California Personal Injury Lawyers - Northern & Southern California in Los Angeles the San Francisco Bay Area San Diego Orange County the San Fernando Valley Ventura Santa Barbara Fresno Berkeley Oakland Santa Clara County San Jose and Sacramento, Auto Accident Lawyers Motorcycle Bicycle and Big Rig Truck Accident Attorneys, Medical Malpractice, Drug Liability, Elder Abuse, Serious Injury Premises Liability.
This page of our web site is an index to our attorneys' published legal articles. Our California personal injury lawyers represent clients in cases falling within our "Practice Areas" listed on the left column of this page. You may consider our qualifications as California trial lawyers highly experienced and nationally acclaimed in each of our litigation practice areas. We set forth our relevant credentials on each of the subject matter pages. You may also consider Mr. Henke's brief description of his general trial lawyer credentials and national acclaim in the right column of this page.Attorney Henke has published over 30 articles in "Trial," the Journal of the American Trial Lawyers Association, "Forum," the Journal of the California Trial Lawyers Association and Consumer Attorneys Assocaton of California and the "Advocate," the Journal of the Los Angleles Trial Lawyers Association and Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles. Mr. Henke also served as Editor-in-Chief of the LATLA/CAALA "Adcovate" Law Journal. Parenthetically, Mr. Henke has also had scores of articles appear in legitimate nespapers about his trial work and cases, from the front page of the New York Time to the front page of the Los Angeles Times, from the Washington Post to the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner, in lay and legal magazine articles and journals, from "California Lawyer" to the "National Law Journal," as well as 2 books.
The following is a listing of articles published by Henke in "Trial," "Forum," and the "Advocate."
1. Raymond L. Henke, "Mandatory Class Action," Trial Magazine, ATLA, May 1985.
2. Henke & Neubauer, "Medical Malpractice Legislation," Trial Magazine, LATLA, January 1985.
3. Henke "Negligence Per Se and Drug Product Liability Cases," Advocate, February 1986.
4. Henke "Statute of Limitations/Delayed Discovery Rule in Drug Product Liability Litigation," Advocate, October 1987.
5. Henke, "Amending the Complaint at Trial to Add Punitive Damages, "Advocate, June 1987.
6. Henke & Butler, "The Right of Counsel to Speak to Press on Pending Civil Litigation: First Amendment Protections Reaffirmed," Forum, CTLA, November 1984.
7. Henke, "Falsification of Medical Records: How to Establish it and how best to handle it," Advocate, May 1984.
8. Henke, "Medical Malpractice, Overcoming Common Defenses in Uncommon Medical Malpractice Cases," Forum CTLA 1984.
9. Henke, "Children’s Rights v. Government Claims Provisions," Advocate November 1980.
10. Editor in Chief, Editorial Columns, Advocate, January 1988 to January 1991.
11. Henke, "Statistics," Advocate, February 1988.
12. Henke, "Defendant's Counsel's Sub-rosa Interview with Plaintiff's Treating Physicians," Advocate, May 1988.
13. Henke, "Special Defenses, "Advocate, March 1988.
14. Henke, "Framing Economic Damages," Advocate, May 1988.
15. Henke, "Character Evidence and the Ostensible Secondary Purpose, " Advocate, June 1988.
16. Henke, "Legislation," Advocate July/August 1988.
. 17. Henke, "Proving Economic Damages of Undocumented Aliens, " Advocate, September 1988.
18. Henke, "Initiative Checklist," Advocate, October 1988.
19. Henke, "Selecting the Medical Negligence Case," Advocate, April 1989.
20. Henke, "The Reasonable Suspicion Standard in Drug Product Liability Cases," Advocate, March 1989.
21. Henke, "Use of Rebuttal Expert Testimony at Trial,"Advocate, May 1989.
22. Henke, "Proving Negligent Failure to Diagnose a Rare Disease," Advocate, November 1989.
23. Henke, "Breach of the Physicians Obligations of Confidentiality," Advocate, December 1989.
24. Henke, "Taking Expert Depositions," Advocate, March 1990.
25. Henke, "Jury Selection," Advocate, May 1990.
26. Henke, "Epidemiology and Applied Statistics," Advocate, June 1990.
27. Henke, "Recovery for Increased Susceptibility for Future Medical Disease," Advocate, July/August 1990.
28. Henke, "Strict Liability," Advocate, September 1990.
29. Henke, "Contention Interrogatories," Advocate, October 1990.
30. Henke, "Ex Parte Interviews with Plaintiff's Treating Physicians," Advocate, November 1990.
31. Henke, "The High Cost of Forum Depositions," Advocate, January 1991.
In addition to the above properly published legal journal articles, Attorney Henke has published quick articles or discussions of legal subject matter for lay e-magazines which we will reprint on other pages of this website. These quick discussions are listed by catagory below:
Articles Pertaining to our Practice as California Medical Malpractice Lawyers
"California Obstetrical Malpractice Lawyers and Birth Injury Attorneys Explain the Legal Strategies for Preparing and Presenting Cerebral Palsy, Brain Injury, Brain Damage, Erbs Palsy and Brachial Plexus Injury Cases."
"The Micra Medical Malpractice Tort Reform Legislation, Restricting Amount Recoverable for General Damages, Attrneys Fees and Other Limitations."
Articles Pertaining to our Practice as California Traumatic Brain Injury TBI Attorneys
"Traumatic Brain Injury, From the Physicians' and Lawyers' Perspective."
Articles Pertaining to our Practice as California Food Poisoning Lawyers, E. coli, HUS, Salmonella, Listeria
"California Food Poisoning Lawyers Added to Serious Injury Attorneys Practice as Medical Medical Malpractice Lawyers, Drug Product Liability Attorneys, Auto and Motorcycle Accident Attorneys."
"California Salmonella Food Poisoning Lawyers Discuss the PCA Peanut Butter Salmonella Outbreak."
"Peanut Corporation of America Bankruptcy - Lawsuits v. Chain of Commerce"
"Peanut Corporation of America Fraud - Salmonella Outbreak"
"Peanut Corporation of America Salmonella Outbreak - Sources of Contamination"
"Peanut Corporation of America Salmonella FDA Recall List"
Articles Pertaining to our Practice as Pharmaceutical Product Liability Lawyers
"Requip Side Effect Lawyers Explain Basis For Lawsuits Against GlaxcoSmithKline for Gambling Addictions and Other Compulsive Disorders."
Articles Pertaining to our Practice as Auto, Motorcycle, Bicycle & Big Rig Truck Accident Lawyers
"Accident Lawyers for Complex Auto, Motorcycle, Bicycle, Commercial & Big Rig Truck Accident Lawsuits"
*Most recent Jury Verdict or Settlement:
$2,500,000.00 Settlement in contested liability motorcycle Accident. Below knee amputation. The settlement was obtained after California auto accident lawyer, Henke, demonstrated by his interrogation of the investigating police officer that his motorcyclist client was not contributorily negligent for having pulled out into an intersection, "splitting lanes," between cars in two adjoining left turn lanes, and after investigating to discover that the defendant driver was operating his vehicle "in the course and scope of his employment," naming the employer as a defendant in the litigation, and in this way putting at risk the employer's liability and excess insurance coverage.
$2,700,000.00 Jury verdict in a medical malpractice cases in which attorney, Henke, tried the cases of five clients against multiple physicians and a hospital in one consolidated 4 month trial. The jury found that the physician and hospital defendants had conspired to use upon their patients the FDA unapproved drug Viroxan The jury verdict included $1,900,000.00 in punitive damages awarded against the hospital.
$3,800,000.00 gross jury verdict in in a medical malpractice case in which attorney Henke established liability on the basis that the defendant internist and neurologist failed to diagnose a rare heart tumor, an atrial myxoma. Atrial myxomas are among the most rare tumors identified in the human body.
*The results obtained in the cases listed were dependent upon the facts of the cases, and the results will differ in other cases based on different facts
$2,500,000.00 Settlement in contested liability motorcycle Accident. Below knee amputation. The settlement was obtained after California auto accident lawyer, Henke, demonstrated by his interrogation of the investigating police officer that his motorcyclist client was not contributorily negligent for having pulled out into an intersection, "splitting lanes," between cars in two adjoining left turn lanes, and after investigating to discover that the defendant driver was operating his vehicle "in the course and scope of his employment," naming the employer as a defendant in the litigation, and in this way putting at risk the employer's liability and excess insurance coverage.
$2,700,000.00 Jury verdict in a medical malpractice cases in which attorney, Henke, tried the cases of five clients against multiple physicians and a hospital in one consolidated 4 month trial. The jury found that the physician and hospital defendants had conspired to use upon their patients the FDA unapproved drug Viroxan The jury verdict included $1,900,000.00 in punitive damages awarded against the hospital.
$3,800,000.00 gross jury verdict in in a medical malpractice case in which attorney Henke established liability on the basis that the defendant internist and neurologist failed to diagnose a rare heart tumor, an atrial myxoma. Atrial myxomas are among the most rare tumors identified in the human body.
*The results obtained in the cases listed were dependent upon the facts of the cases, and the results will differ in other cases based on different facts
Driving Under the Influence of Cell Conversation Results in DUI Level Driving Impairment And a 4 fold Increased Likelihood that the Driver will Cause an Accident.
Read Henke Law Group Scientific Review Article. As Knowledgeable Cell Phone Accident Lawyers We Can Investigate to Establish That The Other Driver Was On His Cell Phone. The Evidence Can Make the Difference in a Contested Liability Case.
Where we Can Establish That the Other Driver Was Engaged in a Business Call We Can Bring his Employer in as a Defendant and Recover Against the Employer's Assets and Insurance Coverage.
California auto accident attorney Henke has reviewed all the scientific literature on the effect of cell phone use to impair driver attention. Driving under the influence of cell conversation renders the driver DUI level driving impaired and results in a four fold increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident. Contrary to popular belief, it is not "holding" the cell phone which resulting the impairment. It is the diversion of conscious attention to the internal-cognitive tasks associated with the give and take of the cell conversation away from the external-visual tasks essential for safe driving. Indeed, it matters not whether the motorist is driving under the influence of handheld or hands-free cell conversation, the impairment and the 4 fold increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident are precisely the same. Yes, California and a number of other states have enacted handheld laws; unfortunately that is just a function of politics. The scientists are not in dispute. All agree that driving under the influence of any cell phone results in the identical DUI level driving impairment.
It is important that the auto accident lawyer obtain the cell phone records of the other driver in every contested liability case, and especially in any serious injury case in which it appears that the other driver lacks sufficient insurance coverage to fully compensate the plaintiff for his injuries and full measure of his damages. In the contested liability case,the evidence of the other party's cell phone use in the moments prior to the accident may snatch victory from the mouth of defeat. In the most common serious injury auto accident case in which the other driver lacks sufficient insurance to fully compensate the plaintiff for his injuries and damages, it is essential that the cell phone records be obtained and appropriate depositions taken of the defendant and the other party to the call to determine whether the other driver was engaged in a business call in the moments leading up to the accident. If he was, then the knowledgeable cell phone auto accident lawyer can bring the employer into the litigation as a defendant "vicariously liable" for the injuries caused by its employee in the "course and scope of his employment." In this way the auto accident lawyer may assure that the plaintiff will be fully compensated up to the limits of the employers insurance policy, and indeed, the employer's assets would be available to execute against.
Read Henke Law Group Scientific Review Article. As Knowledgeable Cell Phone Accident Lawyers We Can Investigate to Establish That The Other Driver Was On His Cell Phone. The Evidence Can Make the Difference in a Contested Liability Case.
Where we Can Establish That the Other Driver Was Engaged in a Business Call We Can Bring his Employer in as a Defendant and Recover Against the Employer's Assets and Insurance Coverage.
California auto accident attorney Henke has reviewed all the scientific literature on the effect of cell phone use to impair driver attention. Driving under the influence of cell conversation renders the driver DUI level driving impaired and results in a four fold increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident. Contrary to popular belief, it is not "holding" the cell phone which resulting the impairment. It is the diversion of conscious attention to the internal-cognitive tasks associated with the give and take of the cell conversation away from the external-visual tasks essential for safe driving. Indeed, it matters not whether the motorist is driving under the influence of handheld or hands-free cell conversation, the impairment and the 4 fold increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident are precisely the same. Yes, California and a number of other states have enacted handheld laws; unfortunately that is just a function of politics. The scientists are not in dispute. All agree that driving under the influence of any cell phone results in the identical DUI level driving impairment.
It is important that the auto accident lawyer obtain the cell phone records of the other driver in every contested liability case, and especially in any serious injury case in which it appears that the other driver lacks sufficient insurance coverage to fully compensate the plaintiff for his injuries and full measure of his damages. In the contested liability case,the evidence of the other party's cell phone use in the moments prior to the accident may snatch victory from the mouth of defeat. In the most common serious injury auto accident case in which the other driver lacks sufficient insurance to fully compensate the plaintiff for his injuries and damages, it is essential that the cell phone records be obtained and appropriate depositions taken of the defendant and the other party to the call to determine whether the other driver was engaged in a business call in the moments leading up to the accident. If he was, then the knowledgeable cell phone auto accident lawyer can bring the employer into the litigation as a defendant "vicariously liable" for the injuries caused by its employee in the "course and scope of his employment." In this way the auto accident lawyer may assure that the plaintiff will be fully compensated up to the limits of the employers insurance policy, and indeed, the employer's assets would be available to execute against.
©2010 The Ray Henke Law Group