Deborah S. Chang

From a neurological and legal perspective, children with traumatic brain injuries are fascinating. Chang, a veteran trial lawyer, knows them too well. Over the past couple of years she has handled two matters which drastically altered her client’s lives. Unlike many other physical injuries, traumatic brain injuries often go unnoticed and carry their own social stigma.

In one case, that change happened 11 days after an infant was born. The baby was aboard a bus that rolled onto its side, killing four passengers. The infant’s visual, sensory perception wasn’t yet developed. Now at age four, tests show the child is disabled. Chang, in representing the girl’s family, helped settle a lawsuit against the bus manufacturer and a truck company for a confidential amount.

Another case presented a different challenge. A 10-year-old girl was clotheslined by a wire, flinging her backwards and causing her to hit her head on cement.

“After the incident everything changed,”said Chang. “Then she went below average.”

This child suffered a skull fracture and a traumatic brain injury but the defense—the Granada Hills Charter School—said her cognitive problems stemmed from her ADHD, which she was diagnosed with at three years old. Mudgett v. Granada Hills Charter High School, BC597676 (L.A Super. Ct., filed Oct. 13, 2015).

Before the brain injury, the girl scored in the gifted range, Chang said.

“She excelled in different areas despite her ADHD,” said Chang, who was brought into the case shortly before the trial began.

Shortly before trial, Chang brought in experts who testified about the difficulties a child diagnosed with ADHD and a traumatic brain injury. The case settled for $3 million on the eve of trial.

Meanwhile, Chang is still involved in the seminal Rosen decision by the California Supreme Court, which ruled schools have a special duty to protect students.

Chang’s client was University of California, Los Angeles student Katherine Rosen, who survived being slashed across the throat and multiple stab wounds by her classmate. Rosen’s attorneys sued, claiming the university failed to protect her from the incident. The Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County 2018 DJDAR 2629.

Following the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, UCLA touted itself as the “safest campus” in the country by enacting protocols to respond to threats. But through depositions, Chang and attorneys at Panish Shea & Boyle found the university wasn’t correctly utilizing its procedure. What they found is one section of the school would know a piece of information but it wasn’t communicated to the committee formed to address such threats.

Attorneys also claimed the school didn’t tell their client that she had been identified by name by the attacker.

The case had long legs, first going from the state Supreme Court to the appellate court and then back to the Supreme Court, which in its decision finding a duty to protect sent the case back down to the trial court to decide.

Although a trial date hasn’t been set yet, that day is coming close.

“For 10 years poor Katherine Rosen hasn’t had her day in court,” said Chang.

— Justin Kloczko