Stockton Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Most Popular

Neglect on Nursing Board Dealt with Swiftly

Shanley Monroe — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 04:13:08 GMT

One of the hot button issues facing the nation is health care reform. Most public officials agree that health care reform is necessary. The question is not whether reform is needed, but rather how to reform the system. Patients who need emergency or long-term treatment in hospitals face more than the challenge of recovery; many also face the challenge of an over-inflated medical bill. This is just one of the many reasons you may prefer to keep your hospital visit as short as possible. You trust that your caregivers are doing their best to restore you to health and help you go home sooner rather than later. After all, they’re charging you $10 for an aspirin; one would hope that kind of price tag buys you quality care and puts you on track for a speedy recovery. Unfortunately, recent reports have revealed that the Nursing Board for the state of California may have been overlooking complaints about unfit or neglectful nurses.

The Nursing Board’s failure to address problems with the state’s health professionals caused Governor Schwarzenegger to fire three of the six board members, among them the president and vice president. The official reason for the firing was the “unacceptable time it takes to discipline nurses accused of egregious misconduct”, according to The Los Angeles Times and ProPublica. Investigations have revealed that nurses throughout the state have been allowed to continue working despite misconduct that harmed patients, criminal convictions, and incompetence. The California Board of Nursing allowed nurses accused of misconduct to continue practicing with clean records. Many who had been fired or prohibited from working in other states kept practicing without facing any disciplinary action from the board. On average, The Los Angeles Times’ investigation found that the board takes three years and five months to look into a given complaint. This is more than 6x the amount of time it takes for other state boards to address complaints in Arizona, Texas, or Ohio. This means that, since the board is also responsible for processing complaints to a nurse’s record and revoking licenses, mistreatment of patients in California hospitals has been essentially ignored by the Board of Nursing for years.

In one particular case, Laguna Beach resident Spencer Sullivan became a quadriplegic after a successful neck operation in 2001. State records allege that following the operation, a nurse gave Sullivan twice the amount of medication he was supposed to receive, causing him to suffer brain damage. The Sullivan family filed a complaint with the California Board of Nursing in the months following the operation. After suing the hospital, the incident was again reported to the board in 2005, this time by the family’s insurer. Not until April of 2008 did the board file a complaint against the nurse.

If you or a loved one has been a victim of neglect or misconduct by a health professional, you should consult an attorney as soon as possible for help filing a complaint and possibly recovering damages for injuries you have suffered. If you are sick or injured, the last thing you should have to worry about is neglect or abuse from your caregiver. An attorney with knowledge of official complaints and medical misconduct can help you through the process of protecting yourself, your family, and your rights.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shanley Monroe

LeBron James Vitamin Water Commercial Denigrates Judicial Branch

Larry Knapp — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:19:50 GMT

I was talking with a friend regarding a recent incident that has been the hot topic in the Stockton local news recently. My friend is a rancher and employs migrant workers to pick and prune his orchards and vineyards. He was upset about all the attention the death of the 17-year-oldfarm worker had been receiving in the news. Hewas afraid that allthepublicity would negatively reflect on his profession and cause folks to want to change theexisting lawsmaking it more difficult andexpensive to do business. Don'tget me wrong, he was concerned aboutthecircumstances of the girl'sdeath andsympathized with those effected, howeverpart of the conversation included the impact to his profession.

I could not help pointing out the type of reaction the publichas every time astrange personal injury case is publicized. The difference is that the agricultural industry does not face the billiondollar effortcorporateamerica has put into persuading the public thatthe Judicial Branch of the government is run amok. If you do not believe that there is an insidious pervasive effort to change public opinion regarding those who are injured and bring lawsuits take a look at the LeBron James Vitamin Water commercial that has been running during the NBA playoffs?While this type of judicial humor may seem innocent enough, try picking a jury sometime with a panel full of folks who have beenconstantly bombarded with this stuff. Take it from someone who has done it before,it has an effect. I just believe that corporate ethics and responsibility should cause the folks that put this ad campaign together to pause and say: Are we really doing the country any good by casting the judicial branch of our government in such a poor light?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Larry Knapp

Some People Get It and Some Don't

Lawrence Knapp — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:29:19 GMT

The comments people make in response to internet news of tragedy amazes me. Take for example the comments to the article printed BY BETH HUNDSDORFER - News-Democrat regarding the 13-year-old boy who was crushed by an overloaded dump truck. Apparently the company that overloaded the truck knew it, yet failed to lighten the load when asked. Instead they refused. The complaint also brings into question the competence of the truck driver. Anyway, the point is that below the article are the comments and the first one clearly shows someone who understands the purpose of a wrongful death suit and the value of our jury system.

I feel so bad for that family. I hope they get a lot of money. I know money doesn't replace a life but at least it will be an example for other companies regarding negligence.

To me, this person understands that the lawsuit may change the behavior of the defendant and other businesses for the benefit of society. Obviously, a trial lawyer wants to get a great monetary result for the client. But, the benefit the civil justice system provides to society truely is invaluable and underappreciated.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Lawrence Knapp

California Insurance Companies Are Immune From Third Party Bad Faith Cases

Lawrence Knapp — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:12:53 GMT

You probably don't know it but you can get justice in Kentucky from Insurance Companies run amok, but you can't in California. In this case, for nearly two years, the company – -- American Physicians Assurance Corp., which insures many Kentucky doctors – -- refused to engage in settlement discussions. The problem was the CEO's and CFO's and the rest of the minions knew that the doctor was at fault and they knew and yet they did not want to pay (probably delaying payment to make interest or profit on some other investment.) When it finally made an offer, after nearly two years, it proposed paying Daniels, the plaintiff, only $75,000, even though the company's internal documents showed it had valued her damages at $1 million, according to court records. In California she would have absolutely no remedy, because the Supreme Court long ago said that Insurance Companies in this state can not be held accountable for third party bad faith. Kentucky, on the other hand, gives their citizens justice.

In keeping with my latest trend of commenting on the comments to this article. In this particular thread it is obvious that the empathy from many of the commenters is with the insurance industry. Imagine that, they take our money in the form of premiums, deny payment on righteous claims and are still able to convince the public that they are getting taken advantage of by attorneys. If it don't walk like a duck. It's not a duck.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Lawrence Knapp

Multi-Car Accident Injures 7

Shanley Monroe — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:36:41 GMT

It’s a safe driver’s worst nightmare. It’s unavoidable, it’s unpredictable, and it’s unstoppable. It’s the other person on the road. Whether another driver is distracted, intoxicated, or just careless, his or her actions are completely outside your control. However, the effects of those actions can still put you and other drivers in harm’s way. It may not be your fault, but the danger is there.

Common sense dictates that if you are involved in a collision, the car that strikes another is probably responsible. For example, if you rear-end the car in front of you, you are most likely at fault for the damage to the other vehicle and the passengers inside. However, this is not always the case, particularly in multi-car collisions. For example, over the Fourth of July, there was a collision involving five cars on Highway 101. One car was overturned and a passenger had to be cut free of the wreckage. Seven were injured, five of whom were transported to local trauma centers to be treated for critical injuries.

After the initial concern for the injured, the question that most likely comes to mind for the drivers involved in such a collision is, “Who is responsible?” This can be a confusing question after an accident. The shock and emotion of a collision can distort a driver’s perception, cause details to seem fuzzy, and make it difficult to recall the series of events leading to the crash. A crash can leave you in a stupor that causes you to second-guess yourself and question whether you were responsible. In a multi-car collision, this can make you vulnerable to admitting responsibility even if you were not at fault.

Take the following scenario as an example. Let’s say you are driving down a highway, following the car in front of you at a reasonable distance. Suddenly, you are struck from behind by a third vehicle with enough force to cause your car to slam into the first. In the confusion of careening around the road, your dominant memory is of hitting the car in front of you. You may think that your role in the accident makes you responsible for the damage to that vehicle, but this is not necessarily the case. In an accident like the one on Highway 101, the state of California, like most states, uses a method called the chain of causation to determine fault in a multi-call collision. In a nutshell, this means that in an investigation, police trace fault for all the damage back to the driver who initiated the chain of events in the crash. Unless it is found that one of the other drivers in the collision contributed to the likelihood of an accident (for example, by following another car too closely), the one who started the chain reaction of collisions is at fault.

Because of this, it is very important that when you speak to police after a multi-car collision, you state only objective facts. Do not ever admit fault, because you may not actually be at fault, even if your car hit another. If you do admit fault, your statement becomes part of the official police report. Other drivers’ insurance companies can use this report in determining who pays for damages, and admitting fault makes you vulnerable to taking undue responsibility. It is also important to know that even if you have other citations on your record, these have no bearing on the issue of fault.

If you are in a multi-car collision and have questions about your role in the accident, or if you feel that you are wrongly accused of fault by another driver, contact an attorney who understands the nuances of motor vehicle law and can advise you of your rights.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shanley Monroe

Seeking Medical Treatment Immediately After an Accident is a Must

Shanley Monroe — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:37:56 GMT

Jack and Jill go up the hill in their brand new Honda Civic to get a 12 pack of Aquafina from Circle K. Just as they are pulling out of the parking lot, Hansel and Gretel, who are running from the witch with the gingerbread house in their brand new Chevy Cobalt, slam into them, causing the car to careen down the hill. You know the rest. Jack breaks his crown (ouch), and Jill comes tumbling after.

The average person believes that Jack’s fractured skull and Jill’s inevitable injuries resulted from their accident. If, for example, Jill begins to suffer from whiplash shortly after the accident, it’s fair to guess how she got it. However, when you’re dealing with insurance companies, fair guesses are not enough. Let’s say Jill tries to file a claim. She needs to provide her medical records to prove that her injuries resulted from this accident. Prior medical records may be relevant to prove that she was not already injured, and Jill definitely needs to provide evidence of her treatment after the accident.

Let’s assume, however, that Jill does not visit the doctor right after the accident. Following her wretched spill down the hill, she walks away feeling fine, so she waits to make an appointment. Her injuries don’t become symptomatic for over a month. Only then does she make an appointment. Even though Jill is certain she didn’t have any other accidents or traumatic incidents, the insurance company may refuse to consider her injuries related to the accident. Most companies will only consider treatment if it takes place within four to six weeks of the accident. Otherwise, they may claim that your injuries are unrelated to the accident itself.

The bottom line is that the more time that elapses between an accident and you seeking medical attention, the harder it is to prove that your injuries came from the accident. Even if you feel fine after an accident and do not think you are hurt, you may be well advised to pay the doctor a visit to get checked over. That way, if you develop pain later and have to return, your medical records will still show that you first sought treatment within days of the accident, not months.

Seek medical treatment immediately after an accident, and if possible, try to avoid falling down hills.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shanley Monroe

Northern California Tiger Attack Akin to Dog Bite?

Larry Knapp — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:44:21 GMT

Finally the media has printed an article that purports to report an admission on the part of on of the victims in this awful tragedy. Prior to this article, all we really had were reports of accusations from talking heads that had no reliability. This latest article however,

states that the decedent's father has reported that one of the Dahliwal boys admitted to him that they had been standing on the wall and waiving at the tiger prior to the attack.

Now that we have that bit of evidence, what does it really affect? A tiger attack is like a dog attack. The owner is strictly liable for the damages caused by the attack. There should be no question about the owner's responsibility for the injuries in this case either.

The jury is also allowed to consider the comparative negligence of the person or persons attacked. However, is that what we have in this case? Does the public really believe that this is the first time zoo officials were aware that people go to their facility and make fun of the animals? Kids making faces at whatever is on the other side of the cage. Perhaps that is why the acceptable standards for containing a tiger require a much taller wall than the San Francisco Zoo was using.

For more information, please refer to the section on Premises Liability / Slip & Fall.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Larry Knapp

Man Shoots Dog During Attack of Neighbor, 80

Chrissie Cole — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 22:00:18 GMT

Officials are investigating the shooting death of a dog following a dog attack of an 80-year-old man.

The man was walking in front of his home when a mixed breed, reportedly bolted out of the house and attacked him. One of the neighbors heard the chaos and ran outside armed with his pistol. While the dog was still attacking the man he fired one gunshot, according to Claremont Police. The dog disengaged from biting the man due to the gun shot.

The man suffered dog bites to his chest and side. He was transported to Pomona Valley Medical Center for treatment and released. The dog's owner took him to the veterinarian where he died.

The neighbor who shot the dog said the animal was attacking the man at the time, but the dog owner denied it and said the man with the weapon overreacted and put her 12-year-old daughter in danger.
"The dog was on the ground. There was no more danger, and the guy came out of his house with a gun and right behind my back, at close range, shot and killed the dog as my daughter was reaching for him," she said.

The gun used in the shooting is registered, and is now in police custody, police said.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Truck Accident Closes Gilroy Highway for Hours

Chrissie Cole — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:27:24 GMT

A truck accident closed down Highway 152 for hours this morning, when a big rig transporting frozen foods struck a telephone pole.

California Highway Patrol was first notified about the accident at 5 a.m. As officials worked to remove the truck, officers closed down the highway making children have to find an alternate route to school.

Officials had the highway blocked until noon, according to CHP dispatchers. Due to the crash blocking some bus routes for Gilroy Unified School District, some students were not picked up, according to district officials.

There were no reported injuries in the accident. The accident is still being investigated by California Highway Patrol.

For more information on this topic, please visit our section on Truck Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Wrongful Death Suit Settled After 8 Years

Shanley Monroe — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 01:12:55 GMT

Anyone who studies literature is familiar with the figure of the “tragic hero”. In mythology, drama, and fiction, readers can easily find an example of an otherwise noble character who has, due to a so-called ‘tragic flaw”, fallen from grace. These characters are sympathetic. They are not villains or bad people, and their likeability makes it difficult for some readers to hold them accountable for their actions. For example, Macbeth may be homicidally ambitious, but, deep down, he's got a conscience. Unfortunately, while readers lack hatred for the tragic hero, they often ignore the minor characters who suffer because of that hero's mistakes. It is, often, very difficult to hold a presumed 'good guy' accountable for his bad acts. However, when it comes to the law, not doing so may cause further harm to an injured person.

This happened in the case of Alan Adams, which recently settled for $5.7 million. Adams was 18 when he was fatally shot in 2001 after allegedly running a stop sign in Stanislaus county in California. After a highway chase, police cruisers rammed his vehicle to stop him. Adams drove in reverse as he tried to flee, but Highway Patrolman Paul Speers shot him twice through the windshield.

In defense of his actions, Speers claimed that he was pinned between Adams' car and his cruiser, and was therefore forced to shoot in self-defense. However, after two eyewitnesses testified that Speers was not pinned between the cars, forensic evidence, including how the shell casings landed and the bullet trajectories, proved that the shots could not have been fired from where Speers was allegedly pinned.

Years after the accident and Adams’ death, the jury awarded $5.5 million to the family which was reduced by 20 percent for the deceased’s comparative negligence.

Obviously, the last thing anyone wants to think about after the death of a loved one is the expense that will result from the death. There are funeral expenses, burial costs, and leftover medical bills to be settled even as the family attempts to cope with grief. In these cases, it is best to consult a personal injury attorney who can handle your case and advise you of your rights.

Trials can become frustrating when opposing parties come up with ludicrous magic bullet theories in order to exempt themselves from liability. You need to focus on the case, not on bills that pile up. Let a personal injury attorney with experience in auto accident litigation help.

As for the case of Alan Adams, no one will argue that Officer Speers was a violent or “bad” person; he was merely an otherwise good person who made a tragic mistake. However, we must never ignore the fact that those who suffer deserve justice.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shanley Monroe