination of physical and emotional challenges may lead to social isolation, further impacting mental health and overall well-being.

Overall Long-Term Prognosis

• Permanent Disability: The plaintiff is likely to be classified as permanently disabled due to the combined effects of TBI, spinal injuries, chronic pain, and mobility impairments.

• Reduced Life Expectancy: Chronic health conditions, especially those involving significant pain, mobility issues, and neurological damage, may reduce life expectancy.

• Ongoing Medical Care: The plaintiff will require ongoing medical care, including physical therapy, pain management, neurological monitoring, and psychological support for the remainder of their life.

• Significant Lifestyle Adjustments: The plaintiff will need to make significant lifestyle adjustments to manage daily activities, including reliance on assistive devices and possibly requiring in-home care or assisted living arrangements.

• Compromised Quality of Life: The cumulative impact of these injuries is expected to result in a severely compromised quality of life, with limited ability to engage in work, hobbies, and social activities.

Permanent Damage Report for Franciscus Dylan Rosario

The long-term prognosis for Franciscus Dylan Rosario indicates a lifetime of chronic pain, cognitive impairment, and reduced physical and functional capabilities. The combination of traumatic brain injury (TBI) with structural changes in critical brain regions and significant spinal injuries has resulted in permanent damage that will severely limit his ability to lead a normal life. The TBI has led to a marked reduction in white matter volume and regional brain volume loss, which are likely to cause persistent cognitive difficulties, including memory problems, impaired concentration, frequent headaches, and episodes of dizziness. These neurological impairments will hinder his ability to perform tasks that require mental acuity, including his previous work as a software architect, leading to a permanent disability in this regard.

Physically, the multi-disc bulges in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine, coupled with the fractured ribs and shoulder, have caused chronic pain that will require ongoing management. Despite physical therapy and medical interventions such as facet injections, the plaintiff is likely to experience continuous pain that will impact his mobility and daily functioning. The use of a cane for mobility is expected to become a permanent necessity, as the spinal injuries and loss of equilibrium due to TBI will prevent him from walking or standing without assistance. This mobility impairment will further limit his independence, requiring ongoing support or assistive care for daily activities.

The secondary injury resulting from the fall in June 2021, which led to a broken shoulder, has compounded the plaintiff's physical limitations. This injury, caused by the loss of equilibrium from the TBI, underscores the interconnected nature of his injuries, where neurological damage directly contributes to further physical harm. The shoulder injury is likely to result in a permanent reduction in the range of motion and strength in his right arm, further impairing his ability to perform even basic tasks. The cumulative effect of these injuries will not only affect his physical capabilities but also his psychological well-being, as he faces the reality of living with chronic pain and disability.

Long-term, Franciscus Dylan Rosario is expected to suffer from a significantly compromised quality of life. The combination of cognitive deficits, chronic pain, and mobility issues will make it difficult for him to engage in social, recreational, and work-related activities, leading to potential social isolation and depression. His life expectancy may be reduced due to the ongoing physical and emotional stress, and the need for continuous medical care and support will be a lifelong burden. Overall, the prognosis points to a future where the plaintiff's ability to live independently and enjoy life is permanently diminished, requiring substantial adaptations and support to manage his disabilities.

Impact on Professional Capacity

Franciscus Dylan Rosario’s professional role as a software architect, which typically demands prolonged periods of focus at a computer, frequent presentations, and the ability to engage in complex problem-solving, is likely to be severely compromised. The traumatic brain injury (TBI) he sustained has resulted in structural changes in the brain, leading to significant cognitive deficits. These deficits, such as impaired memory, reduced concentration, and executive dysfunction, directly affect his ability to perform tasks that require sustained mental effort. Moreover, the persistent headaches and episodes of dizziness further impede his capacity to work efficiently, making it extremely challenging to maintain the high level of cognitive performance required in his field.

In addition to cognitive challenges, the physical limitations resulting from his spinal injuries, chronic pain, and fractured ribs and shoulder will further hinder his ability to fulfill job duties. Long sessions at a keyboard are likely to exacerbate his back and neck pain, which is already chronic and debilitating. The need to frequently adjust positions or take breaks to manage pain will reduce his productivity and could lead to further physical strain. Standing or moving for presentations, which may be an integral part of his role, will also be challenging due to the pain and mobility issues associated with his spinal injuries and the use of a cane. These physical limitations will not only make it difficult to carry out tasks but may also affect his professional confidence and ability to engage fully with colleagues and clients.

Cumulative Effects of Physical and Cognitive Impairments

The cumulative effects of the TBI, spinal injuries, chest and rib fractures, and the secondary shoulder injury are expected to result in lifelong pain, mobility impairments, and cognitive deficits. The TBI, in particular, has resulted in a permanent reduction in white matter volume and regional brain damage, which are known to cause chronic neurological symptoms. The loss of equilibrium and impaired balance due to the TBI has already led to a secondary injury—a fractured shoulder—which not only adds to his physical pain but also increases the likelihood of future falls and injuries. This cascading effect of injuries illustrates how the initial brain trauma has set off a chain of physical impairments, each compounding the challenges of the previous one.

The multi-disc bulges in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine contribute to chronic pain that is unlikely to be fully alleviated, even with ongoing treatment. This pain will continue to limit his mobility, making it difficult for him to engage in activities that were once routine, such as walking, standing, or even sitting for extended periods. The chest pain from the fractured ribs and pneumothorax further exacerbates his discomfort, especially during activities that require physical exertion or deep breathing. Together, these conditions create a scenario where daily life is dominated by managing pain and avoiding activities that might trigger or worsen his symptoms.

Long-Term Pain and Disability

The prospect of lifelong pain is a significant component of the prognosis. Chronic pain not only affects physical health but also has profound psychological impacts. The constant need to manage pain can lead to fatigue, irritability, and emotional distress, contributing to a diminished quality of life. Over time, the physical and cognitive impairments are likely to cause a progressive loss of independence. As mobility becomes more restricted and cognitive function continues to decline, Mr. Rosario may require increasing levels of assistance with daily tasks, potentially leading to a need for in-home care or assisted living arrangements.

This prognosis suggests that, while Mr. Rosario may be able to perform some tasks or engage in limited work activities, his capacity to return to full-time employment in his previous role is extremely limited. The combination of physical pain, reduced mobility, and cognitive deficits will make it difficult for him to maintain consistent, productive work. Even in a best-case scenario where he achieves partial disability status, the restrictions on his abilities will be significant, and the impact on his professional and personal life will be profound. This underscores the severity of his condition and the long-term challenges he will face in managing his disabilities.

In a human vs. vehicle collision, particularly one involving the extensive injuries sustained by Franciscus Dylan Rosario, the pain experienced can be severe and multifaceted. The following outlines the typical pain levels and the expected lifelong effects on health and quality of life for someone with similar injuries:

Typical Pain Levels Experienced

1. Immediately After the Collision:

• Acute Pain: Immediately following the collision, the pain is often intense and acute, especially with injuries like fractured ribs, a collapsed lung (pneumothorax), and musculoskeletal damage. Fractured ribs can cause sharp, stabbing pain with every breath, movement, or touch, making breathing extremely painful. The pain from a collapsed lung is similarly severe, often described as sharp or stabbing, especially during inhalation.

• Spinal Pain: Injuries to the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine can result in sharp, shooting pain that radiates from the spine to other parts of the body, such as the arms or legs. The immediate pain from spinal injuries can also be accompanied by muscle spasms and stiffness.

• Head and Brain Injury (TBI): The pain from a traumatic brain injury may not be immediately apparent but can manifest as severe headaches, confusion, dizziness, and sensitivity to light or noise. This type of pain can intensify over the hours or days following the injury.

1. Short-Term Pain (First Few Weeks to Months):

• Persistent and Severe Pain: In the weeks following the collision, the pain generally remains severe, especially in the chest, ribs, and spine. Fractured ribs can take several weeks to heal, and the pain during this period can be constant, exacerbated by activities like coughing, sneezing, or even breathing.

• Spinal Pain: The pain from spinal injuries typically persists and may spread to other areas, causing chronic discomfort in the neck, back, and limbs. This can be particularly debilitating, as it affects the ability to sit, stand, or move comfortably.

• Post-TBI Symptoms: The pain from a TBI may include ongoing headaches, which can range from dull and throbbing to sharp and debilitating. The patient may also experience neck pain, fatigue, and ongoing dizziness or vertigo.

Expected Lifelong Effects on Health and Quality of Life

1. Chronic Pain:

• Ongoing Chest and Rib Pain: Even after the fractures heal, the plaintiff is likely to experience chronic pain in the chest and ribs, especially during physical activity or deep breathing. This pain can lead to limitations in physical exertion and affect daily activities.

• Persistent Spinal Pain: The multi-disc bulges in the spine are expected to cause chronic pain that may persist for life. This pain can be constant and may require ongoing management through physical therapy, medications, or even surgical interventions. Chronic spinal pain can severely limit mobility and make it difficult to perform daily tasks, such as walking, standing, or sitting for extended periods.

• Headache and Neurological Pain: The TBI is likely to result in ongoing headaches and neurological pain, contributing to a reduced quality of life. These symptoms can make concentration difficult, interfere with sleep, and exacerbate emotional distress.

1. Mobility Impairments:

• Reduced Mobility: The combination of chronic pain, spinal injuries, and the shoulder injury will likely result in reduced mobility. The plaintiff may need to use assistive devices like a cane permanently and could face progressive mobility issues as the spinal condition potentially worsens over time.

• Risk of Further Injury: The loss of equilibrium due to TBI increases the risk of falls, which could lead to additional injuries, further complicating the plaintiff’s physical health and increasing dependence on others.

1. Cognitive and Emotional Impact:

• Cognitive Deficits: Lifelong cognitive impairments from the TBI, such as difficulties with memory, concentration, and executive function, are expected. These deficits will likely limit the plaintiff's ability to work in roles that require high cognitive demands and could also impact daily decision-making and problem-solving skills.

• Emotional and Psychological Challenges: Chronic pain and cognitive impairment often lead to long-term emotional and psychological issues, including depression, anxiety, and frustration. The plaintiff may experience a reduced sense of independence and self-worth, contributing to social isolation and a diminished quality of life.

1. Overall Health and Quality of Life:

• Compromised Quality of Life: The lifelong pain, mobility restrictions, cognitive impairments, and emotional challenges will collectively result in a significantly compromised quality of life. The plaintiff’s ability to engage in work, hobbies, social activities, and even basic daily tasks will be severely limited.

• Ongoing Medical Care: The plaintiff will require continuous medical care, including pain management, physical therapy, neurological monitoring, and psychological support. This ongoing need for treatment and support will be a lifelong burden, both physically and financially.

Pain and Suffering Amplified by AAA "Bad Faith" Denial of Funds to Provide Medical Support

The pain levels experienced by the plaintiff are likely to remain high, even as the initial injuries heal. The long-term effects include chronic pain, reduced mobility, cognitive impairment, and a significantly compromised quality of life, requiring lifelong management and support.

Given the extensive nature of the injuries sustained by Franciscus Dylan Rosario, the pain experienced would likely be quite high on a typical pain scale, where 1 represents minimal pain (such as a finger prick) and 10 represents the most severe pain imaginable (such as a brain-searing neurological seizure).

Estimated Pain Levels:

1. Initial Pain (Shortly After the Collision)

• Fractured Ribs and Pneumothorax: The pain from multiple rib fractures and a collapsed lung would likely be around a 7 to 8 on the pain scale. Rib fractures cause sharp, intense pain with each breath, movement, or even slight pressure, making everyday actions like breathing and coughing excruciating. A pneumothorax, or collapsed lung, adds to this severe pain, often described as stabbing or crushing.

• Spinal Injuries: The pain from the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spinal injuries could range from 7 to 8, depending on the severity of the nerve compression and disc bulging. This pain is typically sharp, radiating, and can cause significant discomfort and mobility limitations.

• Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI): Initially, the pain from a TBI might be less immediately recognizable but could manifest as severe headaches, which would rank around a 6 to 7 on the pain scale. As symptoms like dizziness, confusion, and nausea develop, the overall pain experience could escalate.

1. Ongoing and Chronic Pain (Weeks to Months After the Collision)

• Persistent Rib and Chest Pain: As the rib fractures and pneumothorax continue to heal, the pain would likely remain around a 6 to 7, especially with any movement that stresses the chest wall or requires deep breathing.

• Chronic Spinal Pain: The ongoing pain from spinal injuries would likely stabilize at around 6 to 7. Chronic spinal pain can be persistent, with episodes of sharp, debilitating pain that can flare up, particularly with physical activity or prolonged sitting or standing.

• Headaches and TBI-related Pain: The chronic headaches and neurological pain associated with the TBI would likely be around a 6 to 7, especially if not well-managed. These headaches can be persistent and severe, significantly affecting daily functioning.

1. Long-Term and Lifelong Pain

• Chronic Pain from Spinal and Chest Injuries: Over the long term, the pain from spinal injuries, combined with any lingering chest pain, could settle around a 5 to 7. This level of pain can be persistent, with some variability depending on activity levels, stress, and overall health.

• TBI-Related Symptoms: The ongoing effects of the TBI, including headaches and potential nerve pain, would likely maintain a pain level of around 6 to 7. While the intensity might decrease slightly with treatment, the chronic nature of these symptoms often means they remain a constant source of discomfort.

Life-Long Expectation of Pain on Scale (1-10):

Franciscus Dylan Rosario's pain, consistently estimated at a 6 to 8 on the pain scale, represents a severe and enduring challenge that will affect him for the rest of his life. This level of pain significantly impairs his ability to function day-to-day, necessitates continuous pain management, and has profound psychological and emotional consequences. The fluctuations in pain intensity, the limitations imposed on his physical capabilities, and the need for ongoing medical intervention collectively point to a future where managing pain will be a central concern, overshadowing much of his ability to lead a fulfilling and active life. The impact of this pain will be felt not only in his physical health but also in his emotional well-being, social relationships, and overall quality of life. The permanent injuries to Franciscus Dylan Rosario’s person are profound, the subsequent chronic pain he will experience would place him consistently at a 6 to 8 on the pain scale, indicating a high level of pain that will be both persistent and life-altering for the remainder of his life. This level of pain is not just a temporary discomfort but a long-term condition that affects every aspect of his daily life, from physical functioning to emotional well-being.

Persistent Pain and Its Daily Impact

A pain level of 6 to 8 is considered severe enough to interfere with most daily activities, including work, social interactions, and personal care. For Mr. Rosario, this means that simple tasks like getting out of bed, walking, or sitting at a computer for extended periods are likely to be accompanied by significant discomfort. The pain from his multiple spinal injuries, fractured ribs, and traumatic brain injury (TBI) would make it difficult to engage in activities that most people take for granted, such as bending, lifting, or even maintaining a consistent posture.

Chronic pain at this level is typically accompanied by a high degree of physical and mental fatigue. The effort required to manage pain and continue with daily activities can be exhausting, leading to reduced energy levels and a decreased ability to participate in work or social activities. This persistent pain also limits mobility, making it challenging for Mr. Rosario to maintain an active lifestyle, which can further deteriorate his physical health over time.

Fluctuation in Pain Intensity

Although the baseline pain is consistently high, pain levels may fluctuate depending on various factors such as physical activity, stress, weather changes, and overall health. On bad days, the pain might spike closer to an 8, making it nearly unbearable and requiring stronger pain management interventions, such as increased medication or rest. On slightly better days, the pain might dip closer to a 6, but even at this level, it remains a significant burden.

These fluctuations can be unpredictable and add an element of uncertainty to daily life. The fear of exacerbating pain can lead to avoidance behaviors, where Mr. Rosario may refrain from certain activities or social engagements out of concern that they will trigger a pain flare-up. This can lead to a more sedentary lifestyle, contributing to other health issues such as weight gain, muscle atrophy, and cardiovascular problems.

Long-Term Psychological and Emotional Effects

Living with chronic pain at this intensity often leads to significant psychological and emotional challenges. Pain at a 6 to 8 level is not only physically exhausting but also mentally draining. The constant discomfort can lead to feelings of frustration, helplessness, and depression, as the ability to enjoy life and engage in fulfilling activities becomes increasingly limited. Over time, the burden of chronic pain can contribute to anxiety, particularly around activities that might increase pain or cause injury.

The social impact of such pain is also profound. Relationships may be strained as Mr. Rosario may have to cancel plans or be unable to participate in social events due to pain. This can lead to social isolation, which further exacerbates feelings of loneliness and depression. The psychological toll of chronic pain often requires long-term psychological support, including therapy and possibly medication, to manage the emotional distress associated with a life dominated by pain.

Necessity of Ongoing Pain Management

Given the severity and persistence of his pain, Mr. Rosario will require comprehensive and ongoing pain management strategies. This might include a combination of medications, physical therapy, lifestyle adjustments, and possibly surgical interventions. Pain management is not a one-time treatment but a continuous process that needs to be adjusted as his condition evolves.

Medications, such as opioids are unavailable to Mr. Rosario due to severe anaphylactic allergy that could result in death or severe side effects, the use of local anesthetics such as lidocaine may provide temporary and limited relief with diminishing returns the longer these kind of painkillers are used, , but these come with their own risks, including dependence and side effects. He is likely to be permanently dependent upon NSAID or anti-inflammatory drugs,to control pain lifelong physical therapy may help to some extent, but the relief it provides is often temporary and requires consistent effort and commitment. Additionally, lifestyle changes, such as maintaining a healthy weight, regular exercise within his limits, and stress management techniques, are crucial components of managing chronic pain, though they require a level of discipline and support that can be difficult to sustain in the face of ongoing pain.

In severe cases, where pain becomes unmanageable, more invasive procedures such as nerve blocks, spinal cord stimulators, or surgeries might be considered, though these carry risks and do not guarantee complete relief. The need for ongoing and adaptive pain management reflects the serious nature of Mr. Rosario’s injuries and the profound impact they have on his quality of life.

Bad Faith of AAA Denial of Demand

The denial by AAA of the Plaintiff’s demand for $500,000 to assist with medical bills places the insurance company in a precarious legal position, particularly in the eyes of a jury. This refusal to honor a reasonable settlement request, especially when it would have directly alleviated the Plaintiff’s medical and financial burdens, constitutes a clear breach of the insurer’s duty to act in good faith. Under California law, this breach is recognized as a "third-party bad faith" violation, which can have severe repercussions for the insurer.

The Plaintiff, as a result of AAA's denial, was forced to bear the full financial burden of his medical treatments, including all co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses. Without the settlement funds, the Plaintiff had to minimize his medical treatments, which directly impacted his recovery and quality of life. This denial of financial support not only placed an undue hardship on the Plaintiff but also exacerbated his pain and suffering, as he was unable to access necessary medical care due to the lack of resources. The insurer’s refusal to settle within the policy limits when it was clear that the Plaintiff had suffered significant harm from the collision is a stark example of bad faith.

In California, the insurer has a legal duty to consider the interests of the insured equally with its own interests. This means that when faced with a reasonable demand that would settle a claim within policy limits, the insurer must act in good faith and pay the claim to avoid exposing the insured to excess liability. AAA’s failure to pay the $500,000 demand, despite the obvious need for the funds to cover the Plaintiff’s medical expenses, constitutes a breach of this duty. The insurer's actions, or lack thereof, demonstrate a disregard for the Plaintiff’s well-being and financial stability, which is a core element of a bad faith claim.

Moreover, the fact that the Plaintiff had to endure over three and a half years of financial and medical hardship without any assurance of recovering these expenses underscores the severity of AAA’s breach. The insurance company’s denial has left the Plaintiff in a vulnerable position, forcing him to struggle with significant medical debts and ongoing health issues. This not only caused immediate financial strain but also led to prolonged suffering and diminished quality of life, further aggravating the damages caused by the initial collision.

In a jury trial, these facts will likely resonate strongly, especially given the clear legal precedent in California that supports claims of bad faith against insurers who fail to settle within policy limits when there is a clear risk of excess liability. AAA’s refusal to pay the demand, despite the compelling need and the obvious risk of greater liability, opens the door to substantial punitive damages. California courts have consistently held that an insurer’s failure to act in good faith, especially when it results in significant harm to the claimant, can justify the award of both compensatory and punitive damages.

Ultimately, AAA’s actions—or rather, its inaction—constitute a clear third-party bad faith violation. The company’s failure to provide the necessary financial support has caused prolonged suffering and financial instability for the Plaintiff, which is likely to be viewed unfavorably by a jury. As the case moves forward, the Plaintiff is in a strong position to argue that AAA’s breach of its duty to act in good faith has caused additional, unnecessary harm, and that this breach justifies not only the recovery of the full amount initially demanded but also significant punitive damages for the insurer’s egregious conduct.

Denial of Demand in BAD-FAITH caused prolonged Pain and Suffering to Plaintiff

The prolonged denial of basic medical support and compensation has placed the Plaintiff in an ongoing state of trauma, both physically and psychologically. Being denied the necessary financial resources to cover essential medical treatments has forced the Plaintiff to endure significant pain and suffering. This lack of support has had a profound impact, as the Plaintiff was compelled to forgo critical treatments that could have alleviated his condition and improved his quality of life. The inability to access adequate care has not only hindered his physical recovery but has also led to a deep sense of abandonment, exacerbating the emotional and psychological toll of the injury.

Psychologically, the feeling of being abandoned by the insurance provider, particularly when the need for support was most acute, has left the Plaintiff grappling with feelings of helplessness and despair. The uncertainty and financial strain created by the lack of compensation have contributed to a state of chronic stress and anxiety, compounding the emotional trauma of the initial injury. This ongoing struggle has severely impacted the Plaintiff's mental health, leaving him to cope with the dual burden of physical pain and psychological distress without the assurance of recovery or support.

The years of neglect and denial have left lasting scars, both visible and invisible. The Plaintiff's trust in the systems meant to protect and support him has been shattered, and the continued trauma of having to navigate his health and financial challenges alone has only deepened his suffering. This experience of being left to fend for himself in the face of severe injury has had a profound and lasting impact, underscoring the critical importance of timely and compassionate support in the aftermath of traumatic events.

Psychological Effect of the Bad-Faith Denial of Basic Medical Funds

The psychological turmoil and suffering that one experiences when faced with the uncertainty of how to pay for medical bills after an insurer denies even basic compensation can be profound and all-encompassing. This situation often leads to overwhelming stress and anxiety as the individual grapples with the reality of mounting medical costs without the financial support that was expected and relied upon. The emotional burden of not knowing how to cover essential medical treatments can exacerbate the physical pain, leading to a vicious cycle of stress-related symptoms such as insomnia, depression, and chronic anxiety.

The sense of betrayal and abandonment by the insurance company, which is supposed to provide a safety net in times of need, can leave the individual feeling isolated and unsupported. This emotional isolation can deepen feelings of hopelessness, as the lack of financial assistance forces difficult decisions, such as foregoing necessary medical care or seeking less effective treatments, which can lead to a deterioration in health and further emotional distress. The constant worry about how to pay for ongoing and future medical expenses can also strain personal relationships, as the individual may feel ashamed or guilty about the financial burden placed on their family.

Ultimately, the psychological impact of being denied basic compensation in the face of significant medical needs can lead to long-term mental health issues. The stress and anxiety associated with financial insecurity can manifest in severe emotional responses, including panic attacks, depression, and a pervasive sense of helplessness. This ongoing mental anguish not only affects the individual's well-being but can also impair their ability to focus on recovery, leading to a prolonged and more challenging healing process.

Brain High Resolution MRI Analysis

Report Subject: Rosario, Dylan

Dr. Siyar BAHADIR, MD - Neurosurgeon siyarbahadir@gmail.com The Feinstein Institutes (New York, United States) Hacettepe Üniversitesi ( Istanbul Turkey ) https://www.linkedin.com/in/siyar-bahadir-md-265b37100/ PhD - cerebromap.me (NeuroQuant® and NeuroGage®)

Imaging and Analysis Methodology

Software: NeuroQuant® by CorTechs Labs, Inc. ( https://www.cortechs.ai ) The analysis was conducted using the subject’s existing T1 Axial post-contrast MPRAGE MRI images at 1x1x1mm resolution.

The following steps were taken:

1. De-identification of Axial MRI images

2. Application of a 3D AssemblyNet-based AI algorithm for cortical structure segmentation (Reference: Gopinath et al., 2020)

3. Automated segmentation analysis was employed to calculate segment volumes. The volume of each segment was then expressed as a percentage of the total intracranial volume, providing normalized values for comparison with a reference population of age matched-controls.

4. Statistical analysis was performed with Python programming language, using matplotlib and pandas libraries.

Gross Segmentation Findings

Tissue segmentation revealed:

• Volumetric analysis revealed that the right hemispheric grey matter volume exceeded the upper range of the reference population distribution, while the left hemispheric grey matter volume was just below the upper range, but still above average.

• However, white matter volume in the lower range compared to reference population (Figure 2).

Figure 1 Subject structure volumes as a percentage of the intracranial volume, compared to reference population, normalized values. Figure shows cerebral grey matter volume being on the upper end of reference volume, while cerebral white matter on lower end.

Detailed Regional Analysis

Cortical segmentation was performed according to the BrainCOLOR atlas, dividing the cortex into 124 regions (Collaborative Open Labeling Online Resource, Mindboggle).

Areas of Decreased Volume

Significant volume reduction was observed in the following structures:

1. Bilateral Basal Forebrain

2. Right Lateral Orbital Gyrus

3. Temporal lobe structures adjacent to the cranial base:

4. • Right Fusiform gyrus

   • Bilateral Inferior Temporal Gyrus

   • Left temporal pole

5. Cingulate gyrus/Limbic cortex

6. • Posterior Cingulate gyrus

Figure 2 Showing most affected structures compared to reference volume.

Figure 3 Showing Limbic structures compared to reference volume, marked decrease in left and right posterior cingulate gyrus can be seen

Apparent Evidence

The volume loss pattern, particularly in structures adjacent to the cranial base (basal forebrain, lateral orbital, inferior temporal and fusiform gyri) suggest the presence of a Traumatic Brain Injury with coup-contrecoup injury mechanism.

The marked reduction in white matter volume compared to the cerebral grey matter, is consistent with the reported incident and expected from pedestrian vs. vehicle collision. Bendlin et al. Reports that white matter volume as measured by automated segmentation shows extensive changes both longitudinally in the same patient group at different visits, and in comparison to normal group in Traumatic Brain Injury (Reference: Bendlin et al.).

Significant volume reduction in cingulate cortex, primarily in posterior cingulate was reported in patients with TBI, the reduction increasing particularly with the severity of TBI. (Reference: Yount et al.) Marked decrease in the posterior cingulate gyrus volume (along with less significant decreases in middle and anterior parts of the cingulate) is in line with possibility of Traumatic Brain injury.

Final Medical Diagnosis Based on MRI Findings

Patient: Rosario Dylan

Imaging Technique: T1 Axial post-contrast MPRAGE MRI with 3D AssemblyNet-based AI algorithm

Summary of Findings:

The MRI analysis of Mr. Dylan Rosario's brain indicates a pattern of structural changes consistent with a mild traumatic brain injury (TBI), likely involving a coup-contrecoup mechanism. The imaging reveals a marked reduction in white matter volume when compared to age-matched controls, particularly in structures adjacent to the cranial base, such as the basal forebrain, lateral orbital gyrus, and inferior temporal gyrus. These areas are notably susceptible to injury from the forces involved in a TBI.

Key Findings:

1. Grey and White Matter Volume:

- The right hemispheric grey matter volume is significantly higher than average, while the left hemisphere is slightly below the upper range. However, there is a noticeable reduction in white matter volume, which is lower than the reference population's average. This disparity between grey and white matter volumes is a typical indicator of TBI-related changes.

2. Regional Volume Reduction:

• Significant Volume Loss observed in the following regions:

• • - Bilateral Basal Forebrain

  • - Right Lateral Orbital Gyrus

• Temporal lobe structures

• • adjacent to the cranial base,

  • including the Right Fusiform Gyrus

  • and Bilateral Inferior Temporal Gyrus.

• Left Temporal Pole

• • Cingulate Gyrus, with a marked decrease in the posterior cingulate gyrus.

• The loss of volume in these specific regions is aligned with the damage patterns seen in TBI cases, where the brain's structures adjacent to the skull base are more vulnerable to impact forces.

Interpretation:

The imaging findings suggest that Mr. Rosario has sustained a marked and apparent TBI, with evidence pointing to a coup-contrecoup injury mechanism. The reduction in white matter volume, particularly in the areas adjacent to the cranial base and the posterior cingulate gyrus, supports the diagnosis of TBI.

These findings are consistent with the literature on TBI, which reports similar patterns of brain volume loss in affected individuals. Further clinical correlation will establish the full extent of cognitive and neurological impact.

SUPPORT THE LEGAL FUND TODAY

https://www.spotfund.com/story/88e93d31-3915-409e-b4ac-e29a5d1fd6d6

SUPPORT THE LEGAL FUND TODAY

https://www.spotfund.com/story/88e93d31-3915-409e-b4ac-e29a5d1fd6d6

OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF 911 CALL (Passerby calling from cell phone in vehicle provides probable cause of hit-and-run)

● 911 Operator: “San Francisco, 911 exact location of the emergency.”

● Witness: “Yeah, hi, Tahoma and this, um, was it Avenue or Street down below Mission?” ( The driver had passed the scene of the incident a few minutes earlier approx. 2:45 PM )

● 911 Operator: “Uh-huh”

● Witness: “Um, there's a guy that's fallen off of his, um, scooter, the, like, electric foot scooter thing.”

● 911 Operator: “I have a call saying that there was a van that might have hit a scooter.”

● Witness: “ There's a van?”

● 911 Operator: “A van.”

● Witness: “A van or what?”

● 911 Operator: “Yeah, uh, I'm getting a call saying that a van might have hit a pedestrian on a scooter that's there.”

● Witness: “Oh, oh.” (driver saw no van or person providing assistance to pedestrian)

● 911 Operator: “Do you see the van there?”

● Witness: “No, there's no van that I could see, but I couldn't tell if anybody was calling or what, but somebody may have called it in. Yeah, the guy's on the ground on the sidewalk.” ( the caller is adamant that there is no Van/Vehicle and No one was helping the hit and run victim)

● 911 Operator: “Okay. Hold on one second.”

● Witness: “It might be a hit and run. I don't know.” (the caller is well aware of the law about hitting pedestrians, and leaving the scene is against the law)

● 911 Operator: “Hold on one second here. So he's on the sidewalk by the scooter.”

● Witness: “Yeah. He looks like he's in a lot of pain. I'm just calling just to make sure that somebody's called.”

● 911 Operator: “Yeah, we, it looks like we have police and, uh, medics en route right now. What's your name?”

● Witness: “Okay. Okay. Good. Thanks.”

● 911 Operator: “Okay.”

The 911 call details a witness reporting what they believe might be a hit-and-run involving a person and a scooter. The caller describes observing the scene after the fact, noting a person on the ground in apparent pain near a scooter, but the events leading to the situation are unclear. The operator introduces potential confusion by mentioning that another simultaneous caller is reporting that a van might have been involved. The caller, however, is adamant that no van was present or involved based on their observation at a prior point in time. Probable HIT and RUN The caller's speculation about a hit-and-run is highly probable due to several logical and contextual factors that align with the circumstances they observed.

ABDELHALIM CALLS 911 AFTER THE VICTIM INFORMS HIM THAT HE WILL BE ARRESTED IF HE DOES NOT CALL IMMEDIATELY WHILE HE STANDS OVER VICTIM OFFEIRNG $5 DOLLAR BILL

[14:53 and 15 seconds - 13 minutes after the driver hits victim with vehicle, driver flees scene , several minutes later the driver returns on foot to offer bribe to dying victim]

911 Operator: “San Francisco 911, police, fire, or medical?" Caller: Yeah, there is, uh, Caller: I was, uh, I'm driving a van, and there is a guy just going to cross, Caller: He cross from me, and he's barely hitting anything, but I'm calling for him. Caller: Uh, we are at Tehama and 5th Street. Victim: Oww! 911 Operator: Okay. You said to Tehama and fifth? . . . 911 Operator: Yes. Okay. And I'm sorry, can you talk directly into the phone? What happened? Victim: He hit me with his van! Caller: Me was just starting. Uh, he was, he was, I'm turning on to the right and he was BOOM! I just hit him. HIT HIM. There was barely anything. I'm calling the 911 for him. 911 Operator: Oh, okay, so you were in your van, you were driving, and he was on the street, you hit a pedestrian? Caller: I was turning to the left side, and he was driving a scooter and he was crossing. 911 Operator: Oh, on a scooter. Got it. Okay. What's your phone number you're calling from? [timestamp 14:54 and 53 seconds] 911 Operator: Okay, hold on. And is he down on the ground? Caller: He is laying down. I don't know. Victim: Ahhh, owww! 911 Operator: Okay. I can, that's him yelling in the background. Okay. [timestamp 14:55, and 13 seconds] 911 Operator: Okay, Hold on, don't hang up yet. Caller: What, what? 911 Operator: What, what kind of van are you in? Like a minivan or a cargo van? . . . Caller: Okay. X-X-X-X-X 911 Operator: Okay. What's your name, sir? Caller: My name is Subhi. S-U-B-H-I, okay. 911 Operator: S-U-V-H-I. Alright, there's gonna be medics on the way with the police, okay? Caller: Thank you. 911 Operator: You're welcome, bye bye.

SUPPORT THE LEGAL FUND TODAY

https://www.spotfund.com/story/88e93d31-3915-409e-b4ac-e29a5d1fd6d6

Impossible Physics

Bio-mechanical Impossibility of an Unassisted Fall Causing Eight Rib Fractures

1. The Physics of a Human Fall: Insufficient Force Generation

A human body falling from a standing position onto the ground does not generate the required force to fracture eight ribs because the acceleration and impact energy are too low to reach the necessary impulse threshold. The force exerted during a fall is dictated by the mass of the individual, the height of the fall, the acceleration due to gravity, and the impact surface distribution.

For a 175-pound (79.4 kg) human falling from a height of 6 feet (1.83 meters) (assuming a full standing height impact):

• The gravitational potential energy at the moment of the fall is given by:

  $E_p = mgh$

  where:

  • ( m = 79.4 ) kg (175 lbs converted to kg)

  • ( g = 9.81 ) m/s² (acceleration due to gravity)

  • ( h = 1.83 ) m (height of fall)

  $E_p = (79.4)(9.81)(1.83) = 1,426.4 \text{ Joules}$

• When the body hits the ground, not all of this energy is directed to the ribs—it is distributed across multiple points of contact (hips, arms, back, shoulders), dissipating the impact.

• The force experienced depends on the deceleration time. If the impact duration is 0.1 seconds, the average force exerted can be estimated as:

  $F = \frac{E_p}{d}$

  Assuming a fall directly onto the ribs, the deformation distance of the soft tissue and bones absorbing impact is approximately 3 cm (0.03 m):

  $F = \frac{1,426.4}{0.03} = 47,547 \text{ N}$

  However, this is the absolute maximum force if all energy were instantaneously transferred to a single point, which does not happen in real-world falls. Most of the impact is dissipated across multiple body parts, such as arms, hips, and shoulders, significantly reducing the force directed to any one area.

2. Required Force for Multiple Rib Fractures vs. Human Fall Forces

As established earlier, the force required to fracture a single rib is in the range of 1,500–3,000 N (337–674 lbf). The cumulative force needed to fracture eight ribs in separate locations is conservatively estimated at 5,000–10,000 N (1,124–2,248 lbf).

However, when a person falls:

• The impact force is distributed across the whole body, not concentrated on the ribs.

• Protective reflexes, such as instinctively extending the arms, further reduce direct rib impact forces.

• The kinetic energy is partially absorbed by soft tissue, joint flexion, and rotational motion, further dispersing force away from the ribs.

Comparing this to the force required for eight rib fractures, a simple fall to the ground does not produce the necessary force nor the required focused impulse to cause such injuries.

3. The Role of Impact Acceleration: Why Falling is Not Enough

• Acceleration due to a fall is limited to gravity (9.81 m/s²), meaning that even at terminal velocity from a standing height, the human body does not experience enough rapid deceleration to create a localized high-force impact.

• By contrast, vehicular trauma or blunt force impacts involve significantly greater accelerations (20-50 times that of gravity in milliseconds), leading to localized forces exceeding 10,000 N—enough to break multiple ribs.

• Falls produce distributed impact forces, while blunt trauma from a vehicle strike results in a sharp, concentrated force in a small area, which is necessary to create the observed multi-rib fractures.

4. Conclusion: The Physical Impossibility of an 8-Rib Fracture from a Simple Fall

Given the physics of human motion, the mechanics of falls, and the required forces to fracture multiple ribs, it is physically impossible for an unassisted fall from standing height to produce the injuries observed in this case. The force threshold for breaking eight ribs far exceeds what a fall can generate because:

1. A 175-lbs human does not reach the required force levels through gravitational acceleration alone.

2. The energy is distributed across multiple contact points, not focused on the ribs.

3. Reflexive reactions reduce the direct rib impact, preventing concentrated force application.

4. The required force magnitude and impulse duration exceed those possible in a simple fall but are entirely consistent with vehicular trauma, where a moving object imparts a high-speed, concentrated blow to the ribcage.

Thus, the only reasonable explanation for the injuries sustained is a high-energy external impact, such as a vehicle strike, and not an accidental fall.

Biomechanics Analysis

Bicycle Fall vs. 6,500 lbs. Vehicle Collision

Below is an updated collision analysis comparing:

1. A bicycle traveling at 5–9 mph

2. A 6,500 lb vehicle traveling at 10–15 mph

The analysis uses standard imperial units (pounds-force [lbf], feet [ft], miles per hour [mph]).

1. Fundamental Equations (Imperial Units)

1. Impulse–Momentum (Force) $F = \frac{m \cdot \Delta v}{\Delta t}$

   • (F): force (lbf)

   • (m): weight of impacting body (lbs; using weight (\approx) mass(\times g) simplification)

   • (\Delta v): change in velocity (ft/s)

   • (\Delta t): stopping time (s)

2. Kinetic Energy $KE = \frac{1}{2} \, m \, v^2$

   • (KE): energy (ft-lbf)

   • (v): velocity (ft/s)

3. Work ( $Force (\times) Distance$ ) $W = F \cdot d$

   • (d): distance (ft)

Unit Conversion Note

2. Bicycle Impact: 5–9 mph

Assumptions:

• Speed range: 5–9 mph

  • 5 mph (~ 7.3) ft/s

  • 9 mph (~13.2) ft/s

• Cyclist + bike weight: ~175 lb

• Stopping time ( $\Delta t$ ): ~0.1 s

• Stopping distance: ~0.5 ft

2A. Bicycle Impact Force Range

• Lower Speed ( $5 mph (\to) 7.3 ft/s$ ): $F_1 = \frac{175 \times 7.3}{0.1} \approx 12{,}775 ,\text{lbf}.$

• Upper Speed ( $9 mph (\to) 13.2 ft/s$ ): $F_2 = \frac{175 \times 13.2}{0.1} \approx 23{,}100 ,\text{lbf}$

Hence, the peak force ranges from ~12,775 lbf to ~23,100 lbf if the momentum is stopped in 0.1 s.

2B. Bicycle Kinetic Energy Range

• At 5 mph (7.3 ft/s): $KE_1 = \tfrac{1}{2} \times 175 \times (7.3)^2 \approx 4{,}650 ,\text{ft-lbf}$

• At 9 mph (13.2 ft/s): $KE_2 = \tfrac{1}{2} \times 175 \times (13.2)^2 \approx 15{,}300 ,\text{ft-lbf}$

Observations (Bicycle)

• Even though the calculated impulse forces appear in the tens of thousands of lbf, impact spreads over multiple body areas, reducing local rib loading below the ~750–900 lbf/rib fracture threshold.

• Typical bicycle falls often cause anterior/lateral rib fractures with minimal displacement, leading to a low risk of pneumothorax.

3. Vehicle Impact: 6,500 lb at 10–15 mph

Assumptions:

• Vehicle weight: 6,500 lb

• Speed range: 10–15 mph

  • 10 mph ( ~ 14.7) ft/s

  • 15 mph ( ~ 22.0) ft/s

• Stopping time ( $\Delta t$ ): ~0.2 s

• Stopping distance: ~3 ft

3A. Vehicle Force Range

• At 10 mph (14.7 ft/s): $F_{\text{10mph}} = \frac{6{,}500 \times 14.7}{0.2} \approx 478{,}000 ,\text{lbf}$

• At 15 mph (22.0 ft/s): $F_{\text{15mph}} = \frac{6{,}500 \times 22.0}{0.2} \approx 715{,}000 ,\text{lbf}$

3B. Vehicle Kinetic Energy Range

• At 10 mph (14.7 ft/s): $KE_{\text{10mph}} = \tfrac{1}{2} \times 6{,}500 \times (14.7)^2 \approx 700{,}000 ,\text{ft-lbf}$

• At 15 mph (22.0 ft/s): $KE_{\text{15mph}} = \tfrac{1}{2} \times 6{,}500 \times (22.0)^2 \approx 1{,}573{,}000 ,\text{ft-lbf}$

Observations (Vehicle)

• Even at 10 mph, force ( ~ 478,000) lbf and energy (~ 700,000) ft-lbf.

• At 15 mph, force ( ~ 715,000) lbf, energy ( $\approx 1.57 \times 10^6$ ) ft-lbf.

• These far exceed the 750–900 lbf/rib fracture threshold, commonly resulting in posterior rib fractures and pneumothorax.

4. Comparison & Rib Fracture Threshold (750–900 lbf)

5. Conclusion

1. Bicycle Collision (5–9 mph)

   • Peak impulses in tens of thousands of lbf, but localized rib force is typically below 750–900 lbf due to distribution.

   • Anterior/lateral rib injuries are more common, and pneumothorax is unlikely.

2. Vehicle Collision (6,500 lb, 10–15 mph)

   • Generates massive forces and energies (hundreds of thousands of lbf, >700k ft-lbf).

   • Far beyond rib fracture thresholds, posterior ribs commonly fractured with pneumothorax.

Bottom Line: The severe injury pattern (multiple posterior rib fractures + pneumothorax) strongly indicates a vehicle collision. Even at 10–15 mph, a 6,500 lb automobile imparts forces and energies that dwarf those from a 5–9 mph bicycle crash, making the vehicular cause the most likely.

SUPPORT THE LEGAL FUND TODAY

SUPPORT THE LEGAL FUND TODAY

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney ALEX G. TSE, State Bar #152348 Chief Attorney Neighborhood and Resident Safety Division JANA J. CLARK, State Bar #136008 JENNIFER CHOI, State Bar #184058 Deputy City Attorneys 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Telephone: (415) 554-3968 Facsimile: (415) 437-4644 E-Mail: jana.clark@sfgov.org

Attorneys for Plaintiff

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and through DENNIS J. HERRERA, City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ABDELHALIM MAHMOUD FADLI, individually and d/b/a HOUSE OF CIGARETTES; and DOE ONE through DOE FIFTY, inclusive, (MANY MANY ALIASES)

Defendants.

Pursuant to settlement by the parties, this Stipulated Injunction ("Order" or "Injunction") was submitted to the above-captioned Court, the Honorable Peter Busch, judge presiding. Plaintiff, the People of the State of California, ("Plaintiff" or the "People") was represented by their attorney, Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney, appearing through Jana Clark and Jennifer Choi, Deputy City Attorneys. Defendants ABDELHALIM MAHMOUD FADLI, individually and d/b/a HOUSE OF CIGARETTES were represented by their attorney, Taghi Astanehe.

Whenever the term "Defendants" is used in this Order, the term includes Defendants ABDELHALIM MAHMOUD FADLI, individually and d/b/a HOUSE OF CIGARETTES, as well as their agents, servants, employees, representatives, assigns, tenants, and lessees, and all persons acting in concert or participating with or on behalf of Defendants, with actual or constructive notice of this Order.

Plaintiff and Defendants ("Parties") agree and consent to entry of this Order by the Court without a noticed motion, hearing, or trial. The Parties further agree that this Order shall be entered by appearance of Plaintiff before the ex parte calendar of the Law and Motion Department of this Court without objection by Defendants.

The Parties, having stipulated to the provisions set forth herein, the Court having reviewed the provisions, the Parties having agreed to the issuance of this Order, and good cause appearing therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:

A. Jurisdiction The Court issues this Order pursuant to its authority under California Business and Professions Code Section 17203 and Civil Code Sections 3491 and 3494. The Court expressly retains jurisdiction to modify this Order as the ends of justice may require. The Court may hear and decide issues regarding the scope and effect of the injunctive provisions herein. Any party to this Order may apply to the Court at any time, after making a reasonable effort to meet and confer with the other parties, for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate for the construction, application, or carrying out of the injunctive provisions herein. The Court can modify any of the injunctive provisions hereof and take such further action as may be necessary or appropriate to carry into effect the injunctive provisions hereof, and for the punishment of violations of the same, if any. B. Authority Plaintiff has the authority under California law to maintain this action to protect the People of the State of California concerning the conduct alleged in the Complaint.

C. Application This case arises from Defendants' ownership, maintenance, operation, and/or management of Mission Gifts & Tobacco ("Business"), a commercial business located at 912 Geneva Avenue, Assessor's Block 6411, Lot 037, in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California ("Property" or "Premises").

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants own, operate, manage, and/or maintain the Business in violation of state law and as a public nuisance that substantially endangers the health, welfare, and safety of the neighbors and the public in general. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants jeopardize the health and safety of their customers, neighbors, and the community at large by selling or permitting to be sold illegal and dangerous drug paraphernalia, which is purchased and used by Defendants' customers, contributing to an increased neighborhood presence of illicit drug users, drug dealers, publicly intoxicated persons, and a host of general nuisance conditions related to illicit drug use, particularly rock base cocaine ("crack") and methamphetamine. By causing or permitting repeated violations of state and local laws at the Business, Defendants have engaged in unlawful and unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200-17210.

Defendants dispute Plaintiff's allegations and claims. Nevertheless, in an effort to come to a negotiated resolution of all claims in this action, Defendants have agreed to be bound by a Stipulated Injunction and Stipulated Judgment. By reaching a settlement and agreeing to injunctive terms and payment of civil penalties, Defendants are not admitting any wrongdoing or liability.

This Injunction's provisions are applicable to Defendants in connection with their ownership, operation, management, and/or maintenance of the Business or any business in the City and County of San Francisco engaged in the retail sale of tobacco products subject to the permit requirements under San Francisco Health Code Sections 1009.52-1009.53.

D. General Provisions

INJUNCTION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants and any person acting in concert or participation with them, with actual or constructive notice of this Injunction, are permanently enjoined and restrained from:

1. Maintaining the Business, or any business owned, operated, managed, or maintained by Defendants in the City and County of San Francisco engaged in the retail sale of tobacco products subject to the permit requirements under San Francisco Health Code Sections 1009.52-1009.53, in violation of California Health and Safety Code Section 11364.7 (prohibiting delivery, furnishing, transfer, possession, or manufacture of drug paraphernalia with intent to deliver, furnish, transfer, or manufacture drug paraphernalia).

   • In enforcing Section 11364.7 in this Injunction, the term "controlled substance" shall not include marijuana used for medical purposes as provided for in Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5. "Drug paraphernalia" shall not include devices or products intended for medical marijuana use as defined therein.

2. Maintaining the Business, or any business owned, operated, managed, or maintained by Defendants in the City and County of San Francisco engaged in the retail sale of tobacco products subject to the permit requirements under San Francisco Health Code Sections 1009.52-1009.53, in violation of California Health and Safety Code Section 11364.5 (prohibiting minors in places dealing in drug paraphernalia).

   • For this Injunction, "drug paraphernalia" includes all items listed in Section 11364.5, including those intended for medical marijuana use.

3. Maintaining the Business, or any business owned, operated, managed, or maintained by Defendants in the City and County of San Francisco engaged in the retail sale of tobacco products subject to the permit requirements under San Francisco Health Code Sections 1009.52-1009.53, in violation of California Penal Code Section 12020 (prohibiting the manufacture, import, sale, supply, or possession of certain weapons and explosives).

4. Maintaining the Business, or any business owned, operated, managed, or maintained by Defendants in the City and County of San Francisco engaged in the retail sale of tobacco products subject to the permit requirements under San Francisco Health Code Sections 1009.52-1009.53, in violation of California Penal Code Section 381c (prohibiting the sale or distribution of nitrous oxide to minors).

5. Maintaining the Business, or any business owned, operated, managed, or maintained by Defendants in the City and County of San Francisco engaged in the retail sale of tobacco products subject to the permit requirements under San Francisco Health Code Sections 1009.52-1009.53, in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance as defined by California Civil Code Sections 3479 and 3480.

6. Maintaining the Business, or any business owned, operated, managed, or maintained by Defendants in the City and County of San Francisco engaged in the retail sale of tobacco products subject to the permit requirements under San Francisco Health Code Sections 1009.52-1009.53, in such a manner as to violate California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200-17210.

E. Management Defendants shall maintain and operate the Business, or any other business owned, operated, managed, or maintained by Defendants in the City and County of San Francisco engaged in the retail sale of tobacco products subject to the permit requirements under San Francisco Health Code Sections 1009.52-1009.53, as follows:

1. No more than twenty percent (20%) of the square footage of windows and doors facing the street shall bear advertising, signage, or product displays. Advertisements and signage must not obstruct the view of the interior, including cash registers, from the exterior sidewalk or entrance.

2. Drug paraphernalia shall be completely enclosed in a separate room or area, with access restricted to persons over 18 unless accompanied by a parent or guardian, as mandated by Health and Safety Code Section 11364.5. Each entrance to the room must include a visible sign indicating the restriction.

3. This Injunction must be posted within 12 inches of any business license or permit issued by San Francisco or California and in clear view of the cash register operator.

F. Disposal of Illegal Drug Paraphernalia Defendants must surrender all illegal drug paraphernalia within 24 hours of this Order’s signing to the San Francisco Police Department.

F. Disposal of Illegal Drug Paraphernalia (Continued) Defendants must surrender to the San Francisco Police Department any drug paraphernalia as defined in Subsection D, paragraph 1 of this Injunction that is present at the Business or any other business owned, operated, managed, or maintained by Defendants in the City and County of San Francisco engaged in the retail sale of tobacco products subject to the permit requirements under San Francisco Health Code Sections 1009.52-1009.53. The surrender must occur within 24 hours of the signing of this Order. Any continued possession, display, or sale of such paraphernalia would constitute a violation of this Injunction.

G. Inspection

1. Defendants shall consent to unannounced and warrantless inspections by the San Francisco Department of Public Health (DPH), the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD), and/or the San Francisco City Attorney's Office (CAO) of any portion of the Business or any other business owned, operated, managed, or maintained by Defendants in the City and County of San Francisco engaged in the retail sale of tobacco products subject to the permit requirements under San Francisco Health Code Sections 1009.52-1009.53, to determine compliance with applicable laws.

   • Inspecting agencies are authorized to search any area, including drawers, cabinets, closets, storage bins, ATM machines, or other containers, whether accessible to the public or not. Defendants must unlock or grant access to such areas upon demand.

   • Any drug paraphernalia discovered during inspections will be seized and destroyed. Refusal to allow inspections constitutes a violation of this Injunction.

2. Upon request from the CAO, DPH, or SFPD, Defendants must provide copies of any and all records related to compliance with this Order within five business days. Plaintiff may also conduct an examination under oath of any Defendant once during a 12-month period to inquire about compliance records, with notice given in accordance with the California Code of Civil Procedure. Failure to provide such information will constitute a violation of this Injunction.

H. Other Provisions Defendants shall comply with all local and state codes governing the operation and maintenance of the Business or any other business owned, operated, managed, or maintained by Defendants in the City and County of San Francisco.

I. Penalties

1. The Parties have executed a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, filed concurrently herewith, wherein Defendants agree to pay the City $5,000.00 in civil penalties to settle this Action. Payment must be made in full by August 1, 2011.

   • If payment is not made as described, a Stipulated Judgment for Monetary Penalties ("Judgment") will be entered for the unpaid amount, which will accrue interest at 10% per annum until paid.

   • Failure to make payment as outlined in the Stipulation will also constitute a violation of this Injunction. Payments must be delivered to the City Attorney's Office at 1390 Market Street, Seventh Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102, attention: Jennifer Choi, Deputy City Attorney, by cashier's check or money order payable to "City and County of San Francisco."

J. Enforcement

1. A violation of this Order constitutes contempt of Court as defined by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1209. The Order may be enforced through contempt proceedings, a motion to enforce, or any other recognized enforcement action.

2. Defendants shall be liable for civil penalties of up to $6,000 per violation of this Order, as determined by the Court after notice and hearing. Each piece of illegal drug paraphernalia found at the Business or any other business owned, operated, managed, or maintained by Defendants during the Injunction's duration shall constitute a separate violation.

3. Fines, penalties, or other monetary relief under this Order are in addition to any other legal or equitable remedies available to the Plaintiff.

4. The Court expressly reserves jurisdiction to take further action as necessary to enforce this Order. Defendants also agree to have contempt actions heard by a Court Commissioner.

5. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs incurred in enforcing this Order or monitoring Defendants' compliance.

K. Notice to Subsequent Interest Holders If Defendants sell, transfer, or assign the Business or any other business owned, operated, managed, or maintained by them, Defendants must:

1. Provide written notice of this Order to the prospective new owner, transferee, or assignee before execution of the sale, transfer, or assignment.

2. Require the new owner, transferee, or assignee to sign an Addendum agreeing to be bound by the terms of this Injunction. A copy of the Addendum is attached as Exhibit A to this Order.

L. Effective Date and Term of Injunction Unless otherwise stated, Defendants shall comply with this Injunction upon its entry by the Court. The Injunction shall remain in effect for 60 months from the date of entry.

• If the Court finds that Defendants violated this Injunction during its term, the 60-month period shall restart from the date of such finding.

M. No Waiver of Rights to Enforce Failure by Plaintiff to enforce any provision of this Injunction does not waive Plaintiff's right to enforce the provision at a later date. Plaintiff's failure to act shall not preclude future enforcement of this or any other provision.

YOU CAN READ THE DEFENSE COUNSELS VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTION BY PRESENTING EX-PARTE SECRET ALLEGATIONS BEHIND PLAINTIFF BACK TO JUDGE.

January 27th 2025

January 28th 2025

February 3rd 2025

February 18th 2025

February 28th 2025

SUPPORT THE LEGAL FUND TODAY

SUPPORT THE LEGAL FUND TODAY

SUPPORT THE LEGAL FUND TODAY

LEGAL : STEVE DORENZO

February 25, 2021

Re: Insured: Subhi Abdelhalim

Claim No.: 1004-09-1054

Date of Loss: February 04, 2021

Dear Rosario: We have concluded our investigation of your claim. Based on our investigation, and after carefully reviewing the facts and circumstances of your claim, we have concluded that our insured is not liable for your damages resulting from this loss. Therefore we must decline your claim. In addition, we dispute your right to recover the amount of damages you have claimed. Our decision is based on the facts currently available. If you have any additional information which you believe is relevant to your claim, please submit that information to us for our consideration. If you believe this claim has been wrongfully denied or rejected in whole or in part, you may have the matter reviewed by the Claims Services Bureau of the California Department of Insurance, 300 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90013; Telephone: 800.927.4357 or 213.897.8921. According to California law, you have two (2) years from the date of an incident to file a lawsuit for damages as a result of personal injury. If you sustained personal injuries as a result of the incident, you must settle your claim or file a lawsuit against those responsible for your personal injuries within two years from the date of the incident. Should you fail to do so, we will be entitled to deny your personal injury claim on that basis. According to California law, you have three (3) years from the date of an incident to file a lawsuit for damages as a result of damage to your property. If you sustained damage to your property as a result of the incident, you must settle your claim or file a lawsuit against those responsible for the damage to your property within three years from the date of the incident. Should you fail to do so, we will be entitled to deny your property damage claim on that basis. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Sarah Rash

Claims Representative Phone: 856-209-7086

Relevant Laws Preventing Sole Reliance on Police Reports

1. California Insurance Code § 790.03 – Unfair Claims Practices

California Insurance Code § 790.03 enumerates various unfair claims practices that insurers must avoid. The following subsections are particularly pertinent when an insurer uses a police report as the sole basis for denying a claim:

§ 790.03(a)(2) – Misrepresentation of Policy Provisions

Text of § 790.03(a)(2):

“(a) Any of the following shall constitute an unfair claim practice:

(2) Misrepresenting to the policyholder in a misleading statement, either directly or indirectly, the provisions, benefits, or obligations of the policy so as to induce the policyholder to accept its benefits.”

Implications:

• Prohibition: Insurers cannot misrepresent the policy's provisions or benefits to deny a claim.

• Application: An insurer cannot falsely assert that certain coverages are excluded based solely on a police report if other evidence (e.g., a driver's admission of fault) supports the claim.

§ 790.03(a)(11) – Failing to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation

Text of § 790.03(a)(11):

“(a) Any of the following shall constitute an unfair claim practice:

(11) Failing to conduct a reasonable investigation of claims within a reasonable time after receiving the claim.”

Implications:

• Prohibition: Insurers must conduct thorough and timely investigations of claims.

• Application: Relying solely on a police report without considering additional evidence (such as 911 call admissions or witness statements) violates this requirement.

§ 790.03(a)(12) – Failing to Provide a Reasonable Explanation for Denial

Text of § 790.03(a)(12):

“(a) Any of the following shall constitute an unfair claim practice:

(12) Failing to provide a reasonable explanation in writing of the basis in the policy or law for denying a claim.”

Implications:

• Prohibition: Insurers must provide clear and reasonable explanations when denying a claim.

• Application: Using only a police report without addressing contradictory evidence or policy terms fails to meet this standard.

2. California Code of Regulations, Title 10, § 2695.2 – Standards for Claims Handling

California Code of Regulations, Title 10, § 2695.2 sets forth standards for how insurers must handle claims, ensuring fairness and thoroughness.

Text of Title 10, § 2695.2:

“(a) An insurer shall investigate every claim submitted to it and shall, in a fair and prompt manner, evaluate the claim and determine the appropriate amount of compensation payable under the policy.

(b) The investigation shall be thorough and objective and shall include an examination of all relevant evidence, including but not limited to, statements, documents, and other materials submitted by the claimant or otherwise obtained by the insurer.

(c) An insurer shall not rely solely on initial reports, such as police reports, to make determinations regarding claims, especially when additional evidence is available that could influence the outcome of the claim.”

Implications:

• Thorough Investigation: Insurers must investigate claims comprehensively, considering all relevant evidence.

Prohibition of Sole Reliance: Insurers cannot base their decisions solely on initial reports like police reports if additional evidence exists that could influence the claim's outcome.