The Personal Injury Team
BLOG.RAINERLAW.COM
MA Medical Negligence and Recent SJC Opinion on Third Party Liability Limits
June 9, 2009 Kevin P. Whitaker
MA Medical Negligence and Recent SJC Opinion on Third Party Liability Limits
In Coombes v. Florio, 450 Mass. 182 (2007), a physician owed a duty of reasonable care to those foreseeably put at risk by a doctor’s failure to warn the patient of the side effects of the patient's treatment. In Coombes, a young boy was struck and killed by a car driven by one taking medications, but who had neither been warned of the medications' side effects, nor been told not to drive while taking these medications. See Massachusetts Bar Association review of Coombes. Thus, liability under Coombes could be extended and include those not having any doctor-patient relationship. A recent case dealing with negligence, duty, and foreseeability sought to expand this holding even further, but it was unsuccessful before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC).
In Leavitt vs. Brockton Hospital, Inc., Sheila Smith and Karen Sullivan (slip opinion), a pedestrian involved in a car accident had undergone a colonoscopy earlier in the day and was walking home from Brockton Hospital when struck by another vehicle. While heading to the accident's location, a Whitman police cruiser was hit by another vehicle resulting in an officer being seriously and permanently injured. The police officer sued the hospital for negligence claiming they had breached their duty of care, among other things, when they released the previously sedated patient without an escort. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed the case had been properly dismissed by a lower court and upheld that court's decision.
In a footnote, the court noted the different standards for reviewing a motion to dismiss because the standard had changed from the time of the judge's ruling to the time of the SJC's review. Regardless, the court opined this case would have failed under either standard. After the judge had ruled on the hospital's motion to dismiss, we adopted as applicable to our civil rules the United States Supreme Court's revision of the standard for reviewing the adequacy of a complaint challenged by a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6). See Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 635-636 (2008), quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1966 (2007) ("What is required at the pleading stage are factual 'allegations plausibly suggesting [not merely consistent with]' an entitlement to relief . . ."). The hospital does not ask that we apply the new, "stricter" standard. See Flomenbaum v. Commonwealth, 451 Mass. 740, 751 n.12 (2008). The complaint would not survive the hospital's motion to dismiss under either standard.
MA Medical Negligence and Recent SJC Opinion on Third Party Liability Limits
In Coombes v. Florio, 450 Mass. 182 (2007), a physician owed a duty of reasonable care to those foreseeably put at risk by a doctor’s failure to warn the patient of the side effects of the patient's treatment. In Coombes, a young boy was struck and killed by a car driven by one taking medications, but who had neither been warned of the medications' side effects, nor been told not to drive while taking these medications. See Massachusetts Bar Association review of Coombes. Thus, liability under Coombes could be extended and include those not having any doctor-patient relationship. A recent case dealing with negligence, duty, and foreseeability sought to expand this holding even further, but it was unsuccessful before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC).
In Leavitt vs. Brockton Hospital, Inc., Sheila Smith and Karen Sullivan (slip opinion), a pedestrian involved in a car accident had undergone a colonoscopy earlier in the day and was walking home from Brockton Hospital when struck by another vehicle. While heading to the accident's location, a Whitman police cruiser was hit by another vehicle resulting in an officer being seriously and permanently injured. The police officer sued the hospital for negligence claiming they had breached their duty of care, among other things, when they released the previously sedated patient without an escort. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed the case had been properly dismissed by a lower court and upheld that court's decision.
In a footnote, the court noted the different standards for reviewing a motion to dismiss because the standard had changed from the time of the judge's ruling to the time of the SJC's review. Regardless, the court opined this case would have failed under either standard. After the judge had ruled on the hospital's motion to dismiss, we adopted as applicable to our civil rules the United States Supreme Court's revision of the standard for reviewing the adequacy of a complaint challenged by a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6). See Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 635-636 (2008), quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1966 (2007) ("What is required at the pleading stage are factual 'allegations plausibly suggesting [not merely consistent with]' an entitlement to relief . . ."). The hospital does not ask that we apply the new, "stricter" standard. See Flomenbaum v. Commonwealth, 451 Mass. 740, 751 n.12 (2008). The complaint would not survive the hospital's motion to dismiss under either standard.
Teacher Chaperoning Ski Trip Sues School for Injury
Posted by MBrickley- 1/14/2010, www.totalinjury.com
A Massachusetts school teacher was recently awarded worker’s compensation benefits after she was injured while chaperoning students on a school ski trip.
Karen Sikorski, a math teacher at Peabody High School in Peabody, Mass., injured her shoulder in 2004 during a trip to Mount Ascutney in Vermont with the school’s ski club.
Sikorski was reportedly skiing when she fell. The injury later required surgery as well as physical therapy for her to recover, according to the Boston Globe.
Sikorski’s claim asked to regain sick days spent on her recovery and any medical expenses not covered by the co-payment offered through her health insurance policy, through the city.
The city of Peabody government initially rejected her claim for personal injury compensation because the teachers are not required to participate with the school ski trips and other voluntary events, according to claims.
But in mid December, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of Sikorski. Alan Pierce, who served as Sikorski’s attorney for the injury case, told the Associated Press that while teachers volunteer to chaperone events such as the ski trip, she was still performing her duties as a teacher.
“The students could not ski unless there was a chaperone going down the trail with them,” Pierce said.”She engaged in the duties of a teacher, albeit on the ski slopes. She wasn’t teaching math, but she was maintaining order, re-enforcing rules and watching out for the well-being of adolescents.”
While the case itself did not involve “big money,” Pierce told the Boston Globe that the state Supreme Court’s ruling “needed to establish that when teachers are performing chaperoning duties [they] do not lose the protection.”
Pierce said Sikorski may recover about 10 of the 16 sick days she used for physical therapy and a small payment if her injuries turn out to be permanent, according to the Globe.
The city of Peabody tried to argue that a 1985 Massachusetts law excluded injuries from being covered by worker’s compensation if such an injury happened while an employee was voluntarily participating in an activity.
However, the SJC ruled that participation in the ski trip was a result of Sikorski working for the city in some form, and therefore Sikorski was awarded the compensation.
Judge Judith A. Cowin wrote in an opinion regarding the case that, “the ski club’s trips benefited the city by furthering the school’s educational mission.”
Judge Cowin also pointed out that the city encourages teachers to participate in events such as the ski trip.
A Massachusetts school teacher was recently awarded worker’s compensation benefits after she was injured while chaperoning students on a school ski trip.
Karen Sikorski, a math teacher at Peabody High School in Peabody, Mass., injured her shoulder in 2004 during a trip to Mount Ascutney in Vermont with the school’s ski club.
Sikorski was reportedly skiing when she fell. The injury later required surgery as well as physical therapy for her to recover, according to the Boston Globe.
Sikorski’s claim asked to regain sick days spent on her recovery and any medical expenses not covered by the co-payment offered through her health insurance policy, through the city.
The city of Peabody government initially rejected her claim for personal injury compensation because the teachers are not required to participate with the school ski trips and other voluntary events, according to claims.
But in mid December, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of Sikorski. Alan Pierce, who served as Sikorski’s attorney for the injury case, told the Associated Press that while teachers volunteer to chaperone events such as the ski trip, she was still performing her duties as a teacher.
“The students could not ski unless there was a chaperone going down the trail with them,” Pierce said.”She engaged in the duties of a teacher, albeit on the ski slopes. She wasn’t teaching math, but she was maintaining order, re-enforcing rules and watching out for the well-being of adolescents.”
While the case itself did not involve “big money,” Pierce told the Boston Globe that the state Supreme Court’s ruling “needed to establish that when teachers are performing chaperoning duties [they] do not lose the protection.”
Pierce said Sikorski may recover about 10 of the 16 sick days she used for physical therapy and a small payment if her injuries turn out to be permanent, according to the Globe.
The city of Peabody tried to argue that a 1985 Massachusetts law excluded injuries from being covered by worker’s compensation if such an injury happened while an employee was voluntarily participating in an activity.
However, the SJC ruled that participation in the ski trip was a result of Sikorski working for the city in some form, and therefore Sikorski was awarded the compensation.
Judge Judith A. Cowin wrote in an opinion regarding the case that, “the ski club’s trips benefited the city by furthering the school’s educational mission.”
Judge Cowin also pointed out that the city encourages teachers to participate in events such as the ski trip.
Family of Shrewsbury High School Senior Sues Former Bar Owner for Massachusetts Wrongful Death
Michael L. VonBehren was just 18-years-old when a Lowell drunk driver fatally struck him on Interstate 290 in December 2008. Now, his parents Dale and Kathleen VonBehren, are suing JBC of Worcester for the Shrewsbury teenager’s Massachusetts wrongful death.
Somang Ath, the 26-year-old driver of the vehicle that struck the car that their son was riding, was also killed in the tragic Massachusetts car accident. Prior to driving the wrong way and crashing head-on into the vehicle that VonBehren was in, Ath drank alcohol with friends at Jillian’s, a Worcester bar.
According to Massachusetts police, Ath’s BAC was .28%. The License Commission suspended the bar’s license for a week after determining that there was evidence that Jillian’s over-served him. JBC of Worcester, which was bought by Revolution Entertainment of Whitinsville this May, was the owner of the bar at the time that the deadly Shrewsbury traffic accident happened. 10 days after the tragic Shrewsbury car crash that killed Ath and VonBehren, Jillian’s allegedly over-served another man who had a BAC of .30.
The Massachusetts wrongful death complaint accuses the company of negligence for over-serving Ath and letting him get drunk. 50 “Does” were also listed as Massachusetts wrongful death defendants in the VonBehren’s civil lawsuit.
The VonBehrens are seeking damages for pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and mental anguish.
Third Party Lawsuits
In Massachusetts, not only can you sue the drunk driver that caused a car crash for Boston personal injury or wrongful death, but you can also sue third parties, such as a bar or a liquor store, that contributed to the inebriated motorist becoming drunk. For example, a bar may have overserved the motorist, allowed an underage teen driver to drink or obtain alcohol, or let a drunk patron get behind the wheel of the vehicle. This holiday season, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Massachusetts State Police are cracking down on drunk drivers to prevent more alcohol-related crashes from happenings.
Boston Injury Lawyer Blog
Posted On: December 23, 2009 by Altman & Altman
Somang Ath, the 26-year-old driver of the vehicle that struck the car that their son was riding, was also killed in the tragic Massachusetts car accident. Prior to driving the wrong way and crashing head-on into the vehicle that VonBehren was in, Ath drank alcohol with friends at Jillian’s, a Worcester bar.
According to Massachusetts police, Ath’s BAC was .28%. The License Commission suspended the bar’s license for a week after determining that there was evidence that Jillian’s over-served him. JBC of Worcester, which was bought by Revolution Entertainment of Whitinsville this May, was the owner of the bar at the time that the deadly Shrewsbury traffic accident happened. 10 days after the tragic Shrewsbury car crash that killed Ath and VonBehren, Jillian’s allegedly over-served another man who had a BAC of .30.
The Massachusetts wrongful death complaint accuses the company of negligence for over-serving Ath and letting him get drunk. 50 “Does” were also listed as Massachusetts wrongful death defendants in the VonBehren’s civil lawsuit.
The VonBehrens are seeking damages for pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and mental anguish.
Third Party Lawsuits
In Massachusetts, not only can you sue the drunk driver that caused a car crash for Boston personal injury or wrongful death, but you can also sue third parties, such as a bar or a liquor store, that contributed to the inebriated motorist becoming drunk. For example, a bar may have overserved the motorist, allowed an underage teen driver to drink or obtain alcohol, or let a drunk patron get behind the wheel of the vehicle. This holiday season, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Massachusetts State Police are cracking down on drunk drivers to prevent more alcohol-related crashes from happenings.
Boston Injury Lawyer Blog
Posted On: December 23, 2009 by Altman & Altman
Texting and Walking: Dangerous Mix
By Hilary Hylton
You might call it an avocational hazard. A recent ITN News video in the U.K. shows that some London pedestrians have become so preoccupied with e-mailing and text messaging on their BlackBerrys and cell phones that they can't make it down a city block without crashing into lampposts or trash bins. One of the most hazardous streets for "walking while texting," according to the Monty Python–esque video clip, is East London's busy Brick Lane, lined with trendy boutiques and curry shops, where people have been filmed walking head down, ricocheting off various stationary sidewalk objects. The solution? Wrap Brick Lane's lampposts with fluffy, white rugby goalpost cushions.
The video hit the Internet in early March and was met with widespread media attention ("Britain's first safe text street has been created complete with padded lampposts to protect millions of mobile phone users from getting hurt in street accidents while walking and texting," the London Daily Mail proclaimed) along with much twittering in the blogosphere about the possible expansion of the Brick Lane pilot project. But it turned out that the lamppost-wrapping scheme was just a clever public-relations ploy mounted by 118118, a British directory assistance company, and Living Streets, a well-known charity dedicated to making cities more pedestrian-friendly. In tandem with the publicity stunt, Living Streets conducted an unscientific survey of 1,000 texting Brits and found that 1 in 10 — or, potentially, 6.5 million people nationwide — had suffered injuries while texting and walking.
In a world where billions of text messages move through the ether daily — Filipinos hold the national record, having sent a billion texts per day in 2007 — it's no surprise that news of texting-while-walking accidents piqued such global interest. Though the lamppost bumpers were removed from Brick Lane after only 24 hours, the debate over such "nanny government" maneuvers and the rampant dangers of walking while texting rages on. It's a debate that New Yorkers joined last year when State Senator Carl Kruger of Brooklyn introduced a bill in Albany to combat "iPod oblivion." His bill, which was prompted by the death of two constituents who were killed crossing the street while listening to their iPods, sought to ban pedestrians from using earphones in crosswalks in New York's large urban areas. The bill languished in committee last year, but the Senator has reintroduced it in 2008.
Intuitively, the perils of texting while walking make sense. But George Branyan, pedestrian coordinator for the District of Columbia Department of Transportation, says that in most pedestrian accidents, neither text messaging nor iPod oblivion are major factors. "I am not seeing it in the crash data," Branyan says.
Most pedestrian accidents, according to Branyan, happen because people jaywalk or drivers ignore existing traffic laws — which require, for example, yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk, heeding the speed limit and stopping at red lights. A pedestrian dies every 110 minutes in the United States, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and there has been an increase in the last few years in pedestrian deaths in Washington and other urban areas across the country, prompting governments in the D.C. metro area to launch a new advertising campaign aimed at increasing pedestrian safety. It is both "edgy and blunt," Branyan says of the radio spots and posters, which depict a violent pedestrian-car collision. The most recent pedestrian fatality in Washington was typical, Branyan says: an elderly woman who was crossing the street with the right of way was hit last week by a driver turning right on a green light, knocking her almost 50 feet.
When the Department of Transportation and the D.C. police recently conducted a two-month street-safety campaign, undercover cops at crossings and pull-over police units issued 6,000 tickets — two-thirds to drivers and one-third to pedestrians for jaywalking, Branyan said. Though Washington police, along with other law enforcement agencies, agree that the increase in text messaging endangers both drivers and pedestrians (many states have outlawed text messaging while driving, and Maryland and Virginia are considering banning cyclists from text messaging on the go), Branyan thinks that creating new laws to ban texting, particularly in urban areas where police already face many law-enforcement challenges, is less useful than enforcing laws that are already on the books.
Traffic safety engineers are developing new technologies to alert drivers to areas where pedestrian traffic is heavy at certain times of the day. St. Petersburg, Fla., for example, has installed motion detectors at some crossings where there are no traffic signals; when a pedestrian approaches, a squawkbox urges him or her to push a button before crossing, triggering high-intensity flashing lights that drivers can see some distance from the intersection. City officials credit the system with boosting driver compliance with crosswalk laws from 8% to 84%. Washington plans to install similar bilingual devices at some of its high-risk intersections. In Boulder, Colo., the city has placed audible warning devices at busy crosswalks — when a pedestrian pushes the crosswalk button, lights flash and a "Use caution when crossing" message is played to remind the pedestrian to be careful.
Some communities, however, have opted for much lower-tech solutions. In County Mayo, Ireland, where rising pedestrian accidents have caused concern, elementary-school children persuaded the Irish Road Safety Authority last week to revive a popular 1970s ditty called the "Safe Cross Code," which exhorts six easy steps (including "look for a safe place" and "don't hurry") for safe street crossing. But even the classics can sometimes afford a little modernization: the Irish musician Brendan Grace has agreed to re-record the old-time jingle as a cell-phone ringtone, which can now be downloaded for a fee that goes toward supporting national traffic-safety programs.
You might call it an avocational hazard. A recent ITN News video in the U.K. shows that some London pedestrians have become so preoccupied with e-mailing and text messaging on their BlackBerrys and cell phones that they can't make it down a city block without crashing into lampposts or trash bins. One of the most hazardous streets for "walking while texting," according to the Monty Python–esque video clip, is East London's busy Brick Lane, lined with trendy boutiques and curry shops, where people have been filmed walking head down, ricocheting off various stationary sidewalk objects. The solution? Wrap Brick Lane's lampposts with fluffy, white rugby goalpost cushions.
The video hit the Internet in early March and was met with widespread media attention ("Britain's first safe text street has been created complete with padded lampposts to protect millions of mobile phone users from getting hurt in street accidents while walking and texting," the London Daily Mail proclaimed) along with much twittering in the blogosphere about the possible expansion of the Brick Lane pilot project. But it turned out that the lamppost-wrapping scheme was just a clever public-relations ploy mounted by 118118, a British directory assistance company, and Living Streets, a well-known charity dedicated to making cities more pedestrian-friendly. In tandem with the publicity stunt, Living Streets conducted an unscientific survey of 1,000 texting Brits and found that 1 in 10 — or, potentially, 6.5 million people nationwide — had suffered injuries while texting and walking.
In a world where billions of text messages move through the ether daily — Filipinos hold the national record, having sent a billion texts per day in 2007 — it's no surprise that news of texting-while-walking accidents piqued such global interest. Though the lamppost bumpers were removed from Brick Lane after only 24 hours, the debate over such "nanny government" maneuvers and the rampant dangers of walking while texting rages on. It's a debate that New Yorkers joined last year when State Senator Carl Kruger of Brooklyn introduced a bill in Albany to combat "iPod oblivion." His bill, which was prompted by the death of two constituents who were killed crossing the street while listening to their iPods, sought to ban pedestrians from using earphones in crosswalks in New York's large urban areas. The bill languished in committee last year, but the Senator has reintroduced it in 2008.
Intuitively, the perils of texting while walking make sense. But George Branyan, pedestrian coordinator for the District of Columbia Department of Transportation, says that in most pedestrian accidents, neither text messaging nor iPod oblivion are major factors. "I am not seeing it in the crash data," Branyan says.
Most pedestrian accidents, according to Branyan, happen because people jaywalk or drivers ignore existing traffic laws — which require, for example, yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk, heeding the speed limit and stopping at red lights. A pedestrian dies every 110 minutes in the United States, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and there has been an increase in the last few years in pedestrian deaths in Washington and other urban areas across the country, prompting governments in the D.C. metro area to launch a new advertising campaign aimed at increasing pedestrian safety. It is both "edgy and blunt," Branyan says of the radio spots and posters, which depict a violent pedestrian-car collision. The most recent pedestrian fatality in Washington was typical, Branyan says: an elderly woman who was crossing the street with the right of way was hit last week by a driver turning right on a green light, knocking her almost 50 feet.
When the Department of Transportation and the D.C. police recently conducted a two-month street-safety campaign, undercover cops at crossings and pull-over police units issued 6,000 tickets — two-thirds to drivers and one-third to pedestrians for jaywalking, Branyan said. Though Washington police, along with other law enforcement agencies, agree that the increase in text messaging endangers both drivers and pedestrians (many states have outlawed text messaging while driving, and Maryland and Virginia are considering banning cyclists from text messaging on the go), Branyan thinks that creating new laws to ban texting, particularly in urban areas where police already face many law-enforcement challenges, is less useful than enforcing laws that are already on the books.
Traffic safety engineers are developing new technologies to alert drivers to areas where pedestrian traffic is heavy at certain times of the day. St. Petersburg, Fla., for example, has installed motion detectors at some crossings where there are no traffic signals; when a pedestrian approaches, a squawkbox urges him or her to push a button before crossing, triggering high-intensity flashing lights that drivers can see some distance from the intersection. City officials credit the system with boosting driver compliance with crosswalk laws from 8% to 84%. Washington plans to install similar bilingual devices at some of its high-risk intersections. In Boulder, Colo., the city has placed audible warning devices at busy crosswalks — when a pedestrian pushes the crosswalk button, lights flash and a "Use caution when crossing" message is played to remind the pedestrian to be careful.
Some communities, however, have opted for much lower-tech solutions. In County Mayo, Ireland, where rising pedestrian accidents have caused concern, elementary-school children persuaded the Irish Road Safety Authority last week to revive a popular 1970s ditty called the "Safe Cross Code," which exhorts six easy steps (including "look for a safe place" and "don't hurry") for safe street crossing. But even the classics can sometimes afford a little modernization: the Irish musician Brendan Grace has agreed to re-record the old-time jingle as a cell-phone ringtone, which can now be downloaded for a fee that goes toward supporting national traffic-safety programs.
Suffolk Jury Renders Huge Verdict Against Boston Children's Hospital
Suffolk Jury Renders Huge Verdict Against Boston Children's Hospital
Here is the story from Boston.com:
A Suffolk County jury yesterday found that two doctors at Children’s Hospital Boston - one of them the hospital’s former physician in chief - had caused the death of a 3-year-old Pennsylvania boy and voted to award his parents $15 million in damages.
The actual damage award will be less because of an agreement reached by the parties before the verdict. But legal specialists said the amount voted by the jury was unusually large for a medical malpractice case involving a death. Awards of that size are more common in cases in which a patient is severely injured as a result of malpractice and requires years of costly treatment, they said.
After deliberating four days, the Superior Court jury found that Dr. James Lock, until last year the physician in chief, and Dr. James A. DiNardo, an anesthesiologist, caused the death of Jason Fox, said the child’s father, Brian Fox, of suburban Philadelphia.
The boy died in December 2004, a year and a half after undergoing a procedure at the hospital for a birth defect.
Fox said he and his wife, Andrea, believe doctors lied about their actions when treating Jason.
“The only protection individuals have when you go up against powerful Harvard, top-ranked physicians is the jury system, and that worked,’’ said Fox in a phone interview.
Jason went into Children’s “a playful and active little boy,’’ he said. “When he came out of the hospital, he was flown by air ambulance to a neurological rehabilitation facility near where we lived.’’
But William J. Dailey Jr., the Boston lawyer for Lock and DiNardo and two other doctors who were found negligent but not responsible for the death, said he was stunned by the verdict.
He said Jason had undergone eight unsuccessful procedures before his parents took him to Children’s in a desperate effort to save his life.
“He had as severe an underlying congenital heart disease as you could have,’’ Dailey said. “If something could have been done in Boston, it would have been extraordinary.’’In an e-mail to Children’s staff about the verdict, Dr. James Mandell, chief executive of the hospital, wrote: “We are surprised and disappointed in this finding. We are confident that our clinicians provided outstanding care to this very sick child.’’
Michelle Davis, a hospital spokeswoman, said that the doctors will not appeal and that Lock’s stepping down as physician in chief was unrelated to the case.
“There is no doubt that he is an extremely important leader and continues to be an extremely important leader at Children’s Hospital Boston,’’ she said. “We have no doubts about his ability or his leadership.’’
Jason was born in July 2001 with Tetralogy of Fallot, a complex but usually treatable birth defect that affects the flow of blood through the heart. In his case, the defect was particularly serious and prevented his blood from carrying enough oxygen to his organs and limbs.
During the first two years of his life, Jason underwent open heart surgery and had seven cardiac catheterizations at Children’s laceType w:st="on">HospitallaceType> of laceName w:st="on">PhiladelphialaceName> to try to widen the arteries that carry blood to his lungs.
Doctors in Philadelphia referred Jason to Lock, who pioneered the use of catheterization to repair cardiac birth defects. Lock agreed to try to widen more of the boy’s pulmonary arteries.
Hours after the child’s second catheterization, on April 18, 2003, Jason suffered a seizure. A CAT scan showed that contrast dye, which is injected during the procedure so doctors can better see the patient’s anatomy, had leaked into his brain.
After his seizure, Jason was transferred to the cardiac ICU and was given two MRIs to gauge the extent of his brain damage.
During the first MRI, doctors discovered a tiny piece of metal lodged in the boy’s brain, probably from a medical instrument, although it is uncertain whether it broke off during a procedure at Children’s or a previous procedure at another hospital.
At one point during the MRI, his heart rate plummeted, and doctors had to resuscitate him.
When he left the hospital, he was unable to walk or speak.
Brian Fox said the jury awarded damages of $5 million for his son’s pain and suffering, $5 million for Jason’s parents’ loss of their child, and $5 million for Jason’s wrongful death.
Andrew C. Meyer Jr., a prominent Boston medical malpractice lawyer who represents plaintiffs, said the $15 million was unusually large, given that the alleged malpractice did not lead to years of costly ongoing medical care.
However, the Foxes will not receive $15 million. Dailey said the defendants in the case agreed during jury deliberations to guarantee plaintiffs a minimum amount of damages, regardless of the verdict, in exchange for a cap on possible damages. Dailey declined to specify what the cap was.
Brian Fox’s trial lawyer, James Fox, a cousin who practices in California, would not confirm that such an agreement was reached.
The Board of Registration in Medicine is still investigating Lock and one of the physicians who was found negligent, Dr. Peter Laussen, who directed the cardiac intensive care unit, a board spokesman said yesterday.
The board reopened the investigation last year after learning that the hospital may not have provided complete information about the treatment the doctors gave Jason.
Brian Fox said yesterday that the board initiated an investigation this summer into DiNardo’s actions, as well.
Here is the story from Boston.com:
A Suffolk County jury yesterday found that two doctors at Children’s Hospital Boston - one of them the hospital’s former physician in chief - had caused the death of a 3-year-old Pennsylvania boy and voted to award his parents $15 million in damages.
The actual damage award will be less because of an agreement reached by the parties before the verdict. But legal specialists said the amount voted by the jury was unusually large for a medical malpractice case involving a death. Awards of that size are more common in cases in which a patient is severely injured as a result of malpractice and requires years of costly treatment, they said.
After deliberating four days, the Superior Court jury found that Dr. James Lock, until last year the physician in chief, and Dr. James A. DiNardo, an anesthesiologist, caused the death of Jason Fox, said the child’s father, Brian Fox, of suburban Philadelphia.
The boy died in December 2004, a year and a half after undergoing a procedure at the hospital for a birth defect.
Fox said he and his wife, Andrea, believe doctors lied about their actions when treating Jason.
“The only protection individuals have when you go up against powerful Harvard, top-ranked physicians is the jury system, and that worked,’’ said Fox in a phone interview.
Jason went into Children’s “a playful and active little boy,’’ he said. “When he came out of the hospital, he was flown by air ambulance to a neurological rehabilitation facility near where we lived.’’
But William J. Dailey Jr., the Boston lawyer for Lock and DiNardo and two other doctors who were found negligent but not responsible for the death, said he was stunned by the verdict.
He said Jason had undergone eight unsuccessful procedures before his parents took him to Children’s in a desperate effort to save his life.
“He had as severe an underlying congenital heart disease as you could have,’’ Dailey said. “If something could have been done in Boston, it would have been extraordinary.’’In an e-mail to Children’s staff about the verdict, Dr. James Mandell, chief executive of the hospital, wrote: “We are surprised and disappointed in this finding. We are confident that our clinicians provided outstanding care to this very sick child.’’
Michelle Davis, a hospital spokeswoman, said that the doctors will not appeal and that Lock’s stepping down as physician in chief was unrelated to the case.
“There is no doubt that he is an extremely important leader and continues to be an extremely important leader at Children’s Hospital Boston,’’ she said. “We have no doubts about his ability or his leadership.’’
Jason was born in July 2001 with Tetralogy of Fallot, a complex but usually treatable birth defect that affects the flow of blood through the heart. In his case, the defect was particularly serious and prevented his blood from carrying enough oxygen to his organs and limbs.
During the first two years of his life, Jason underwent open heart surgery and had seven cardiac catheterizations at Children’s laceType w:st="on">HospitallaceType> of laceName w:st="on">PhiladelphialaceName> to try to widen the arteries that carry blood to his lungs.
Doctors in Philadelphia referred Jason to Lock, who pioneered the use of catheterization to repair cardiac birth defects. Lock agreed to try to widen more of the boy’s pulmonary arteries.
Hours after the child’s second catheterization, on April 18, 2003, Jason suffered a seizure. A CAT scan showed that contrast dye, which is injected during the procedure so doctors can better see the patient’s anatomy, had leaked into his brain.
After his seizure, Jason was transferred to the cardiac ICU and was given two MRIs to gauge the extent of his brain damage.
During the first MRI, doctors discovered a tiny piece of metal lodged in the boy’s brain, probably from a medical instrument, although it is uncertain whether it broke off during a procedure at Children’s or a previous procedure at another hospital.
At one point during the MRI, his heart rate plummeted, and doctors had to resuscitate him.
When he left the hospital, he was unable to walk or speak.
Brian Fox said the jury awarded damages of $5 million for his son’s pain and suffering, $5 million for Jason’s parents’ loss of their child, and $5 million for Jason’s wrongful death.
Andrew C. Meyer Jr., a prominent Boston medical malpractice lawyer who represents plaintiffs, said the $15 million was unusually large, given that the alleged malpractice did not lead to years of costly ongoing medical care.
However, the Foxes will not receive $15 million. Dailey said the defendants in the case agreed during jury deliberations to guarantee plaintiffs a minimum amount of damages, regardless of the verdict, in exchange for a cap on possible damages. Dailey declined to specify what the cap was.
Brian Fox’s trial lawyer, James Fox, a cousin who practices in California, would not confirm that such an agreement was reached.
The Board of Registration in Medicine is still investigating Lock and one of the physicians who was found negligent, Dr. Peter Laussen, who directed the cardiac intensive care unit, a board spokesman said yesterday.
The board reopened the investigation last year after learning that the hospital may not have provided complete information about the treatment the doctors gave Jason.
Brian Fox said yesterday that the board initiated an investigation this summer into DiNardo’s actions, as well.
Possible Damages in Personal Injury Lawsuit
By: LawInfo
Published: 10/2009
Accidents can result in significant personal injuries that create many expenses for the victim and can cause extreme financial hardships for the victim and the victim’s family. It seems unfair that a victim should have to suffer the physical and financial consequences of an accident for which the victim was not at fault. Therefore, the law allows personal injury victims to bring lawsuits against the person(s) responsible for their injuries. All United States jurisdictions allow plaintiffs who bring successful cases in state court to recover damages. While each jurisdiction may differ on the dollar amount of damages provided in individual cases, there are some common types of damages that are allowed in most jurisdictions.
Personal injury damages are intended to put a personal injury victim back in the position that he or she would have been had the accident not occurred. While a lawsuit cannot erase the physical pain and emotional suffering of an injured victim, or his survivors, a lawsuit can provide relief from the financial suffering that the victim and his family incur as a result of the accident. Specifically, damages may include:
Compensation for Medical Expenses: this may include past, current and future medical expenses and rehabilitation costs that are related to your injuries. You may submit evidence of bills already received and doctor and therapist estimates of your future medical needs;
Compensation for Actual Expenses Incurred as a Result of the Accident: your injuries may leave you unable to care for your minor children, unable to care for an elderly relative, unable to clean your home, unable to cook your meals or unable to run your own errands. It can be very expensive to hire people to take over these responsibilities for you and you may be entitled to compensation for these expenses if you are successful in a personal injury lawsuit. Similarly, if the personal injury victim dies as a result of the injuries sustained in an accident then his family may be entitled to compensation for his funeral costs;
Compensation for Lost Income: If your injuries leave you unable to work, unable to work as many hours as you did prior to the accident, or unable to remain in the same job that you had before the accident then you may be entitled to lost income that you are now unable to earn because of your injuries. You may also be entitled to compensation for lost income if a family member whom you relied upon for income (such as your spouse or parent) died as a result of personal injuries from an accident;
Compensation for Pain and Suffering: personal injury victims, or their survivors, may be entitled to compensation for pain and suffering that you incur as a result of your injuries. Your spouse may also be able to recover damages for loss of consortium as a result of your injuries.
Punitive Damages: in extreme and extraordinary cases of negligence, some jurisdictions may allow the court to award the plaintiff punitive damages that are not meant to compensate the plaintiff but, are rather meant to punish the defendant.
Personal injury law seeks to put the plaintiff back in the financial position that he was prior to the accident. The law recognizes that there is no way to undo all of the harmful effects of an accident but monetary damages can be important to a victim’s financial, physical and emotional recovery.
Published: 10/2009
Accidents can result in significant personal injuries that create many expenses for the victim and can cause extreme financial hardships for the victim and the victim’s family. It seems unfair that a victim should have to suffer the physical and financial consequences of an accident for which the victim was not at fault. Therefore, the law allows personal injury victims to bring lawsuits against the person(s) responsible for their injuries. All United States jurisdictions allow plaintiffs who bring successful cases in state court to recover damages. While each jurisdiction may differ on the dollar amount of damages provided in individual cases, there are some common types of damages that are allowed in most jurisdictions.
Personal injury damages are intended to put a personal injury victim back in the position that he or she would have been had the accident not occurred. While a lawsuit cannot erase the physical pain and emotional suffering of an injured victim, or his survivors, a lawsuit can provide relief from the financial suffering that the victim and his family incur as a result of the accident. Specifically, damages may include:
Compensation for Medical Expenses: this may include past, current and future medical expenses and rehabilitation costs that are related to your injuries. You may submit evidence of bills already received and doctor and therapist estimates of your future medical needs;
Compensation for Actual Expenses Incurred as a Result of the Accident: your injuries may leave you unable to care for your minor children, unable to care for an elderly relative, unable to clean your home, unable to cook your meals or unable to run your own errands. It can be very expensive to hire people to take over these responsibilities for you and you may be entitled to compensation for these expenses if you are successful in a personal injury lawsuit. Similarly, if the personal injury victim dies as a result of the injuries sustained in an accident then his family may be entitled to compensation for his funeral costs;
Compensation for Lost Income: If your injuries leave you unable to work, unable to work as many hours as you did prior to the accident, or unable to remain in the same job that you had before the accident then you may be entitled to lost income that you are now unable to earn because of your injuries. You may also be entitled to compensation for lost income if a family member whom you relied upon for income (such as your spouse or parent) died as a result of personal injuries from an accident;
Compensation for Pain and Suffering: personal injury victims, or their survivors, may be entitled to compensation for pain and suffering that you incur as a result of your injuries. Your spouse may also be able to recover damages for loss of consortium as a result of your injuries.
Punitive Damages: in extreme and extraordinary cases of negligence, some jurisdictions may allow the court to award the plaintiff punitive damages that are not meant to compensate the plaintiff but, are rather meant to punish the defendant.
Personal injury law seeks to put the plaintiff back in the financial position that he was prior to the accident. The law recognizes that there is no way to undo all of the harmful effects of an accident but monetary damages can be important to a victim’s financial, physical and emotional recovery.
U.S. teens ignore laws against texting while driving
Fri, Dec 11 2009
By Dan Whitcomb
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Karen Cordova, a 17-year-old high school student and part-time supermarket cashier, admits she sometimes texts friends while driving home from work late at night, lonely and bored.
The Arizona teenager knows it's illegal in Phoenix and dangerous. She once almost drifted into oncoming traffic while looking at her phone.
But would a nationwide ban stop Cordova and her friends from texting in their cars? No way, she said.
"Nobody is going to listen," Cordova said.
With momentum building in Washington for all 50 U.S. states to outlaw text messaging behind the wheel, there is evidence that the key demographic targeted by such legislation, teen drivers, will not pay much attention.
At least one major study has found that, with mobile devices now central to their lives, young people often ignore laws against using cell phones or texting in the car.
The number of text messages is up tenfold in the past three years and Americans sent an estimated 1 trillion in 2009.
Some police agencies, while strongly in favor of such mandates, say its tough for officers to enforce them.
The California Highway Patrol has handed out nearly 163,000 tickets to drivers talking on hand-held phones since mid-2008. But it has issued only 1,400 texting citations since January in a state of 23 million drivers — not for lack of trying.
"The handheld cell phone is relatively easy for us to spot, we can see when somebody has their phone up to their ear," CHP spokeswoman Fran Clader said.
"But with the texting it's a little bit more of a challenge to catch them in the act, because we have to see it and if they are holding it down in their lap it's going to be harder for us to see."
Already 19 states and the District of Columbia ban texting by all drivers, while 9 others prohibit it by young drivers.
TEXTING CAUSES ACCIDENTS
In July, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, citing a study that found texting drivers were 23 times more likely to be in an accident, introduced a bill requiring states to prohibit the practice or risk losing federal highway funds.
Since then, Senator Jay Rockefeller has offered his own bill that would achieve the ban through grants to states.
In October, during a three-day conference in Washington on distracted driving, President Barack Obama signed an executive order barring federal employees from texting behind the wheel.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said he would seek to expand that rule to bus drivers and truckers who cross state lines and called the conference "probably the most important meeting in the history of the Department of Transportation."
But a much-cited study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that usage of cell phones for calls and texting in North Carolina actually ticked up slightly after the state banned them for drivers under the age of 18.
A study by the Automobile Club of Southern California found that texting by drivers dropped after the state's law took effect, but it did not break down the data by age.
"What I would say is that texting and cell phone devices have become such a component of life for teens and for young people that it's hard for them to differentiate between doing something normal and doing something wrong," said Steven Bloch, senior research associate for the Automobile Club.
The problem is not unique to the United States. In Britain, a public service announcement on texting while driving drew worldwide attention for its extremely graphic imagery.
The spot shows three texting teen girls in a horrific head-on collision with another car, and lingers on shots of their bloodied faces shattering the windshield as a child whose parents have been killed cries for her dead mother to wake up.
In 2007, Phoenix became one of the first U.S. cities to ban texting while driving, although Arizona still has no statewide law.
Out of a group of four high school students interviewed by Reuters in Phoenix, three admitted texting while driving and a fourth said he had stopped only after his cousin caused a serious traffic accident while sending a message.
Cordova's classmate, 17-year-old Anna Hauer, says she often texts her boyfriend when she drives and doubts she or her friends would stop because of new legislation.
"By the time they pull you over, the chances are you are going to be done with your text anyway so they can't exactly prove that you were texting," she said.
(Additional reporting by Tim Gaynor in Phoenix and Sinead Carew in New York; editing by Mohammad Zargham)
By Dan Whitcomb
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Karen Cordova, a 17-year-old high school student and part-time supermarket cashier, admits she sometimes texts friends while driving home from work late at night, lonely and bored.
The Arizona teenager knows it's illegal in Phoenix and dangerous. She once almost drifted into oncoming traffic while looking at her phone.
But would a nationwide ban stop Cordova and her friends from texting in their cars? No way, she said.
"Nobody is going to listen," Cordova said.
With momentum building in Washington for all 50 U.S. states to outlaw text messaging behind the wheel, there is evidence that the key demographic targeted by such legislation, teen drivers, will not pay much attention.
At least one major study has found that, with mobile devices now central to their lives, young people often ignore laws against using cell phones or texting in the car.
The number of text messages is up tenfold in the past three years and Americans sent an estimated 1 trillion in 2009.
Some police agencies, while strongly in favor of such mandates, say its tough for officers to enforce them.
The California Highway Patrol has handed out nearly 163,000 tickets to drivers talking on hand-held phones since mid-2008. But it has issued only 1,400 texting citations since January in a state of 23 million drivers — not for lack of trying.
"The handheld cell phone is relatively easy for us to spot, we can see when somebody has their phone up to their ear," CHP spokeswoman Fran Clader said.
"But with the texting it's a little bit more of a challenge to catch them in the act, because we have to see it and if they are holding it down in their lap it's going to be harder for us to see."
Already 19 states and the District of Columbia ban texting by all drivers, while 9 others prohibit it by young drivers.
TEXTING CAUSES ACCIDENTS
In July, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, citing a study that found texting drivers were 23 times more likely to be in an accident, introduced a bill requiring states to prohibit the practice or risk losing federal highway funds.
Since then, Senator Jay Rockefeller has offered his own bill that would achieve the ban through grants to states.
In October, during a three-day conference in Washington on distracted driving, President Barack Obama signed an executive order barring federal employees from texting behind the wheel.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said he would seek to expand that rule to bus drivers and truckers who cross state lines and called the conference "probably the most important meeting in the history of the Department of Transportation."
But a much-cited study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that usage of cell phones for calls and texting in North Carolina actually ticked up slightly after the state banned them for drivers under the age of 18.
A study by the Automobile Club of Southern California found that texting by drivers dropped after the state's law took effect, but it did not break down the data by age.
"What I would say is that texting and cell phone devices have become such a component of life for teens and for young people that it's hard for them to differentiate between doing something normal and doing something wrong," said Steven Bloch, senior research associate for the Automobile Club.
The problem is not unique to the United States. In Britain, a public service announcement on texting while driving drew worldwide attention for its extremely graphic imagery.
The spot shows three texting teen girls in a horrific head-on collision with another car, and lingers on shots of their bloodied faces shattering the windshield as a child whose parents have been killed cries for her dead mother to wake up.
In 2007, Phoenix became one of the first U.S. cities to ban texting while driving, although Arizona still has no statewide law.
Out of a group of four high school students interviewed by Reuters in Phoenix, three admitted texting while driving and a fourth said he had stopped only after his cousin caused a serious traffic accident while sending a message.
Cordova's classmate, 17-year-old Anna Hauer, says she often texts her boyfriend when she drives and doubts she or her friends would stop because of new legislation.
"By the time they pull you over, the chances are you are going to be done with your text anyway so they can't exactly prove that you were texting," she said.
(Additional reporting by Tim Gaynor in Phoenix and Sinead Carew in New York; editing by Mohammad Zargham)
Cell Phone Driving Laws
December 2009
Current state cell phone driving law highlights include the following:
* Handheld Cell Phone Bans for All Drivers: 6 states (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington), the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands prohibit all drivers from talking on handheld cell phones while driving.
o With the exception of Washington, these laws are all primary enforcement—an officer may ticket a driver for using a handheld cell phone while driving without any other traffic offense taking place.
* All Cell Phone Bans: No state completely bans all types of cell phone use (handheld and hands-free) for all drivers, but many prohibit cell phone use by certain segments of the population.
o Novice Drivers: 21 states and the District of Columbia ban all cell use by novice drivers.
o School Bus Drivers: In 17 states and the District of Columbia, school bus drivers are prohibited from all cell phone use when passengers are present.
* Text Messaging: 19 states, the District of Columbia and Guam now ban text messaging for all drivers.
o Novice Drivers: 9 states prohibit text messaging by novice drivers.
o School Bus Drivers: 1 state restricts school bus drivers from texting while driving.
* Preemption Laws: 6 states have laws that prohibit local jurisdictions from enacting restrictions. In other states, localities are allowed to ban cell phone use or texting while driving.
* Some states, such as Maine, New Hampshire and Utah treat cell phone use as a larger distracted driving issue.
o Utah considers speaking on a cellphone to be an offense only if a driver is also committing some other moving violation (other than speeding).
1 Illinois bans the use of cell phones while driving in a school zone or in a highway construction zone.
2 Maine has passed a law making it against the law to drive while distracted in the state.
3 In Michigan, teens with probationary licenses whose cell phone usage contributes to a traffic crash or ticket may not use a cell phone while driving.
4 Dealt with as a distracted driving issue; New Hampshire enacted a comprehensive distracted driving law.
5 Texas has banned the use of hand-held phones and texting in school crossing zones.
6 Utah's law defines careless driving as committing a moving violation (other than speeding) while distracted by use of a handheld cellphone or other activities not related to driving.
Sources: American Automobile Association (AAA), Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and State Highway Safety Offices.
Current state cell phone driving law highlights include the following:
* Handheld Cell Phone Bans for All Drivers: 6 states (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington), the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands prohibit all drivers from talking on handheld cell phones while driving.
o With the exception of Washington, these laws are all primary enforcement—an officer may ticket a driver for using a handheld cell phone while driving without any other traffic offense taking place.
* All Cell Phone Bans: No state completely bans all types of cell phone use (handheld and hands-free) for all drivers, but many prohibit cell phone use by certain segments of the population.
o Novice Drivers: 21 states and the District of Columbia ban all cell use by novice drivers.
o School Bus Drivers: In 17 states and the District of Columbia, school bus drivers are prohibited from all cell phone use when passengers are present.
* Text Messaging: 19 states, the District of Columbia and Guam now ban text messaging for all drivers.
o Novice Drivers: 9 states prohibit text messaging by novice drivers.
o School Bus Drivers: 1 state restricts school bus drivers from texting while driving.
* Preemption Laws: 6 states have laws that prohibit local jurisdictions from enacting restrictions. In other states, localities are allowed to ban cell phone use or texting while driving.
* Some states, such as Maine, New Hampshire and Utah treat cell phone use as a larger distracted driving issue.
o Utah considers speaking on a cellphone to be an offense only if a driver is also committing some other moving violation (other than speeding).
State |
Hand- |
Enforce- |
All Cell Phone Ban |
Text Messaging Ban |
Crash |
Pre- |
|||||
School Bus Drivers |
Novice Drivers |
Enforce- |
All Drivers |
School Bus Drivers |
Novice Drivers |
Enforce- |
|||||
| Alabama | |||||||||||
| Alaska | Yes | Covered under all driver ban | Primary | Yes | |||||||
| Arizona | Yes | Primary | |||||||||
| Arkansas | Yes | <18; 18 - 20 can use hands free only | Primary: bus drivers Secondary: novice drivers |
Yes | Covered under all driver ban | Primary | Yes | ||||
| California | Yes | Primary | Yes | <18 | Primary: bus drivers Secondary: novice drivers |
Yes | Covered under all driver ban | Primary | Yes | ||
| Colorado | <18 | Primary | Yes | Covered under all driver ban | Primary | Yes | |||||
| Connecticut | Yes | Primary | Yes | Learners Permit and <18 | Primary | Yes | Covered under all driver ban | Primary | |||
| Delaware | Yes | Learner's permit and intermediate license holders | Primary | Learner's permit and intermediate license holders | Primary | Yes | |||||
| D.C. | Yes | Primary | Yes | Learners Permit | Primary | Yes | Covered under all driver ban | Primary | Yes | ||
| Florida | Yes | ||||||||||
| Georgia | Yes | Primary | Yes | ||||||||
| Guam | Yes | Covered under all driver ban | Primary | ||||||||
| Hawaii | |||||||||||
| Idaho | |||||||||||
| Illinois 1 | See footnote | Yes | <19 | Primary | Yes | Covered under all driver ban | Primary | Yes | |||
| Indiana | <18 | Primary | <18 | Primary | Yes | ||||||
| Iowa | Yes | ||||||||||
| Kansas | Learner or Intermediate License | Primary | Learner or Intermediate License | Primary | Yes | ||||||
| Kentucky | Yes | Primary | Yes | ||||||||
| Louisiana | Yes | Yes (eff. 4/10) |
Primary: bus drivers Secondary: novice drivers |
Yes | Covered under all driver ban | Secondary | Yes | Yes | |||
| Maine 2 | <18 | Primary | <18 | Primary | Yes | ||||||
| Maryland | <18 w/ Learner or Provisional License | Secondary | Yes | Covered under all driver ban | Primary | Yes | |||||
| Massachusetts | Yes | Primary | Yes | ||||||||
| Michigan 3 | See footnote | Yes | |||||||||
| Minnesota | Yes | <18 w/ Learner or Provisional License | Primary | Yes | Covered under all driver ban | Primary | Yes | ||||
| Mississippi | Learner or Provisional License | Primary | Yes | ||||||||
| Missouri | <21 | Primary | |||||||||
| Montana | Yes | ||||||||||
| Nebraska | <18 w/ Learners or Provisional License | Secondary | <18 w/ Learners or Provisional License | Secondary | Yes | ||||||
| Nevada | Yes | Yes | |||||||||
| New Hampshire 4 | Yes | Covered under all driver ban | Primary | ||||||||
| New Jersey | Yes | Primary | Yes | <21 w/ GDL or Provisional License | Primary | Yes | Covered under all driver ban | Primary | Yes | ||
| New Mexico | In State vehicles | Yes | |||||||||
| New York | Yes | Primary | Yes | Covered under all driver ban | Secondary | Yes | |||||
| North Carolina | Yes | <18 | Primary | Yes | Covered under all driver ban | Primary | |||||
| North Dakota | Yes | ||||||||||
| Ohio | |||||||||||
| Oklahoma | Yes | Yes | |||||||||
| Oregon | Yes | Primary | <18 | Primary | Yes | Covered under all driver ban | Primary | Yes | |||
| Pennsylvania | Yes | ||||||||||
| Rhode Island | Yes | <18 | Primary | Yes | Primary | ||||||
| South Carolina | |||||||||||
| South Dakota | Yes | ||||||||||
| Tennessee | Yes | Learners Permit or Intermediate License | Primary | Yes | Covered under all driver ban | Primary | Yes | ||||
| Texas 5 | Yes, w/ passenger <17 | Intermediate Stage, 1st 12 mos. | Primary | Yes, w/ passenger <17 | Intermediate Stage, 1st 12 mos. | Primary | Yes | ||||
| Utah 6 | See footnote | Yes | Covered under all driver ban | Primary | Yes | ||||||
| Vermont | |||||||||||
| Virgin Islands | Yes | No data | Yes | ||||||||
| Virginia | Yes | <18 | Primary: bus drivers Secondary: novice drivers |
Yes | Covered under all driver ban | Secondary Primary: bus drivers |
Yes | ||||
| Washington | Yes | Secondary | Yes | Covered under all driver ban | Secondary | Yes | |||||
| West Virginia | Learner or Intermediate Stage | Primary | Learner or Intermediate Stage | Primary | |||||||
| Wisconsin | |||||||||||
| Wyoming | Yes | ||||||||||
| Total | 6 + D.C., Virgin Islands | Primary (5) Secondary (1) |
17 + D.C. All Primary |
21 + D.C. Primary (15 + D.C.) Secondary (6) |
19 + D.C., Guam Primary (17 + D.C., Guam) Secondary (2) |
1 Primary |
9 Primary (8) Secondary (1) |
33 + D.C., Virgin Islands | 6 | ||
1 Illinois bans the use of cell phones while driving in a school zone or in a highway construction zone.
2 Maine has passed a law making it against the law to drive while distracted in the state.
3 In Michigan, teens with probationary licenses whose cell phone usage contributes to a traffic crash or ticket may not use a cell phone while driving.
4 Dealt with as a distracted driving issue; New Hampshire enacted a comprehensive distracted driving law.
5 Texas has banned the use of hand-held phones and texting in school crossing zones.
6 Utah's law defines careless driving as committing a moving violation (other than speeding) while distracted by use of a handheld cellphone or other activities not related to driving.
Sources: American Automobile Association (AAA), Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and State Highway Safety Offices.
Have You Really Suffered an Injury?
As employees of a Personal Injury Law Office, we have encountered numerous times when a defendant's insurance company says, "There's no damage to the car, therefore your client could not have been hurt".
We at The Personal Injury Team have researched and gathered some expert opinions from various "Learned Professional Journals" to help refute that argument. The experts are Orthopedic Surgeons, Neuron Surgeons, Neurologists, and an Engineer. The following is an example.
Whiplash Syndrome....Fact or Fiction?
The Cervical spine is frequently injured as a result of motor vehicle trauma. "Whiplash" has become an emotional term, common in the popular vocabulary, frequently use by attorneys, a term of derision by comedians, and, sometimes, the object of scorn by physicians. The same patient may be viewed by different physicians as an individual with a significant alteration in function capability, or alternatively, as an individual with a partially imaginary or magnified array of symptoms.
We believe the evidence suggests that this syndrome is real and is manifested by symptoms consistent with the anatomic injury sustained, that it has the potential to cause significant impairment, and that it benefits from a rational approach to treatment.
Definition
Cervical whiplash is an injury to the soft tissue structures about the cervical spine. The term is most accurately defined as a musculoligamentous sprain/strain of the cervical region. The diagnosis is determined by the history provided, by the mechanism of injury, the symptoms, and the physical findings of examination. The diagnosis excludes fracture or dislocations of the cervical spine and herniation of the intervertebral discs.
MECHANISM OF INJURY
The strength and response of the human neck to injury has been studied extensively. Testing has been performed utilizing various models including dummies, primates, and even volunteers. Early experimental models were relatively simple representations of the human cervical spine. More recently, complex models have allowed for sophisticated analysis in order to produce controlled experimental analysis. Forces of injury to the cervical area may include axial compression and distraction, flexion and extension, and rotary and shearing forces.
In an 8-mile-per-hour rear-end collision, a 2 G force of acceleration of the vehicle may result in a 5 G force of acceleration of the occiput and head. The amount of damage to the automobile may bear little relationship to the forces applied to the cervical spine and the injury sustained by the cervical spine. Some automobile safety features may influence the extent of cervical injury. The strength of the seat back, the position of the head rest, the use of a seatbelt and shoulder strap, and the presence of an air bag all may play a role. Seatbelts, which minimize injury to the chest wall and head, may intensify the potential for cervical trauma by restricting motion of the lower body.
Following a rear-end impact, the driver will accelerate forward; because of inertia, the neck hyperextends beyond its normal range. The hyperextention force generally centers at about the C5-C6 cervical level. Hyperextensions may be followed by flexion, which is limited when the chin strikes the chest.
Volume 19/Number 4
October 1988
Stuart A. Hirsch, MD, Paul J. Hirsch, MD, Harlan Hiramoto, MD, and Andrew
Weiss, MD.
We at The Personal Injury Team have researched and gathered some expert opinions from various "Learned Professional Journals" to help refute that argument. The experts are Orthopedic Surgeons, Neuron Surgeons, Neurologists, and an Engineer. The following is an example.
Whiplash Syndrome....Fact or Fiction?
The Cervical spine is frequently injured as a result of motor vehicle trauma. "Whiplash" has become an emotional term, common in the popular vocabulary, frequently use by attorneys, a term of derision by comedians, and, sometimes, the object of scorn by physicians. The same patient may be viewed by different physicians as an individual with a significant alteration in function capability, or alternatively, as an individual with a partially imaginary or magnified array of symptoms.
We believe the evidence suggests that this syndrome is real and is manifested by symptoms consistent with the anatomic injury sustained, that it has the potential to cause significant impairment, and that it benefits from a rational approach to treatment.
Definition
Cervical whiplash is an injury to the soft tissue structures about the cervical spine. The term is most accurately defined as a musculoligamentous sprain/strain of the cervical region. The diagnosis is determined by the history provided, by the mechanism of injury, the symptoms, and the physical findings of examination. The diagnosis excludes fracture or dislocations of the cervical spine and herniation of the intervertebral discs.
MECHANISM OF INJURY
The strength and response of the human neck to injury has been studied extensively. Testing has been performed utilizing various models including dummies, primates, and even volunteers. Early experimental models were relatively simple representations of the human cervical spine. More recently, complex models have allowed for sophisticated analysis in order to produce controlled experimental analysis. Forces of injury to the cervical area may include axial compression and distraction, flexion and extension, and rotary and shearing forces.
In an 8-mile-per-hour rear-end collision, a 2 G force of acceleration of the vehicle may result in a 5 G force of acceleration of the occiput and head. The amount of damage to the automobile may bear little relationship to the forces applied to the cervical spine and the injury sustained by the cervical spine. Some automobile safety features may influence the extent of cervical injury. The strength of the seat back, the position of the head rest, the use of a seatbelt and shoulder strap, and the presence of an air bag all may play a role. Seatbelts, which minimize injury to the chest wall and head, may intensify the potential for cervical trauma by restricting motion of the lower body.
Following a rear-end impact, the driver will accelerate forward; because of inertia, the neck hyperextends beyond its normal range. The hyperextention force generally centers at about the C5-C6 cervical level. Hyperextensions may be followed by flexion, which is limited when the chin strikes the chest.
Volume 19/Number 4
October 1988
Stuart A. Hirsch, MD, Paul J. Hirsch, MD, Harlan Hiramoto, MD, and Andrew
Weiss, MD.
Why Personal Injury Cases Can Take So Long To Reach a Just Settlement
In this article, I will attempt to pin down the inherent causes of the anxiety and impatience some people feel when their personal injury case seems to drag on forever, with no clear resolution in site. Personal injury litigation can sometimes take years, with little hope in sight, at times, of seeing any substantial reward. But that’s no reason to lose hope, as with a little perseverance and the law (and a good personal injury lawyer) on your side, justice is not so far-fetched an idea after all.
It’s very common to be upset at your lawyer after your personal injury lawsuit is filed, due to such a long time passing between the time the lawsuit commences and any settlement or trial. In most states, the other party’s insurance company owes you no duty to settle quickly. Your case can be settled before trial, or consequently drag on long after the trial is over. The insurance company knows you’re in a hurry to settle your case, and uses this fact to try to get you to settle for less. Here’s a partial list of some of the things that can happen to slow down your case: Discovery This is the insurance company’s opportunity to “discover” everything about you and the accident. You’ll get lots of written questions to answer under oath. You’ll have to produce documents and medical records, plus admit or deny specific written statements put to you.
You and your lawyer will need to gather up all the medical records, bills and other documentation of your injuries. Some of these must be obtained in a specific way to make them admissible at trial. You’ll likely to be subjected to grilling over the smallest of details. Motion Hearings The insurance company lawyers may have what feels like an endless capacity to file motions and go to hearings on motions. Some of these motions are unimportant to you, but some may be critical to your case. Mediation Many courts are forcing lawyers to mediate or arbitrate cases prior to trial. Some courts won’t even give you a trial date until you do so.
Mediation is typically a settlement conference without the formalities of court. A neutral party will try to help the parties reach a middle ground. It’s not usually “binding” - meaning the parties are stuck with the result - unless the parties reach an agreement and write up a settlement agreement. Arbitration is a different breed altogether. It’s often a binding “mini-trial” of the case in front of an arbitrator, or panel of judges who listen to an informal presentation of the matters involved in your case. Trial. If your case doesn’t settle, it must go to trial, where six or twelve strangers will decide what your injury is worth.
Trials are scheduled on the court’s schedule, not the lawyers’ schedule. This means cases sometimes take years to be scheduled for trial, especially in some major urban areas. Having a case that is two or three years old before going to trial is not uncommon. And once you have a trial, your case may not terminate.
There may be an appeal as well as further motions and hearings to deal with. Collection Issues You may experience difficulty collecting from the insurance company or the person responsible for your injury. The insurance lawyer will have to have a check or draft issued by the company. And before they send you your money, you will be required to sign a release document and file some sort of dismissal motion. Settlements after litigation can be very disappointing after spending years battling in the courts to get what’s rightfully yours. Sometimes it is better to settle before trial for a certain amount, rather than to go through the process and end up with a small settlement or perhaps a bad result at trial. The main thing is to hang in there, and try to find the most competent personal injury lawyer possible for your case. They will know what the best course of action is.
Posted on: 5/4/2009
Written By: Chris Robideaux from National Association of Personal Injury Lawyers
It’s very common to be upset at your lawyer after your personal injury lawsuit is filed, due to such a long time passing between the time the lawsuit commences and any settlement or trial. In most states, the other party’s insurance company owes you no duty to settle quickly. Your case can be settled before trial, or consequently drag on long after the trial is over. The insurance company knows you’re in a hurry to settle your case, and uses this fact to try to get you to settle for less. Here’s a partial list of some of the things that can happen to slow down your case: Discovery This is the insurance company’s opportunity to “discover” everything about you and the accident. You’ll get lots of written questions to answer under oath. You’ll have to produce documents and medical records, plus admit or deny specific written statements put to you.
You and your lawyer will need to gather up all the medical records, bills and other documentation of your injuries. Some of these must be obtained in a specific way to make them admissible at trial. You’ll likely to be subjected to grilling over the smallest of details. Motion Hearings The insurance company lawyers may have what feels like an endless capacity to file motions and go to hearings on motions. Some of these motions are unimportant to you, but some may be critical to your case. Mediation Many courts are forcing lawyers to mediate or arbitrate cases prior to trial. Some courts won’t even give you a trial date until you do so.
Mediation is typically a settlement conference without the formalities of court. A neutral party will try to help the parties reach a middle ground. It’s not usually “binding” - meaning the parties are stuck with the result - unless the parties reach an agreement and write up a settlement agreement. Arbitration is a different breed altogether. It’s often a binding “mini-trial” of the case in front of an arbitrator, or panel of judges who listen to an informal presentation of the matters involved in your case. Trial. If your case doesn’t settle, it must go to trial, where six or twelve strangers will decide what your injury is worth.
Trials are scheduled on the court’s schedule, not the lawyers’ schedule. This means cases sometimes take years to be scheduled for trial, especially in some major urban areas. Having a case that is two or three years old before going to trial is not uncommon. And once you have a trial, your case may not terminate.
There may be an appeal as well as further motions and hearings to deal with. Collection Issues You may experience difficulty collecting from the insurance company or the person responsible for your injury. The insurance lawyer will have to have a check or draft issued by the company. And before they send you your money, you will be required to sign a release document and file some sort of dismissal motion. Settlements after litigation can be very disappointing after spending years battling in the courts to get what’s rightfully yours. Sometimes it is better to settle before trial for a certain amount, rather than to go through the process and end up with a small settlement or perhaps a bad result at trial. The main thing is to hang in there, and try to find the most competent personal injury lawyer possible for your case. They will know what the best course of action is.
Posted on: 5/4/2009
Written By: Chris Robideaux from National Association of Personal Injury Lawyers