Wilmington Personal Injury Lawyer

Jury Awards $18 Million in Tractor Trailer Accident

Gary Shipman — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:53:44 GMT

A jury in Wyoming has awarded more than $18 million to a man injured in a tractor-trailer accident in 2006. The plaintiff, an Irish immigrant, suffered a severe traumatic brain injury when the vehicle he was driving was struck by a tractor-trailer truck attempting to merge onto a busy interstate, causing the vehicle to spin and ultimately be struck by another tractor-trailer.

Lawyers for the man argued that it is likely that he will never work again, and that his medical expenses for the rest of his life are substantial. The jury agreed, awarding the man more than $15 million, and his wife more than $2 million.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gary Shipman

"Victoria's Secret" Should Have Stayed That Way

Gary Shipman — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:28:48 GMT

Well, we're heading into the 2nd week of the latest "poster child" for Tort Reform in the United States. Thanks goes out to that young, fresh out of law school, attorney from California, and his somewhat large client, who a year after the woman's "near death" experience with an exploding thong, that allegedly caused an eye injury. Prospective jurors across the United States will now forever be asked to compare a case with real merit and real injuries (without regard to the issue of a busted thong) with one that, on the surface and therefore according to most members of the public, appears to have little merit, or said another way, not worthy of the time and attention that it has already received.

Don't get me wrong here; I know the standards to which manufacturers are and should be held. No manufacturer may put a dangerous product in the stream of commerce or fail to provide adequate instructions and warnings. No manufacturer, or for that matter, retailer, can engage in deception in order to sell a product. But please, this lady wore this thong several times, and given the "stresses" to which this thong had therefore been exposed, was this a case that warranted litigation? I think not.

But she and her "just passed the California Bar Exam" lawyer (who, by the way, did a great job of reciting the elements of a products liability case given his recent digestion of that) exercised their "constitutional right" to obtain access and redress through the courts of that State. No doubt, we're likely to hear that this case has been "disposed" of without it ever seeing time before a jury. What that means is that courts (not politicians) are capable of policing what constitutes a good case from a bad case. No meritorious case will fail to see the light of day because of this one case. No political solution, therefore, that further limits valid claims from being brought should be further considered, as there is enough "reform" that has already occurred to last a life time.

I don't know whether the thong was defective or not, but I think that I know whether the "upside", legally, factually and financially, of a case is worth litigating. If the plaintiff's attorney doesn't figure that out for himself, I'm content that a court will. Justice, in any event, will be served, regardless of the outcome of that case. What I hope is that the cases that are truly worthy of respect, legally and factually, do not get categorized with this, where "Victoria's Secret" should have remained so.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gary Shipman

Just Say No To Chantix

Jean Martin — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:16:19 GMT

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration has just announced that truck drivers and bus drivers are not allowed to use the smoking cessation medication Chantix. The Federal Aviation Administration has announced that pilots and air traffic controllers cannot use Chantix. So my question to you is: If this drug is not safe for truck drivers, bus drivers, pilots and air traffic controllers, is it safe for the common Joe Blow out there driving down the highway beside me? What about the soccer moms who are carrying the most precious cargo - their children and your children?

Chantix is associated with violent suicides, suicide attempts, seizures and more. This drug simply is not safe. I just heard a story of a loving mother who shot herself in front of her 3 precious children. This woman had no history of depression, had everything to live for and committed this violent act in front of the three people who meant the most to her. The only change in her recent personal history? Using Chantix to stop smoking.

I am a strong advocate for people to quit smoking, but there are better methods than Chantix. Chantix has not been shown to be more effective than a nicotine patch. So why would anyone risk suicide or seizures? Because they don't know - that's why.

Listen, I personally think that cigarette smoking is quite dangerous to your health. But Chantix is not the answer. The anti-drug campaigns have long used the slogan "Just say no." I say "Just say no to Chantix."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jean Martin

DOT Worker Dies After Being Crushed By Backhoe

Jean Martin — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:09:09 GMT

When my fellow IB partner Steve Lombardi asked me to join in a series of blogs about workers being accidentally backed over by fellow workers, I had no idea that the timing would be so ripe. Unfortunately, last week here in Wilmington, New Hanover county, North Carolina, we experienced such a tragic accident. Jimmy Lee Phillips, a long-time DOT worker, was killed after being struck by a backhoe operated by a fellow DOT worker. Mr. Phillips was standing behind the backhoe when it backed up and crushed him. The accident is still under investigation, but there is no doubt that Mr. Phillips' family is left with many questions.

One has to wonder if spotters were being used. Operators of heavy machinery often have their vision blocked, particularly in backing up. Were there workers who were supposed to be standing guard to prevent such accidents? Did the backhoe have an alarm that sounded when it was operating in reverse? Did the backhoe have such a mechanism, but it didn't work this time or had been dismantled? We often make jokes about such alarms, but they can save lives. Were workers given proper instructions and guidance as to the work that was going to take place and how the machinery would be moving about? Was there a proper work plan to ensure that workers would not be working in an area that was dangerously close to the backhoe? Workers on these types of job sites work in very confined spaces. Safety precautions are absolutely necessary to prevent such accidents.

Our hearts go out to the family of Jimmy Lee Phillips and to the operator of the backhoe as he undoutedly feels much anguish due to the tragic consequences of this accident. Hopefully this accident will serve as a wake-up call for workers and supervisors that proper safety precautions are necessary and equipment needs to be checked prior to each use to ensure that safety mechanisms are working properly.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jean Martin

Shot With Nail Gun - An Increasingly Alarming Headline

Jean Martin — Fri, 30 May 2008 12:41:26 GMT

Young worker shot in head with nail gun

Worker shot with nail gun

These are headlines that I don't enjoy reading. I've read reports that as many as 100 people a day show up in Emergency Rooms with injuries due to nail guns. The Consumer Product Safety Commission says that over $300 million in medical care is spent each year to treat injuries due to nail guns. The situation is becoming so prevalent that even Hollywood is currently shooting a movie entitled Nailed about a woman who gets accidentally shot in the head with a nail gun. At least the early reports of the plot suggests that the woman, in this political satire, goes to Washington, D.C. to fight for the rights of the "bizarrely injured." I don't like the idea of poking fun at those injured by the dangerous tools, but I would agree that a campaign to warn people of the dangers of nail guns needs to be mounted. My InjuryBoard colleague Steve Lombardi has enlisted several of us to start this campaign within the pages of InjuryBoard. Steve started us off with an informative piece entitled "Useful Tools or Dangerous Weapons?" I think the answer to his question is that nail guns are both.

The fact is, more and more people are injured by these useful tools. Nail guns have made hand-nailing almost obsolete due to their quickness and efficiency. The biggest advantage of nail guns is their ability to rapidly fire a nail into a surface and do so repeatedly. However, the quickness and ease of the nail gun sometimes lures people into a false sense of security. Sometimes people use them in precarious situations, meaning perhaps not on stable footing, because they believe the job will be done quickly before they are able to fall. I f you happen to loose your balance just as you pull the trigger, it is possible to fire two or three nails into the same hole. Only the first one makes it in - the other two go off in random directions. Those other directions could be towards a co-worker or family member standing in the same room. An InjuryBoard colleague, Paul Jacquart recently posted about one of his clients who was hit in the head with such a nail when a co-worker was using a nail gun above him.

Nail guns are dangerous tools and must be used with an abundance of caution. To quote another InjuryBoard colleague, David Mittleman, folks must remember that nail guns are useful, but can be dangerous and deadly. Nail guns look easy to use, but we must read the manufacturer's instructions prior to using the nail gun. Wear safety glasses when using a nail gun. When moving about the work area, keep your finger OFF of the trigger. Never assume that the nail gun is empty and never point it towards someone and never use it above someone's head.

Even if you take all precautions, nail guns are still dangerous. Please read a great article by my InjuryBoard colleague Brooks Schuelke on the defective design of many nail guns that pose an inherent risk. As Brooks explains, there are two types of triggers used on nail guns - contact and sequential. The sequential trip-trigger makes unintentional firing of nail guns less likely. With nail gun accidents and injuries on the rise, I simply don't understand why more manufacturers are not using this type of trigger. Consumers, whether professional construction workers or do-it-yourselfers should pay close attention to the type of trigger used with a particular model. Read this safety bulletin that gives you tips on how you can tell which type of trigger you have.

As we enter the warm summer months and start more construction projects, please use all caution when using nail guns. If you or a loved one are injured by a nail gun, then please call an InjuryBoard member who can help you determine what legal rights you may have.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jean Martin

Jury in Ohio Awards $22.6 million in Medical Malpractice Case

Gary Shipman — Wed, 21 May 2008 14:23:48 GMT

A jury in Hamilton County, Ohio, awarded $22.6 million in a medical malpractice case against a doctor and her medical group surrounding the birth of Cassie Grown, now 11, who is a spastic quadriplegic.

The child's mother, experiencing her first pregnancy, had a narrow pelvis arch, and approximately 2 weeks before she gave birth, doctors realized that the child was going to be big, and the plaintiff's attorneys alleged that they should have realized that the child was not going to fit through the mother's birth canal. The mother was in labor for more than 13 hours, during which she was being given drugs to make the uterus contract, which the mother and her attorneys alleged caused brain damage to Cassie.

Cassie has limited use of her limbs, and has to use a walker. She has vision problems and difficulty using her hands.

Birth injuries are often subtle, and on many occaions are not discovered until years after a child is born.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gary Shipman

Is Cancer Insurance Worth The Money?

Jean Martin — Tue, 13 May 2008 16:31:09 GMT

The American Cancer Society estimates that nearly 1.5 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed this year. Let's face it, cancer is a fact of life these days. And as medical expenses continue to soar, naturally so does the cost of cancer treatments. And treatment for cancer not only involves health expenses, but travel expenses, attendant care, nutritional supplements and other incidental expenses. Not surprisingly, cancer insurance policies are becoming more popular. But are they worth it?

Insurance carriers tout cancer insurance as a security blanket that allwos you to focus on your health rather than your expenses. Most cancer insurance policies quote that they will pay "actual charges" up to a certain dollar amount for radiation and chemotherapy, medications, surgeries, transplants, transfusions and other medical expenses. But how does the policy define "actual charges?"

Unfortunately, many cancer policy holders are finding out, after the fact, that the insurance company does not use Webster's Dictionary to define "actual charges" and instead will only pay a discounted amount. Some folks are finding that if Medicare reduced the hospital bill intially to 70%, then the cancer policy will only cover that 70% as an "actual charge." The patient is then left to foot the bill for the remainder.

Currently there is a class action pending against Central United Life Insurance Company for this very issue. However, the class action may not be the best remedy for all policies holders and the time for opting out of the class action is fast approaching - June 3, 2008.

If you or a loved one purchased a cancer insurance policy and found out the hard way that it did not pay as you thought it would, you need to consult an attorney to see if you have any legal remedies available. If you purchased a policy through Central United Life Insurance Company, you need to act quickly to ensure that your rights are protected.

Attorneys associated with InjuryBoard are here to help.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jean Martin

NC Voters Should Educate Themselves Before Supporting Candidates Who Seek Caps On Medical Malpractice Suit Awards

William Wright — Thu, 08 May 2008 14:52:10 GMT

A Fulton County Georgia judge has struck down the cap on monetary awards in a medical malpractice case. If that decision is upheld on appeal it could undercut a major component of Georgia's tort reform laws.that if upheld on appeal could undercut a major component of Georgia's tort reform laws.

Superior Court Judge Marvin Arrington wrote in an order released April 30, 2008 that the legislative cap of $350,000 for noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering was unconstitutional, because it gave special protections to the medical profession. This meant people injured by doctors had less protection than those injured by, say, a manufacturer's product.

This raises an interesting topic for North Carolina voters in the upcoming election. North Carolina voters will be faced with stark choices for Lt. Governor. In 2005, N.C. Senator Mike Pittenger (current Republican candidate for Lt. Governor) sponsored a bill seeking to cap non-economic damages in malpractice lawsuits. The bill Pittenger sponsored is eerily similar to the legislation that Judge Arrington struck as being unconstitutional in Georgia. North Carolina Voters have a choice in this election: candidates who support full and equal access to justice for the poor and working classes in medical malpractice cases; and candidates who support caps on the amount injured citizens can recover in medical malpractice cases. North Carolina voters should educate themselves on their choices before selecting candidates for public office this fall. Do you know where the candidates stand?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by William Wright

Child Car Seats - Safety Is A Key

Jean Martin — Tue, 06 May 2008 12:44:24 GMT

So, you're in the market for a child car seat and you walk into your local retailer only to find dozens of seats on the shelf and no way to make an easy decision. First and foremost, you need to view this purchase as being for a "safety seat" not just a car seat.

But I probably didn't need to tell you that safety was the number one key, but that also didn't make your decision any easier. You see a tag that says 'meets or exceeds FMVSS 213" safety standard so you rush to pick up that particular model. Then you notice that all of the other choices have the same tag. Then you ask yourself how the car seat that sells for $20 can carry the same safety tag as the child seat that sells for $200. You might think that it doesn't matter, but it does.

In a world of "it will never happen to me," thousands of children are killed each year due to injuries sustained in a car crash. According to NHTSA statistics, more then 9500 children, from birth through age 8, were killed and almost 1.5 million were injured in motor vehicle crashes from 1991 to 20002. Those are alarming statistics, especially given the laws requiring that children use child restraint car seats. However, the statistics show that properly used child seats can reduce the chance of death in an accident by as much as 71%.

I encourage you to go back home and do some much needed research before you make that most important decision. Read some guides on how to choose a car safety seat. Review the websites of various manufacturers. Research the federal safety guidelines. Have a good understanding of your child's physical structure, particularly height and weight, and have a general understanding of the anatomical structure of children, particularly the head, neck and abdomen.

To get you started, here is a brief overview of the types of child restraint seats that are available in the United States:

Infant seats - these should only be used in "rear facing" mode. They are designed for use with children who weigh no more than 22 pounds and have reached the age of one. Many of these come with a removable base.

Convertible seats - these can be used in "rear facing" mode with children who weigh no more than 35 pounds and are at least one year old. These seats can be "converted" to forward facing seats for children who weigh up to 65 pounds. These seats are usually available with a tray shield or "T"shield harness.

Low shield booster seats - these seats are no longer being sold, but are still available in the resale markets. These are forward facing seats for children weighing between 30 - 60 pounds. These seats often contain conflicting warnings and instructions with regard to the correct weight range.

Combination seats - these seats are forward facing and are used, with a harness, in children weighing up to 40 pounds. Once the child reaches 40 pounds, then the harness can be removed and the seat relies on the car's belt system for restraint. These seats should never be used with only a lap belt.

High Back Booster Seats - these are forward facing seats and are generally recommended for children weighing between 20 - 100 pounds. These seats have no built-in harness system, so the car's belting system must be used. Basically these seats simply raise the child to a level that allows the proper use of the car's lap/shoulder belt system.

Backless Booster Seats - these seats are very similar to the High Back Booster Seat but they have no back and, thus, no back support. They are not suitable for cars with low seat backs or with no headrests.

Integrated Safety Seats - new model cars comes with "built in" child seats that typically fold down out of the automobile seat. These seats are forward facing only.

As you can see, there are many choices and one size definitely does not fit all. So do your homework before you buy.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jean Martin

Senate Committee to Examine Foreclosure Crisis and Abuse

Gary Shipman — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:26:03 GMT

The Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight, chaired by Sen. Charles E. Schumer, plans to hold a hearing next week on alleged abuses by mortgage lenders who are charging improper fees to troubled borrowers or attempting to foreclose on homes improperly. "What the hearing is giong to show is what an ongoing, awful enterprise some of these companies ran, not just taking advantage of the terms of the mortgage, but when they control the mortgage, how they continue to squeeze and squeeze and squeeze", Mr. Shumer said.

The mortgage crisis has led to a profitable, cottage industry, led by law firms, loan servicers and foreclosure management companies, who charge various fees to borrowers and prepare documents removing borrowers from their homes. This practice has led to increased concern by a unit of the Department of Justice who believe that lenders may be running over borrowers improperly. Sen. Schumer's subcommittee intends to interview representatives of the office of the United States Bankruptcy Trustee and a law school professor who has authored a comprehensive study about lenders' practices in bankruptcy. Representatives of the mortgage industry have been invited to testify, but it is uncertain whether the invitation will be accepted.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gary Shipman