Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyer - General Personal Injury

Clinic May Have Infected 40,000 with Hepatitis C and HIV

Jenny Albano — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:11:01 GMT

A clinic in Las Vegas had to be shut down after officials found out that up to 40,000 people may have been exposed to hepatitis C and HIV because the clinic reused syringes and vials.

The clinic, the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada, was served with an emergency suspension of its business license. Officials are asking the people who were exposed to hepatitis C and HIV to be tested because of the unsafe medical practices of the clinic.

Health authorities launched an investigation into the clinic after six former patients were diagnosed with hepatitis. Nurses at the clinic were told "to reuse syringes when administering anesthesia" and "to reuse vials of medication," the city said, citing a probe by public health agencies.

The local prosecutors office is closely examining the case and may file charges against the clinic. Some of the former patients of the clinic have contacted lawyers and may form a class action suit against the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Man Awarded $18 Million for Fall into Manhole

Lance Rubin — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:28:25 GMT

For years, the company that operates the steam system under Philadelphia streets has had a problem with homeless men removing manhole covers. Even though the company knew about this problem, it did nothing to stop it. In 2004, this failure spelled disaster for 30 year old medical student Marcus Gustafsson, who fell into an uncovered manhole and plunged 18 feet, breaking his back.

Because of his injuries, Mr. Gustafsson has been unable to finish his medical education and will lose millions in income. A jury found that, if the accident hadn't happened, Mr. Gustafsson would have finished his education. The jury held Trigen-Philadelphia Energy Corp. responsible for its failure to secure the manhole cover and the injuries Mr. Gustafsson suffered.

The trial showed that Trigen had known for 10 years that homeless men were removing manhole covers, Casey said

. Since this accident, the company has welded some of these manholes shut to prevent other incidents like this one.

At first blush, it might seem that the homeless man who moved the manhole cover was the one mostly responsible for this accident, but the jury found it was 99.99% the fault of Trigen, and only .01% the fault of the homeless man.

If you or a loved one is injured in an accident, it is important to hire a lawyer who can help determine ALL the parties who might be responsible for the injuries and damages. It's not always the obvious ones.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Lance Rubin

Talking On a Cell Phone While Driving Is Not Only Dangerous, But A Driver Who Uses a Company Cell Phone Can Cost The Company Millions

Miriam Schimmel — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:49:24 GMT

Cases across the country have held employers liable for employees who drive and cause accidents and injuries while talking on company cell phones.

International Paper Co. just agreed to pay $5.2 million to settle a personal injury claim for damages resulting from an automobile accident that occurred while its employee was talking on a cell phone provided by the company. The plaintiff alleged that the employee/driver was using her cell phone when the employee rear-ended the plaintiff's vehicle, pushed it into a ditch and caused it to overturn. The plaintiff suffered severe injuries, which sadly included a near complete amputation of her right arm after it was crushed during the accident.

The company asserted through the deposition testimony of its employee/driver that the employee was not on the phone at the moment the collision occurred. However, a witness to the accident contradicted her claim and testified that he had seen the driver with the phone to her ear at the time of the collision.

The case was venued in Georgia, and while Georgia law prohibits drivers from doing "things that are distracting," it allows reasonable cell phone use while driving. Here, however, the employee/driver was allegedly talking on the phone with her cruise control set at 77 miles per hour on a highway where the speed limit was 70mph. Her cell phone use was not only unreasonable, but it supported a claim for intentional negligence and punitive damages against the driver and against International Paper. Had this case gone to a jury, it was believed that jurors would not look favorably upon a driver who was speeding while talking on the phone.

Similarly, Dykes Industries had a $20.9 million verdict against it from an accident and injuries caused by an employee using a cell phone while driving. The state of Hawaii also settled a case for $2.5 million when a person was hit by a state employee talking on her cell phone at the time of the accident. Even lawyers can find themselves at risk. A $2 million verdict came down in a Virginia case in March 2000, when an attorney killed a teenage girl in a hit-and-run accident while talking on her firm-provided cell phone. The driver's firm, Cooley Godward, LLP settled for an undisclosed amount before the jury reached its verdict.

The impact of these cases is clear: not only is using a cell phone while driving dangerous, but employers can be held responsible for the damages and injuries that are caused by their employees who talk on company cell phones while driving.

Because accident victims may not be aware of this fact, many may be going without the full compensation and recovery that they have a right to receive. The law firm of Kiesel, Boucher & Larson LLP is experienced in such cases and can provide assistance to those in need.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Miriam Schimmel

Cerebral Palsy Victim Awarded $37.5 million

Lance Rubin — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:20:54 GMT

Five year old Spencer Oram has cerebral palsy today because the obstetrician who delivered him failed to heed warning signs and perform a Caesarean section. Instead, the obstetrician waited. By the time the baby was born, he had been deprived of oxygen for too long and developed cerebral palsy, a life-long, debilitating condition. His twin sister, born half an hour earlier, is fine.

Spencer's parents sued the obstetrician for medical negligence.

A Superior Court jury in Stamford has ordered a city obstetrician to pay $38.5 million to the family of a boy born with cerebral palsy in 2003.
The verdict is believed to be among the largest medical malpractice awards in the state, surpassing a $36.5 million award in 2005 against Hartford Hospital and an obstetrician.

In Connecticut, someone injured by medical negligence can recieve full and fair compensation for injuries caused by the negligence of a doctor, hospital or other medical profesional. In California, however, all you can receive for your pain and suffering at the hands of a medical professional's foul-up is $250,000. This protection of doctors and hospitals was passed back in 1976, via a law known as "MICRA." And because the doctors' lobby is so strong, that amount has never gone up! Can you imagine anything being the same price today as it was thirty years ago??

If you or a loved one is the victim of medical malpractice, you need an experienced lawyer to handle your claim. There may be some ways to get around this "cap" of $250,000 for pain and suffering. Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP can help.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Lance Rubin

Potential New Threat to Children?

Miriam Schimmel — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:56:28 GMT

Phthalates are chemicals which are used to stabilize fragrances and make plastics flexible. They are typically found in many products including cosmetics, toys, vinyl flooring and medical supplies.

A recent study suggests their presence in baby shampoos, lotions and powders may expose infants to chemicals that have been linked with possible reproductive problems.

The study, which is published in the February issue of the journal Pediatrics, revealed elevated levels of phthalates in the urine of babies who'd been recently shampooed, powdered or lotioned with baby products. Researchers studied 163 babies, between 2 months to 28 months old, in California, Minnesota and Missouri and measured levels of several phthalates in urine from diapers. Information about the babies' mothers' use of various baby products in the preceding 24 hours was obtained, and the results revealed detectable levels of at least one phthalate. Most had levels of several more, and the highest levels were linked with shampoos, lotions and powders and were most prevalent in babies younger than 8 months.

However, there is currently no direct evidence from human studies to show that harm.

While experts are currently undecided as to what dangers these chemicals may pose, if any, there are environmental advocacy groups which believe they do pose a danger. Further, although there are no restrictions or regulations of phthalates by the federal government, California does limit their use. In October 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill AB 1108 which restricted use of certain phthalates and banned others in infant and children's products as of January 1, 2009.

The slight catch to the legislation, however, is that these chemicals often don't appear on product labels because there is no requirement to list individual ingredients of fragrances, which are a common phthalate source. One suggestion is to seek products which are labeled "phthalate-free," or check labels for common phthalates, including DEP and DEHP.

Industry researchers and advocates agree more research is needed, but at the very least, parents should be made aware of the issue so that they can decide whether or not to take protective action on behalf of their children.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Miriam Schimmel

Brain Injured Teen Gets $7.5 Million

Lance Rubin — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 19:53:35 GMT

A West Virginia teen struck by a truck driven by a City employee recovers $7.5 million for his brain injury, even though the City claimed they weren't liable.

Seventeen year old Travis Dalton was on his way to a job interview, when he was struck by a truck driven by an employee of the City of Norfolk, West Virginia. Now Travis will never work due to the brain injury he suffered in the accident. And the City claimed it wasn't responsible because of a technicality.

The city had argued it was not liable because Goodman was traveling between two of its recreational facilities. Governments have some protection from lawsuits because of sovereign immunity.

Fortunately, Travis will get $7.5 million to take care of him.

But cities, counties and other governmental entites often claim they shouldn't pay for the harm caused by their employees. A good lawyer can make sure they pay when they cause harm.

Kiesel Boucher Larson makes them pay. Our office handles numerous cases on behalf of parents whose children have been injured or killed in automobile accidents, many of them involving trucks. We just resolved a multi-million dollar claim on behalf of a Nevada family whose thirteen year old daughter was killed and ten year old was seriously injured when a construction truck hit them. We are now representing an Arizona family whose year old daughter was killed when a truck jumped a curb and ran over the baby, who was in a stroller.

And when there are governmental entities, like cities, counties or states (or their employees) involved, there are special rules and regulations. If you are considering filing a lawsuit againts a government entity or agency, you need a lawyer with experience in those areas.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Lance Rubin

Woman Assaulted at Dodger Stadium Sues

Lance Rubin — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:12:51 GMT

A woman who was assaulted in the parking lot at Dodger Stadium by a fan has sued Dodger Stadium for her injuries. When is a landowner responsible for injuries to patrons when those injuries are caused by someone else -- not by the facility?

Assaults can happen any time, anywhere. A woman heading off to Chavez Ravine to attend a Dodger game never thought her trip would end as it did - with her being assaulted and losing sight in one eye.

Many venues, such as malls, concert halls and sporting event locations, hire security guards to make sure their patrons are safe. If the security guards fail to do their job, or they do it in a sub-par manner, the property owner can be liable to a patron for the injuries, even if the direct cause of those injuries is a third party.

At Dodger Stadium

Signs at stadium entrances warn fans that abusive behavior will not be tolerated, and the stadium's employee handbook instructs ushers that people who ignore warnings about using abusive language should be asked to leave.

Here, the Dodger Stadium employees just moved unruly fans around, but didn't follow their own rules and kick out the trouble-makers.

These so-called "negligent security" cases may be tough to win, but if the facility undertook to provide security and the security didn't do its job, the venue can be responsible for the harm done to its visitors.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Lance Rubin

Avalanche of Support for Minor Sued by 60 Year Old Man Injured in Ski Accident

Shehnaz Bhujwala — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 11:38:00 GMT

A 60-year-old man who filed a lawsuit against the family of a 7-year-old boy who collided with him on a ski slope last year near Vail, Colo. has become the target of an media backlash. Attorneys are split as to the minor's potential liability in the case. The lawsuit seeks $75,000 for medical expenses associated with a dislocated shoulder and rotator cuff injury the man says was caused by the accident. The suit also raises the question of whether minors should be held to the same standard of care as adults on the slopes.

As local weathermen boldly proclaim that the "storm of the century" will descend upon Southern California this weekend, avid skiers and snowboarders eagerly anticipate what the first storm of 2008 will bring: several feet of gloriously fresh, powdered snow to local slopes. But are they also considering the dangers associated with these sports and the duty of care to others?

Ski slopes can accommodate a finite number of people, yet some ski areas admit more than can be handled. This may elevate revenues for ski resorts, but it also increases the danger of skiers colliding with one another. Risks multiply with inadequate slope management: mixing novice and expert skiers on the same trails; not providing signs to warn skiers to slow down because of intersecting trails; not informing the skier that a route labeled easy or intermediate is closed lower down, the only egress being a more demanding slope beyond the skier's abilities.

While the risk of injury posed by novice skiers who are just learning to navigate the slopes is great, there also seems to be a heightened tolerance among experienced skiers and snowboarders for the novice who comes barreling down the slopes. Certainly, even the most advanced snow bunnies were novices at one point; perhaps this is the reason for the expectation of collisions caused by novices on mixed trails.

Not so, in the case of 7-year-old Scott Swimm, who skied into a 60-year-old David J. Pfahler on a slope near Vail, Colo. The collision occurred the afternoon of Jan. 12, 2006, on a family-friendly slope at the Beaver Creek ski resort just west of Vail. Both agree that Pfahler was downhill from Swimm when the two crashed. Pfahler argues that Scott sped into him, while the Defendant's family says the child was going slowly and hit Pfahler only because he stopped abruptly. The elder skier sued the boy's family for more than $75,000 to cover his medical bills, saying he had dislocated his shoulder and suffered a massive rotator cuff tear in the accident.

Pfahler has suffered a backlash due to the media attention on the case, including fielding angry phone calls from strangers outraged by the filing of a lawsuit against a minor. Pfahler's attorney, Jim Chalat, is surprised by the response. In a recent interview with the LA Times, he stated: "If you're skiing as Pfahler was, slowly and in control on an intermediate slope, and a 7-, 8-, 9-year-old comes bombing down and crashes into you, the child has a technical responsibility to you."

Pfahler was taken away in an ambulance and had his shoulder reset. After surgery in March, Pfahler's insurance company recommended that he write to the Swimms to ask for compensation. He wrote a letter, Chalat told the Times, but got no response. "He felt like he didn't have any recourse except to call lawyers," Chalat said. The Swimm family says they never received a letter. The next they heard of it was in September, when they were served with notice that the suit had been filed.

The case draws attention to whether minors should be held to the same standard of care as adults on the slopes. USC law professor Gregory Keating says personal-injury lawsuits against children are rare but not unheard of. "It does happen," he said. The key issue is whether children were engaged in an age-appropriate activity. If they were, Keating said, they have a lower standard of responsibility than an adult would, in recognition of their age.

Chalat, whose firm specializes in ski cases, said that under Colorado law, minors have the same ski-safety obligations as adults. When he filed the lawsuit, which names Scott and his father, Chalat said he had no clue that there could be a backlash. "I didn't anticipate it, and I take full responsibility for it," he said. Chalat said Pfahler and his wife, who is also a party to the suit, asked him to file a "low-intensity" claim. The case will be heard before a federal magistrate rather than a judge or jury.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shehnaz Bhujwala

Is Your Doctor on Drugs?

Lance Rubin — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:48:41 GMT

It's one of the most important choices you make -- picking a doctor. But how much do you really know about the people who are supposed to provide your medical care?

Thousands of doctors hooked on drugs and alcohol continue to practice medicine while receiving treatment for substance abuse, yet most patients will never know about their physicians' addictions.

How much information are patients entitled to know about their doctors? If you were going in for sugery, do you think you should be told that your doctor has an alcohol problem? Well, now you won't be able to find out that information because a confidentiality provision protects doctors who are in drug or alcohol rehab programs.

For the past 27 years, California has had a rule keeping secret the names of doctors who are in alcohol or drug treatment programs. Of course, the California Medical Association is in favor of this rule. But things may be changing.

California's program ends June 30. If no alternative program is adopted, the rules could revert back to the zero-tolerance policy in place before 1980, when doctors who were found by the medical board to have drug or alcohol problems were immediately stripped of their licenses.
No other state has followed California's lead. But the president of California's medical board, Dr. Richard Fantozzi, said that behind the scenes, regulators nationwide share his ambivalence toward such programs.
"To hide something from consumers, something so blatant ... it's unconscionable today," Fantozzi said.

With the recent revelations about the plastic surgeon who operated on Kanye West's mother, the question arises about how much a patient has a right to know about his doctor.

In California, medical malpractice laws protect doctors, and the most they can ever pay a patient for pain and suffering is capped at $250,000. But what is being done to protect patients to make sure they get the most information possible before choosing a doctor? Maybe after June 30, 2008, the answer will be: a little more.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Medical Malpractice and Negligent Care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Lance Rubin

Train Accident in Riverside Kills Two

Jenny Albano — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 22:48:32 GMT

Two women were killed in a train accident Thursday morning. The victims were 18 and 23 years old. The woman were driving in a car when it became stuck on the train tracks in Riverside. The two victims were able to exit the car, but the train then hit the car which then ran into the women, crushing them.

Police believe the high heel shoes they were wearing many have hindered their escape from a car stuck on the tracks, the Los Angeles Times reports.

The high heels they were wearing may have made it harder for them to run on the gravel and slowed their departure, also they probably didn't have much warning before the collision. The women have not been identified yet.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Airlines, Cruises, Buses, and Other Mass Transit Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano