InjuryBoard Local Blogs

Become a Certified "Beyond Driving with Dignity" Professional

Matt Gurwell — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:45:51 GMT

Keeping Us Safe, a national organization based in Cleveland, Ohio will be holding its inaugural west coast “Beyond Driving with Dignity’ training and certification course for professionals in the greater Los Angeles area on March 1, 2012. This is the first time the course has been offered in California (classes are also schedule for Tampa and Seattle during the month of March, 2012).

The certification program has been designed to provide professionals with the additional tools necessary to help older drivers and their families work through the complicated issue of diminishing driving skills caused by the aging process.

Matt Gurwell, Founder & CEO of Keeping Us Safe explains that the “Beyond Driving with Dignity” Professional Certification program is not built around the premeditated goal of “taking the keys away” from an older driver.

Gurwell explains “the program is designed to help the older driver and concerned family members make appropriate decisions on the future of the individual’s safe driving career. It is true that in certain circumstances, this may involve assisting the older driver in making a smooth and permanent transition from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat.”

The certification program is based on Keeping Us Safe’s self-assessment program for older drivers, along with their recently published “Beyond Driving with Dignity; The workbook for the families of older drivers”.

When asked what prompted the development of the Beyond Driving with Dignity program, Gurwell (a retired Ohio State Trooper) explains "It was the result of 20-plus years of holding dying people in my arms at terrible car accidents, and delivering dozens and dozens of death notifications to families. I would much rather work with families to bring a peaceful resolve to this sensitive and uncomfortable issue now, rather than have them deal with it when a State Trooper is knocking on their front door".

In addition to Newport Beach, this unique certification program is also being offered in Seattle, Tampa, Baton Rouge, Minneapolis, Toronto and Denver.

More information on the program is available at: http://keepingussafe.org/linked/brochurebddprofessionalcertification020712.pdf

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Matt Gurwell

Cruise Line Ticket Fine Print Could Prevent Costa Passengers from Pursuing Damages in Court

Emily Mapp Brannon — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:02:48 GMT

After the Costa Concordia cruise ship disaster, news broke about some of the passengers who were injured and severely traumatized while on board trying to organize and take legal action against the cruise line. Considering how reckless the cruise ship captain was in operating the vessel and the magnitude of damage, pursuing damages through the civil justice system made sense.

However, many Costa Concordia passengers are discovering that trying to pursue justice through the courts will be an uphill battle. Many legal experts predict that a successful Costa Concordia lawsuit will not be able to be litigated in the United States, despite the fact that Costa’s parent company, Carnival Cruises, is based in Miami. These experts predict that a successful lawsuit will have to be filed in Genoa, Italy. Why? Because of the fine print in the cruise line tickets.

Numerous cruise lines include what’s called “choice of forum” language in the ticket contract. This is a provision which stipulates where any legal action would have to be litigated. When you agree to purchase and sign on the dotted line, the cruise company takes that as you accepting all of the provisions in the ticket, including the provisions which are blatantly designed to reduce or deny liability, or to require a lawsuit be filed in areas where the chances of successfully litigating a lawsuit are minimal.

Even with these onerous contractual provisions, this should not deter an injured passenger, or a family member of a passenger who lost their life in the cruise ship disaster, from speaking to an injury attorney about their legal options. Just because a case may prove to be difficult does not mean achieving some semblance of justice is impossible.

In fact, firm attorney Emily Mapp Brannon is representing two passengers who were on board the Costa Concordia and both suffered serious trauma as a result. To learn more, read the Virginia Lawyers Weekly discussion about our VA personal injury-cruise ship injury lawyer Emily Brannon and her clients

About the Editors: The Shapiro, Lewis & Appleton personal injury law firm, which has offices in Virginia (VA) and North Carolina (NC), edits the injury law blogs Virginia Beach Injuryboard, Norfolk Injuryboard and Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard as pro bono services.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Emily Mapp Brannon

Maryland Hospital Cannot be Sued in Virginia if No Business in Virginia

Doug Landau — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:59:52 GMT

After the question of whether to bring a lawsuit, the issue of where to bring the case usually follows. With citizens of Virginia often transacting business and getting hurt in the nearby jurisdictions of Maryland and the District of Columbia, the problem of where to file the case comes up regularly. Sometimes there may be more than one proper place to bring an accident case. However, if the injured person, or the family of an injured victim brings the claim in the wrong court, the case can be transferred or dismissed. The Federal Court in Richmond, Virginia recently ruled that
the estate of a man who allegedly contracted a MRSA infection because of the negligence of the Defendant Maryland hospital cannot sue the hospital under the Maryland Health Care Claims Act in a Virginia federal court

The court reasoned that as the Plaintiff could not identify any Virginia long-arm statutory provision that applied to the case, and the court could not independently find any of the requirements of the long-arm statute to be satisfied, the Federal judges could not hear the case in Virginia. According to the Virginia Lawyers Weekly, there were several facts that were important to the judge's decision. Specifically, the medical injuries giving rise to this cause of action did not occur as a result of defendant transacting any business in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Rather, decedent traveled to Maryland where he allegedly received substandard treatment. Likewise the Defendant’s alleged negligence transpired solely on the hospital premises in Maryland. Furthermore, the Defendant Hospital does not regularly do business or engage in any persistent conduct within the Commonwealth of Virginia. Although the defendant may accept patients from Virginia, it did not derive substantial revenue from any services rendered within this Commonwealth. Bottom line: the Plaintiff failed to persuade the Virginia Federal court that it would be appropriate to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant. However, rather than dismiss plaintiff’s lawsuit in its entirety, the court transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Doug Landau

Funding Courts a Crisis That Threatens Justice for All

Linda Chalat — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:05:58 GMT

American Bar Association President Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III continued to focus on the growing funding crisis in our courts. According to Robinson, 42 states have reduced court budgets, 34 reduced staff, 39 stopped filling clerk vacancies, and 23 reduced courthouse operating hours. The ABA has sent hundreds of kits, to state and local bars across the country, which provide guidance on ways to lobby for better court funding. The kits include videos highlighting the problems, statistics and sample editorials.

To help bring greater awareness to the court funding issue, the ABA has established its Law Day theme as “no courts, no justice, no freedom.” The goal is to spur rallies and press conferences on the steps of every state capitol on Law Day, May 1, to speak out on the need for court funding.

Across the nation, legislators are forcing the courts to figure out ways to cut out case types, cut back services, reduce jury trials, and add more mediators, who act as judges but who are really not judges, to resolve cases more cheaply. Criminal, juvenile, and family cases necessarily take priority, denying timely resolution of civil conflicts to all parties. The lack of court funding coupled with excessive litigation costs, will ultimately reduce access to both the state and federal civil justice systems for all but the very wealthy.

The National Center for State Courts reports for Colorado the following facts:

Colorado’s courts are funded by the state and include district and county courts and the state’s probation function. Colorado’s total state appropriation increased from $352 million in FY11 to $374 million in FY12. The Judiciary will be increasing the number of judges, the number of staff persons and the amount spent on operating costs.
Six million dollars was transferred from the Department of Corrections to the Judiciary to treat probation offenders and keep them out of prison. This transfer accounts for over $12 million of the increase from FY2011 to FY2012.
To reduce spending, the Colorado courts have reduced hours of operations, delayed filling judicial and staff vacancies and vacancies in judicial support positions. They have had to lay off staff and to reduce the use of retired judges.
The above cuts have resulted in overall diminished public access to the courts. Primarily, staff cuts have reduced the Branch's ability to respond to pro se litigants and phone access to the courts has become limited.
Colorado has frozen the salaries of judges and staff. The lack of salary increases has impacted staff morale and just recently, the Branch has started to see high quality and experienced staff leaving the Branch for higher paying jobs.

Everyone agrees that our public institutions must run efficiently with as little waste as possible. But budget cuts should not be allowed to take away our right to use courtrooms when we need to. Courts must be open to protect families, to validate and protect contracts for business and our individual rights. Justice for all does require money, and we should insist that our elected representatives insure that funding which keeps the wheels of justice turning.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Linda Chalat

No Choice, No Remedy – The Truth Behind Generic Medications

Amber Racine — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:34:16 GMT

Generic drugs are often defined as medications that are comparable to or copies of brand name medications. They are released after a brand name drug’s patent (or exclusive right to the product) has expired. The generic medication has the exact same dose as the original drug, but has a different appearance and may have different inactive ingredients. Another key difference is the fact that generic medications are far cheaper than brand name drugs - 80 to 85% lower than the brand name product.

This cost differential often means that insurance companies, both private companies and Medicare, automatically switch their insureds to the generic version of a drug as soon as it becomes available - leaving consumers with little choice over their own drug consumption. Until recently, most people happily took the generic version of their drug without a second thought. However, last summer, the Supreme Court issued an opinion which has many consumers worried about their use of generics.

Pliva v. Mensing was a case which sought to determine the state law duties of generic medication manufacturers. The Court decided that generic manufacturers are not subject to “failure to warn” claims under state law, because generic manufacturers are required by federal law to have the exact same warning label as their brand name counterpart. Essentially, this ruling means generic companies have no duty to warn the consumers of their drugs. This is a bigger ruling that many of the other, more publicized, 2011 decisions issued by the Supreme Court. Why? Because the vast majority, up to 75%, of prescription medications consumed in America are generics. Justice Sotomayor, who issued the dissenting opinion, recognized the issue this decision made for every day consumers. “Today’s decision eliminates the traditional state-law incentives for generic manufacturers to monitor and disclose safety risks.”

State Courts are still grappling with the Mensing decision. Some have dismissed cases against generic drug manufacturers, while others have maintained the claims – agreeing that there were other actions that the generic company could have taken to protect their consumers, such as sending letters that warn of dangerous side effects to physicians and consumers.

While this issue develops, it is important for consumers to be aware of the risks associated with all medications – brand name and generic – and to consider requesting that your doctor issue your prescription as “brand name only” to protect your rights in the event that you suffer an injury caused by your medication.

For more info on generic drugs, check the FDA website: http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/buyingusingmedicinesafely/understandinggenericdrugs/ucm167991.htm

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Racine

Teen Traffic Deaths are On the Rise in VA

Emily Mapp Brannon — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:26:36 GMT

Safety groups are urging teen drivers in Virginia to buckle up and slow down.

Eleven teens – ages 16 to 20 - have died on Virginia roads in the month of January. During the same timeframe in 2011 three teens died in traffic accidents. Those numbers were released in a report last week by the traffic safety group Youth of Virginia Speak Out (YOVASO).

That is a significant increase, says Mary King, YOVASO Program Administrator. Her group and the Blue Ridge Regional Crash Investigation Team are seeking to raise awareness of the issue and to encourage teens to be safety-conscious.

The report by YAVASO highlights the following prevalent factors in the crashes:

? Speed, distraction/inattention and run-off-the road

? Forty-five percent (5) were not restrained

? 9 percent (1) was attributed to alcohol use

Read the full YAVASO Report (PDF).

To stop the alarming trend, the groups are asking everyone to get involved. Parents should monitor their children’s driving and establish clear rules as to what they should and should not be doing while behind the wheel and include what consequences they will face if they’re caught.

While E.C. Glass high school is taking part by leaving a wrecked car outside to serve as a reminder. Schools in general should announce/talk with the students about the increase in teen fatalities in Virginia. And also post seatbelt reminders and no cell phone use.

YOVASO is a statewide youth leadership program that enables teens to work toward the prevention of fatal motor vehicle crashes. The program is administered by the VA State Police Association in conjunction with more than 100 member schools.

The Blue Ridge Regional Crash Investigation Team is made up of separate crash teams across southwestern VA which consists of crash re-constructionists from local and state law enforcement.

For more information on these organizations, visit their Web sites at www.yovaso.net and www.blueridgecrashteams.org.

About the Editors: The Shapiro, Lewis & Appleton personal injury law firm, which has offices in Virginia (VA) and North Carolina (NC), edits the injury law blogs Virginia Beach Injuryboard, Norfolk Injuryboard and Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard as pro bono services.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Emily Mapp Brannon

Court Moves for NuvaRing Settlement

Shezad Malik MD JD — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:19:37 GMT

The litigants in the federal NuvaRing litigation are scheduled to meet with the Court to discuss a plan to settle the lawsuits filed by women who allege that they suffered serious blood clot injuries from side effects of NuvaRing birth control.

All NuvaRing lawsuits filed in federal district courts are consolidated for pretrial proceedings as part of an MDL, or multidistrict litigation, which is centralized before U.S. District Judge Rodney W. Sippel in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

NuvaRing is a ring birth control device that releases a combination of etonogestrel and ethinyl estradiol and is inserted into the vagina once a month.

The complaints all involve similar allegations that Merck and their Organon Pharmaceuticals subsidiary failed to properly research the birth control ring or adequately warn about the risk of blood clots from NuvaRing.

Plaintiffs claim that they have suffered injuries after taking NuvaRing birth control, including deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, heart attacks and strokes.

Following a status conference last week, the Court issued an Order that directed the parties to be prepared to discuss a preliminary plan for alternative dispute resolution at hearing set for February 28.

In January the Court ordered the attorneys to submit proposed plans for alternative dispute resolution, which would be designed to assist the parties in negotiating a potential NuvaRing settlement agreement.

While attorneys for the plaintiffs submitted a plan that calls for the appointment of a special master to oversee the negotiations, attorneys for Merck and Organon have suggested that it is premature to consider such efforts.

The parties are currently preparing a handful of lawsuits, known as “bellwether” cases, for early trial dates. The cases are designed to help the parties gauge how juries are likely to respond to certain evidence that will be introduced throughout other cases in the litigation. In complex pharmaceutical litigation, the results of such trials often factor heavily into settlement negotiations.

Read more here and visit my website for further information.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shezad Malik MD JD

Faces of Lawsuit Abuse: Tami Martin

Brett Emison — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:14:00 GMT

The United States Chamber of Commerce has an entire web site dedicated to destroying the fundamental right of trial by jury. The Chamber's site - Faces of Lawsuit Abuse (you can find it if you want, but I'm not going to link to it) - focuses solely on defendants (and mostly corporate defendants) without any examples of the other side. The Chamber's site is pure propaganda designed to increase corporate profits by eliminating accountability and destroying the constitutional right to trial by jury enshrined in the 7th Amendment.

Tami Martin is one of the other faces of lawsuit abuse. She was paralyzed in a low-speed accident because of a defect automakers like Ford have known about for decades - reclined seat dangers. Instead of making sure Tami got the medical care she needed, Ford fought her every step of the way. Instead of accepting responsibility, Ford blamed Tami.

Tami's mother was driving Tami back to college in October 1999 in the family's Ford Windstar van. Tami was in the front passenger seat and she was wearing her seat belt. Tami was tired and reclined her seat back to take a nap. When she woke up, she was in the hospital and paralyzed.

Tami's mother had run into another vehicle. It was a minor accident - the collision was less than 30 miles per hour. Tami's mother wasn't even hurt. But Tami was left a quadriplegic.

Ford and other automakers knew that passengers shouldn't recline their seats while the vehicle is moving. Yet they don't tell passengers this information. Instead, automakers permit the seats to recline and even tout reclining seats as one of the vehicle's comfort features for long road trips.

Ford Documents Admitted at Trial Show
Ford Knew About Danger For More Than 20 Years

Government Documents Introduced at Trial Also Showed Ford's Knowledge of the Danger and Ineffectiveness of Owner's Manual Warnings

Because of the reclined seat, Tami's seat belt didn't work in this minor collision. Tami slid under the lap belt and the impact forces went into Tami's stomach and lower back, crushing Tami's spine.

All Tami wanted was for Ford to take responsibility for this defect that left her paralyzed. Tami wanted to make sure her medical needs would be met and wanted to make sure that no one else would be injured like she was.

Did Ford accept responsibility? No.

Instead, Ford blamed Tami. Ford claimed Tami should not have been reclined in her seat. In fact, Ford claimed all passengers should know about reclined seat dangers and Ford refused to accept any responsibility at all.

Ford refused to accept responsibility for its product even though Ford knew about the danger for more than 20 years and even though Ford told its customers they could recline their seats.

Ford told Windstar owners, like Tami's mother, that reclining seats are "a very nice feature to have long long road trips."

Ford Windstar Ad Introduced At Trial
Showing Ford Ignored 20 Years of Knowledge About Reclined Seat Danger

As late as March 2005, Ford aired the following advertisement across Florida:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VviUaz04uEM

Twenty seconds into the advertisement, you see this image:

Ford Advertisement Showing Front Seat Passenger
Reclined with Feet on Dash While Vehicle In Motion

Even after the accident that paralyzed Tami, Ford continued telling its customers through advertisements that it was perfectly safe to ride with a reclined seat. Ford blamed Tami Martin for doing precisely what Ford advertised to its customers.

When the commercial came up in depositions before trial, Ford finally pulled this ad off the air. At trial, the jury awarded Tami $17 million.

What did Tami do? She offered to give back half of the money if Ford would just put safety stickers in all of its vehicles warning passengers to never recline their seats while car is in motion.

Ford refused to fix the problem and instead appealed the verdict (which was ultimately upheld in Tami's favor).

The CBS Early Show featured Tami and our local counsel, Angelo Patacca. You can view the CBS news feature about Tami here.

The Chamber will never tell you about frivolous defense tactics like this one. The Chamber won't tell you about defense delay tactics that hurt innocent victims by delaying needed medical care or shifting product defect costs from negligent corporations to tax payers through Medicaid, Medicare, and assistance programs.

Tami had offered to settle with Ford for much less than the $17 million verdict. Ford's frivolous defense tactics not only hurt Tami, it hurt Ford. And when Tami offered to give back half of the money if Ford would just fix the problem... Ford refused!

When you hear the U.S. Chamber or some other corporate organization talking about tort reform or "lawsuit abuse" be sure to ask them about the other side of the story.

The 7th Amendment right to trial is perhaps the most important fundamental civil right ensured by our Constitution. In fact, deprivation of civil justice was one of the offenses of the King specifically enumerated in the Declaration of Independence.

"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"

The Founders understood the importance of the right to trial by jury. Yet this fundamental right "endowed by [our] Creator" is under nearly constant attack today. Corporations require you to sign this right away when purchasing something as mundane as a cell phone or concert ticket. Commentators disparage this fundamental right as nothing more than "frivolous lawsuits", "lawsuit abuse" and "jackpot justice".

Don't talk to Tami Martin about "jackpot justice". Tami never asked for what happened to her. Tami wanted to avoid litigation and avoid a lawsuit, but was forced to protect her rights because Ford refused to accept responsibility for causing the harm. Tami's verdict was no "jackpot". And even after Tami prevailed at trial, she offered to give the money back if Ford would just fix the problem! And Ford refused!

When "tort reform" bails out irresponsible individuals and corporations or defendants engage in frivolous defenses that delay justice, tax payers end up with the bill. Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid pays for the medical care that should be borne by the responsible party. Welfare, food stamps and other government assistance pays for housing, shelter, transportation and other basic needs that should be born by the responsible party. Many victims are left to financial ruin, bankruptcy and poverty because the responsible party avoids responsibility and accountability.

The Founders understood -- and perhaps we should be reminded -- that we as a society must take responsibility when we wrong someone. If we are not accountable for our actions, then society if forced to pay for our transgressions and care for those we hurt.

[More Faces of Lawsuit Abuse]

[More on your 7th Amendment Rights]

[More on Frivolous Defenses]

Follow @BrettEmison on Twitter.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Emison

Should You Talk To An Attorney?

Mike Bryant — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:47:00 GMT

We usually suggest that you talk to a qualified, experienced attorney right after an accident. The advice is free and it gives you a chance to understand what your rights are. You don't have to hire them or pay any money up front. For most people, this is the first time they have been in an accident and other than counting on an insurance adjuster to cover your possible claims, there is very little that you can rely on.

I have a number of times sat down with potential clients who had decided to wait on his claim. During that time one of statues of limitations had run out and another one was very close. With those statues running out, they are forever barred from bringing the claim and had no way of knowing. If they had waited longer all of the claims would have been gone.

Make sure you ask the important questions:

How much time do I have?

What can you do that would make a difference in making my claim?

Why do I need a lawyer?

On top of the questions I've written about in the past. Make sure you know what is involved and what your rights are.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

What to Do If a Dog Attacks You

Council Wooten — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:32:00 GMT

If you are the victim of a dog bite, it can be quite a terrifying experience, even if the wound is not serious. It is important to remain calm if you or a loved one is attacked.

First, be sure that the animal is contained and you and any other victims are safe from further attack. Even if a dog appears to have backed off, animals are unpredictable, and the dog could very well launch into another attack. Immediately seek any medical attention, call 911. Let medical experts determine the severity of your injury.

Try to get the names and contact information of any potential witnesses, as well as the owner of the dog. These details could be important in the future. Take photos of the bite and any other injured areas on your body. Take more photos than you think you may need. Make sure the lighting is good and make sure your face is visible in at least some of the photos.

Try not to panic or immediately place blame. If possible, find out if the dog has been vaccinated or has any medical conditions of diseases. The more information you have for physicians the better off you are. Contact an attorney before speaking with police or investigators to ensure your rights are protected.

Wooten, Kimbrough & Normand, P.A.—Orlando personal injury attorneys.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Council Wooten