Thursday, January 31, 2019

Can I Sue If My Neighbor Has Bees, Livestock?

Urban farming has given way to urban livestock ownership, and now every hippie and hipster in your neighborhood has chickens, bees, and maybe a goat or two. Which is all well and good for the decrease in their food bill every month, but what about the increase in noise and odor coming from their backyards?

The good news is that you may be able to file a nuisance lawsuit to address the problem. The bad news is that such claims are not always easy.

A Neighbor's Nuisance

As a general matter, you have a right to the enjoyment and use of your property. If another party interferes with that right, you may be able to sue. If that interference involves a physical intrusion onto your property, you would sue under trespass. If, however, the interference includes sound, light, or even odors, you may have a claim under private nuisance law. There are three main elements to a successful nuisance lawsuit:

  1. You own the land or have the right to possess it;
  2. The neighbor actually acted in a way that interferes with your enjoyment and use of your property; and
  3. Their interference was substantial and unreasonable.

The third element is often the hardest to prove, as it is intended to prevent people from suing for minor annoyances. Courts will ask whether the interference would be substantial to an ordinary person and weigh the harm caused by the conduct against the burden of preventing the harm and the usefulness of the act. This can be particularly tricky when neighbors are cultivating their property or housing livestock.

Other Options

If the farm next door is truly annoying, you may also check local laws and municipal zoning ordinances to ensure whether such activity is even allowed, and whether your neighbor is in compliance with those statutes. These laws can apply to both farming and livestock. And any homeowners associations may prohibit growing crops, keeping livestock, or selling the spoils of either.

You may be better off trying to solve the dispute privately with your neighbor before taking the matter to court. If not, you can find a local attorney in our directory below.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/01/can-i-sue-if-my-neighbor-has-bees-livestock.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Will Trump Sue Over Latest Tell-All Book?

Another former staffer has dirt to spill on President Donald Trump. And the president again promises legal action, claiming the staffer violated a confidentiality agreement. While Trump is notorious for threatening lawsuits that never materialize, and his administration's non-disclosure agreements have been deemed potentially unenforceable and illegal, could this be the time that Trump actually sues, and the alleged NDA is enforced?

Here's a look.

Vipers' Nest

"Team of Vipers: My 500 Extraordinary Days in the Trump White House" was written by former Trump administration communications aide Cliff Sims, and released this week. Trump responded, as his is wont to do, on Twitter:

Despite the dissonance between claiming that a book is both "based on made up stories and fiction" and violates an non-disclosure agreement, Michael Glassner, chief operating officer of Trump's re-election campaign, confirmed the campaign was "preparing to file suit against Cliff Sims for violating" an NDA. (Sims, or his part, does not recall whether he signed an NDA, and responded to Trump's tweet in real-time while promoting the book, "Nice. There it is."

Free Speech Test

So what of Sims's potential legal liability? National security attorney Brad Moss believes that, while the non-disclosure agreement could apply to information Sims gleaned before Trump's inauguration, it would likely be unenforceable when it comes to his time working in the White House. "If the campaign is trying to impose their NDA upon Sims for disclosures tied to his time in the White House, they're going to run into the brick wall of established precedent on the subject," Moss told Law & Crime. "They would in effect be arguing that the court should allow a president's campaign to censor a former federal employee in a way that the government is barred from doing. Good luck with that argument."

As a general rule, government employees (and former employees) who speak out about matters of public concern, government corruption, or gross misconduct are protected from retaliation by the First Amendment, so long as the speech was not pursuant to their job duties and did not cause disruption in the workplace.

So, if Trump in fact follows through on his threat to sue Sims, he could be facing an uphill legal battle.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/01/will-trump-sue-over-latest-tell-all-book.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Sacramento Family Sues Police for Stephon Clark Killing

Shot 20 times by police officers right in front of his grandparents, the family of Stephon Clark has filed a $20 million federal lawsuit against the city of Sacramento for wrongful death, excessive force, and false arrest. They are seeking punitive damages. Clark, an unarmed black father of two, was shot to death in his grandparents' backyard in March of 2018, all while the grandparents "watched in horror."

Officer Involved Fatal Shooting of Stephon Clark

Police officers Terrence Mercadel and Jared Robinet responded to a call of a man vandalizing vehicles in the neighborhood. Police helicopters were used to locate the suspect. As as result, Mercadel and Robinet started chasing Clark, and eventually gunned him down, with 20 shots hitting Clark, up to six in his back.

Officers claimed they thought Clark was armed, but it turned out the only thing on him was a cell phone. Sacramento District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert is still deciding whether or not to press criminal charges against the two officers, thus leaving the plaintiffs with civil action as the only currently possible venue of vindication for Clark and his family.

Wrongful Death Suit

Proving wrongful death may not be too difficult for the plaintiffs. By a preponderance of the evidence, they must prove:

  • The death of a human being;
  • Caused by another's negligence, or with intent to cause harm;
  • The survival of family members who are suffering monetary injury as a result of the death, and;
  • The appointment of a personal representative for the decedent's estate.

Clark is dead. It appears the officers were trying to cause harm when they dislodged their weapons 20 times. As a young father of two, he had many years of earning potential ahead of him, which his sons were relying upon. However, wrongful deaths at the hands of police officers rarely result in $20 million verdicts. A 2015 study by the Washington Post found settlements ranged from $7,500 to $8.5 million, which a median amount of $1.2 million. Also, settlements were more lucrative than jury awards.

Laws Created as a Result Of Clark's Death

One issue plaintiffs will face in dealing with this lawsuit is evidence. The officers muted their body cameras right after shooting Clark, sparking outrage among the community, and raising issues about when it is appropriate for police officers to do so. As a result, then-Governor Brown signed two bills loosening confidentiality rules regarding records of police misconduct, based in part on the shooting of Stephon Clark. Senate Bill 1421 makes investigations and reports related to an officer's deadly use of force subject to California's Public Records Act Assembly Bill 748 makes it easier to obtain body cam footage taken by police officers when they use deadly force.

If you believe that a police officer used excessive force in apprehending you or someone you love, contact a local personal injury attorney.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/01/sacramento-family-sues-police-for-stephon-clark-killing.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

Professor Sues State, University for Not Covering Transgender Surgery

Dr. Russell Toomey is an Associate Professor of Family Studies and Human Development at the University of Arizona, researching issues of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) adolescents and Latinx youth. Dr. Toomey is also a transgender man, who transitioned to live consistently with his male identity in 2003 and sought a hysterectomy in 2018.

His healthcare plan, provided by the state to state university employees, refused to cover the surgery, and, in fact, denies all coverage or "[g]ender reassignment surgery." Dr. Toomey has since filed a class action lawsuit against the state, and the University of Arizona, claiming the healthcare plan discriminates against transgender employees "because of ... sex" in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act deprives transgender employees of equal treatment under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here's a look.

Medically Necessary, but Not Necessarily Covered

Dr. Toomey's treating physicians recommended that he receive a hysterectomy as a medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria, as provided by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health's standards of care. Arizona's healthcare plan provides coverage for the same surgery when prescribed as medically necessary treatment for other medical conditions. And, all four of the plan's medical providers adopted internal policies and guidelines that authorize hysterectomies as medically necessary for gender dysphoria. Still, the plan does not cover hysterectomies when performed as part of transition-related care.

According to Dr. Toomey's lawsuit:

The Plan generally provides coverage for medically necessary care, but singles out transgender employees for unequal treatment by categorically denying all coverage for "[g]ender reassignment surgery" regardless of whether the surgery qualifies as medically necessary treatment. As a result, transgender individuals enrolled in the Plan have no opportunity to demonstrate that their transition-related care is medically necessary, and they have no opportunity to appeal any adverse determination to an independent reviewer.

"Arizona provides the same discriminatory health plan to nearly all state employees and their dependents," Dr. Toomey wrote on the ACLU's "Speak Feely" blog. "That means hundreds, if not thousands, of transgender state employees or transgender dependents of state employees cannot receive medically necessary care."

State of Coverage

Coverage for transgender surgery can vary from insurance plan to insurance plan, and from state to state. Federal judges have ruled that Wisconsin can't block insurance companies from covering transgender healthcare costs, and that Massachusetts was required to provide gender reassignment surgery for prison inmates.

Dr. Toomey's lawsuit, which could include hundreds or thousands of state employees, is asking the state to remove the exclusion for gender reassignment surgery, and adopt a standard policy for assessing medical necessity of surgeries associated with transgender healthcare.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/01/professor-sues-state-university-for-not-covering-transgender-surgery.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, January 28, 2019

Fertility Clinic Sued for Cryo Tank Malfunctions

Over 70 lawsuits have now been filed against University Hospitals Fertility Center in Beachwood, Ohio, as well as CAS DataLoggers. These two parties are at the center of a series of unfortunate events that led to the destruction of approximately 4,000 eggs and embryos after the cryo-facility inadvertently warmed-up to unsafe temperatures for an unknown period of time back on March 4, 2018.

The statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims is one year. Thus, expect to see more fillings as we head closer to the one year anniversary of this disastrous event that led to heartbreak for many families seeking fertility treatment.

Fertility Freezer Meltdown

According to University Hospitals officials, the temperature in the storage tanks warmed up to unsafe levels for an unknown period of time. Though it is unclear why the tanks warmed, the alarm system on the tanks should have alerted employees about the temperature swing. But for some reason, the system had been turned off.

According to the letter immediately informing the nearly 1,000 clients affected by this tragedy, "We don't know who turned off the remote alarm nor do we know how long it was off," the letter stated. "We are still seeking those answers." Since that time, University Hospitals has apologized and offered free fertility services to those affected.

Malpractice Lawsuits Allege Negligence, but Could Rise to Wrongful Death

Those individuals and families that have suffered from this meltdown have filed lawsuits and claims against the University Hospitals and CAS DataLoggers, the company responsible for monitoring the remote alarm. For many, apologies and free services aren't enough. "The loss suffered by our clients is devastating," said Adam Wolf, attorney with the law firm Peiffer Wolf Carr and Kane, representing about 100 of the nearly 1,000 families affected. "Those eggs and embryos represented the hopes of having children for hundreds of American families."

Some families have already settled breach of contract and negligence lawsuits with the defendants. According to a statement issued by University Hospitals, "UH has worked with Fertility Center patients and their lawyers over the past year to negotiate a significant number of settlements and will continue offering resolution alternatives to our patients who want to avoid the time, expense, and anxiety of litigation." However, one family is looking to file a more unique lawsuit against University Hospitals. Rick and Wendy Penniman are seeking a legal declaration that their lost embryos should be considered living people, not property. If granted, the Pennimans could file a different lawsuit, potentially wrongful death.

If you or someone you love has lost eggs or embryos due to equipment malfunction or human error, contact a local personal injury attorney. This sort of loss can be very devastating, especially for those that may have a compounded situation. A lawyer can listen to the facts of your case, and offer you good advice on your opportunity to recover for your losses.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/01/fertility-clinic-sued-for-cryo-tank-malfunctions.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, January 25, 2019

Disability Rights Activities Sue Bird, Lime Scooters

Electric scooter rental companies have been hit with numerous suits over the last few years, but few will be as hard for the companies to handle as the new crop of disability suits. Recently, a class action was filed against the City of San Diego, Lime, Bird, and Razor for violating the rights of disabled people through the public's use of their e-scooters. Can the courts come up with a better solutions than the defendants have? Or have the lines in the sand finally been drawn?

Plaintiffs Claim Scooter Companies Violate Their ADA Rights

The plaintiff in this lawsuit is the non-profit group Disabilities Rights California (DCA), on behalf of Alex Montoya, Rex Shirley, Philip Pressel, Aaron Gresson and other people with disabilities. DCA claims its members' rights, as protected by the American with Disability Act (ADA), have been violated be defendants neglecting to keep the city's sidewalks clear of dockless rental scooters. Those that are visually impaired, or use wheelchairs and walkers, are at a greater risk of harm and injury by these scooters than others, due to their disabilities, and they are asking for the courts to come up with a solution that will work for everyone, in light of their ADA protected rights.

Sidewalks Are Becoming a Safety Risk for the Disabled

According to local laws and scooter rental agreements, scooters are not be driven or parked on the sidewalks. However, scooter executives and city officials are both aware that these rules are broken daily by many scooter riders. In the lawsuit, DCA describes the challenges two of its members face on a regular basis due to the scooters. Montoya, born without arms and one leg, and Gresson, who is blind, state that because of their disability, they cannot prepare for being struck by oncoming scooters. "The dockless scooter riders often ride the Scooters on the sidewalk, turning the sidewalk into a vehicle highway rather than a space for safe pedestrian access and use," the lawsuit said.

Not only are disabled individuals feeling assaulted, but they are also feeling trapped. In another example listed in the lawsuit, dockless scooters blocked the entrance to Shirley's home, and he was therefore unable to leave his home. "People with disabilities who wish to travel in the City using the City's walkways are being forced to either put their physical safety at risk or just stay home. This is not a choice that they should have to make," the lawsuit said.

Will Cities and Scooter Companies Finally Turn on Each Other?

As the saying goes, "politics makes strange bedfellows", but so do lawsuits. Both the scooter companies and the city are named as defendants. Historically, scooter companies rarely gave cities' any notice before scattering their scooters throughout town, much to the dismay of many residents and city officials. Such lack of notice did not get the relationship between cities and scooter companies started on the right foot. But they have tried to work it out, for the promise of solving the "last mile dilemma" for public transportation takers.

Many cities kicked the scooter companies out. Now the ones that have retained the scooters are being hit by ADA lawsuits, which plaintiffs often win. Will cities continue to stick by scooter companies, even at the risk of lawsuits by their local citizens and public rights groups? Or will the cities finally turn on the scooter companies once and for all? This lawsuit will be a great test to their relationship.

If you or someone you love is hit by a motorized scooter driver, contact your local personal injury attorney. A lawyer can help you sort out the local laws, apply the facts in your case, and help get your expenses covered.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/01/disability-rights-activities-sue-bird-lime-scooters.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

California Sued for $90M by Widow of Murdered Malibu Camper

Tristan Beaudette took his two young daughters camping in order to give his wife some much needed quiet time to study for an upcoming exam. That fateful good deed had a tragic ending. Beaudette, a pharmaceutical executive, was fatally shot in front of his children while camping at Malibu Canyon State Park, and his family has now filed a lawsuit for failing to warn campers about the known shooter in the area that ultimately killed Beaudette.

The lawsuit names the L.A. County Sheriff's Department, California State Parks police, and the California Parks and Recreation Commission, seeking damages against each for $30 million on behalf of Beaudette's wife and their children, for a total in excess of $90 million.

Father of Two Killed by Rifle Shot In Front of Young Daughters

In June 2018, Beaudette took his two young girls, aged two and four, camping. While all three were in the tent, Beaudette was hit in the abdomen with a bullet from a rifle shot somewhere outside the tent. He died soon thereafter from the gunshot wound.

Though it all seems bizarre to the public, it may not seem so surprising to the local sheriff's department. Between November 2016 and June 2018, the named parties in the lawsuit knew that a man had been sleeping in or around the state park and opened fired seven times on cars as well as campsites. Sheriff Alex Villanueva described the gunshots as "all random, targets of opportunity." Four months later, in October 2018, police apprehended a nearby robbery suspect. The suspect had a rifle in his possession when they arrested him, and the robber ultimately turned out to be Beaudette's killer, 42-year-old Anthony Rauda, an ex-convict and survivalist.

Authorities Were Aware of the Shootings Yet Never Warned the Public

Beaudette's widow, Erica Wu, claims in her suit that there were seven other unresolved shootings near the Malibu Canyon State Park, some of which included people getting robbed or gunned down. The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department and California State Parks "have confirmed they were aware" of these shootings, and yet never warned the public about it, and specifically never warned campers that the area was dangerous. Property owners do have a duty to warn invitees, such as Beaudette, of possible dangers on their property. It is clear to see why Wu and her daughters filed this claim.

If you or someone you love has been injured in a state park, and you believe the park knew or should have known of the danger, contact a local personal injury attorney. Premises liability can be extended to state parks and government officials, though issues of governmental immunity will have to be addressed. A personal injury lawyer can listen to the facts of your case and best advise you how to proceed, often at no cost to you.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/01/california-sued-for-90m-by-widow-of-murdered-malibu-camper.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, January 24, 2019

Louisiana 'Cancer Alley' Victims Take Legal Action Over Environmental Racism

An 85-mile stretch of land along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, once home to beautiful plantations and robust agriculture, is now known as Cancer Alley. This area in St. James Parish's District 5 was mostly residential, but is now dotted with petrochemical companies. When residents united to block the building of future petrochemical and plastic companies in the area, they learned something surprising. In 2014, unbeknownst to them, the district, which previously had no known zoning designation, had been zoned a Residential-Future Industrial zone. Residents are crying more than foul, they are claiming environmental racism.

Cancer Alley Has Almost All Black Residents

Cancer Alley is over 87 percent black. Residents want to know why cancer-causing plastic-producing factories are being approved on land that is mostly inhabited by blacks. And they also want to know how the area was zoned without their knowledge. To date, no one else is talking about the re-zoning, and some are even denying it. According to Blaise Gravois, director of St. James Parish operations, "The 5th district does not have ZONING."

Why Does Zoning Matter?

Zoning laws have been the standard mechanism for planning communities since the 1930s. When people establish a home, they will invest more in the home, and the community, if there are some assurances that it will stay somewhat similar for the foreseeable future. That predictability is key to building community. Areas can be rezoned, especially if the person, or entity, petitioning for the change is in a position of power. But politics is a powerful tool too, and if enough voters want it rezoned, they can convince the governing group (usually the city council) to make that decision.

Why Should Blacks Shoulder the Environmental and Health Burdens?

As for the claim of environmental racism, Cancer Alley is now home to around 150 plants and refineries. Cancer rates in the area are far higher than the national average, as is the black population. Blacks want to know why their communities have been littered with these cancer causing factories? Why must they bear an unjust, disproportionate burden of either contracting cancer, or relocating entire towns in order to remain healthy, such as the local towns of Diamond, Morrisonville, and Sunrise. To this end, a number of environmental groups and local residents have filed a formal records request to seek answers to these zoning and environmental racism questions.

If you feel that your community's environment is at risk, contact a local environmental law attorney. No town should have to bear the burden at the risk of its community. An experienced lawyer can listen to the facts of your case, apply current laws, and hopefully help you save your town from becoming the next Cancer Alley.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/01/louisiana-cancer-alley-victims-take-legal-action-over-environmental-racism.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, January 11, 2019

Construction Worker Sues for Disney Animal Kingdom Injury

A bit of mystery surrounds a lawsuit filed by construction worker Robert Howard against Disney, MLC Theming, and Total Demolition Services. Howard alleges that dangerous conditions at his worksite located within Disney World's Animal Kingdom created an unsafe work site, which caused him to sustain an injury when a ditch he was digging collapsed on him.

What's odd is that the lawsuit provides no details about the injury other than the date, March 11, 2016. Neither Disney, Total Demolition Services, nor MLC reported any incidents around that time to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), though admittedly only work-related fatalities or hospitalizations are required to be reported to OSHA. Total Demolition Services has been listed inactive since 2017. Howard is seeking more than $15,000 in damages, but his attorney claims Howard filed the lawsuit to find out what happened so that history doesn't repeat itself.

Florida Law Makes It Difficult to Sue for Work Related Injuries

Interestingly, Florida law insulates its employers from liability related to many on-the-job injuries. State workers' compensation laws preclude injured workers from suing employers directly. The public policy behind this is predictability. Tort lawsuit awards are very unpredictable, while workers' compensation for injuries is handled through insurance claims, which even-out the financial blow across the client base. However, this law will not shield employers from gross negligence or conduct "substantially certain" to result in injury or death.

Dangerous Conditions Suit Against Disney May Prove Challenging

It is unclear who Howard's employer actually was at the time. All that is knows is that it was not Disney. Very few OSHA complaints have been filed against Walt Disney World. And even fewer dangerous conditions suits, other than the infamous alligator that killed the toddler boy in 2016. To prevail in a premises liability action, Howard will have to prove that the defendant had a legal responsibility to maintain the property without hazards, and failed to do this, resulting in his injury. Courts will expect that Howard assumed some risk, given that he had accepted employment working in this ditch. And given Florida law, the hazard in this claim must have been substantially certain to result in injury or death.

If you or someone you love has been injured on someone else's property, contact a local personal injury attorney. An experienced lawyer can best compare the facts of your case with local laws to determine if you may be able to get compensated for your injuries, often at no cost to you.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/01/construction-worker-sues-for-disney-animal-kingdom-injury.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, January 10, 2019

Tesla Sued After High Speed Fatality in Florida

Speeding is always a safety risk, but especially on turns going nearly 100 miles per hour over the speed limit. The family of an 18-year-old boy killed in a Tesla car accident is suing the car manufacturer for what the attorney calls an "unreasonably dangerous" car.

Edgar Monserratt alleges that the Tesla in which his son was riding when he died contained a defective battery. In addition, he claims the company was negligent for removing the speed governor on the car when it was last in the Tesla shop. Plaintiffs are seeking at least $18,000 in damages, but nothing will bring back their son.

Unsafe Car or Unsafe Driving?

Edgar Monserratt's 18-year-old son, Edgar Monserratt Martinez, was in the passenger seat of a Tesla Model S car driven by his friend Barrett Riley in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Riley was driving down Seabreeze Boulevard at over 116 mph. Riley was in the right lane, but moved to the left to pass a car while going around a curve with a warning sign to slow to 25 mph. When Riley attempted to move back into the right lame, he hit an adjacent wall, came back into the road, then hit a light post on the opposite side of the street. At that point, the car erupted into flames and killed both Martinez and Riley.

Riley was no stranger to speeding in that car. In fact, about two months before the crash, after receiving a speeding ticket for going 112 mph down a Florida highway, Riley's parents had Tesla install a speed limiting governor on the car that would artificially cap the car's rate of speed at 85 mph. However, when the car was subsequently in the Tesla maintenance shop, Tesla removed the governor without Riley's parents permission.

Negligent Care and Negligent Manufacturing

Monserratt is claiming two causes of negligence in his case, one for the negligent removal of the governor, and another under defective product. "The Tesla S sedan had inadequate measures to prevent a post-collision fire and had inadequate measures to contain a fire," said Chicago attorney Philip Corboy Jr., one of the attorneys representing Monserratt.

There have been stories in the news about Tesla battery backs catching fire, and even reigniting, as Riley's did when it was on the tow truck being hauled away, and again at the salvage yard. But according to Tesla, the rate at which the batteries explode is far less than the average car. Since the Model S was released in June of 2012, there have been at least a dozen battery fires worldwide, according to plaintiff's attorney.

However, according to the National Fire Protection Association, fire departments respond to an average of 152,300 car fires per year in America alone. Tesla also claims that no car would have been able to refrain from catching car on an impact such as this one.

If you feel that you have been injured by a dangerous product, contact a products liability attorney. Product liability actions are often complex and vary somewhat by state law. An experienced attorney will be able to answer your questions and protect your interests, often at no cost to you.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/01/tesla-sued-after-high-speed-fatality-in-florida.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, January 8, 2019

Illegal Butt-Lift Doc Facing Homicide Charges

Third time's a charm, and perhaps this time, the sentencing will be more severe. Whalesca Castillo has been arrested for manslaughter in the death of Lesbia Ayala, a resident of Philadelphia who had traveled to the Bronx to have Castillo perform a "butt lift" without a medical license. Castillo has also been charged with criminally negligent homicide and the unauthorized practice of a profession. 

Castillo had already been found guilty and jailed twice before for providing illegal silicone injections. But this time, the client died. Facing repeat charges and showing only discontent for the law, Castillo may be in for some hard time.

Ayala Died Due to Embolism From Silicone Injection

Police were called to Castillo's home in the Bronx on June 17, 2018, to find Ayala in cardiac arrest. Transported to the hospital, she died soon thereafter, due to an embolism. Medical examiners tied the cardiac arrest to the silicone injections Ayala had received in her buttocks and thighs, presumably at the hands of Castillo.

"Notorious Unsanctioned Butt-Lifter"

Castillo has been described as a "notorious unsanctioned butt-lifter". In September 2011, Castillo faced charges related to operating a plastic surgery clinic without a medical license, and served a year in federal prison before being released with probation. Less than three years later, she was charged again with providing silicone enhancement procedures and went back to prison for another nine-month stretch.

Reckless Disregard -- For Human Life and the Law

In court documents obtained from her prior two criminal proceedings, Castillo showed little care, and even less expertise, in helping her clients through these cosmetic enhancements. For instance, when one client had complained of leaking blood and liquid from her buttocks and legs, Castillo replied "Buy some crazy glue and put it on it." 

In her 2011 federal case, she described how she would receive hundreds of silicone gel bottles from the Dominican Republic, marked in Spanish as "silicone for hair" or "for body massage", that she would inject into people's bodies at various houses out of which she operated. She would dispose of the vials and needles by throwing them on sidewalks. Though she charged $1,500 per procedure, and owned approximately $1.5 million in various real estate properties, she pleaded guilty in 2012 for falsely claiming $30,000 in welfare benefits from the city's Human Resource Administration.

If you have been injured by silicon injections administered outside of a hospital setting, you may be able to be compensated for your losses. Contact a local personal injury attorney to discuss the facts of your case to see if you have any legal remedies available to you. Most attorneys will hear your case at no cost during a free consultation, so you have nothing to lose, and potentially much to gain.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/01/illegal-butt-lift-doc-facing-charges.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, January 7, 2019

How Much Is a Plastic Surgery Lawsuit Worth?

Many cosmetic surgery procedures are perfectly safe, and clients are healthy afterwards and happy with the results. But any surgery is dangerous, and not all plastic surgery operations leave us looking the way we expected or were promised.

If you are injured due to the negligence of a plastic surgeon or their staff, you could have a valid medical malpractice or other legal claim. How much that claim could be worth depends on many factors, including the extent of injury you've suffered and the type of lawsuit you are filing. Here are some basic damages considerations in plastic surgery lawsuits.

Doctor Malpractice

Most medical malpractice lawsuits award compensatory damages only, which cover expenses surrounding injury, lost income, and projected future medical costs, all based on the premise that your plastic surgeon breached a professional duty of care to you. This can occur in any cosmetic surgery gone bad:

If you can prove the plastic surgeon or their employees or contractors fell below the standard of care of the reasonable doctor or hospital in same or similar circumstances, you could be entitled to compensatory damages. Malpractice claims, however are not easy, and generally require expert testimony and complex medical reports along with experienced legal counsel.

Doctor Misconduct

Even if the cosmetic surgery goes well, surgeons can be held liable for other forms of misconduct. Plastic surgeons have been sued for:

If the misconduct is truly egregious you may be entitled to punitive damages, which are a form of financial punishment.

Talk to a Lawyer

For a more thorough determination of potential damages in your plastic surgery case, speak with a lawyer who has experience in medical malpractice and privacy claims. State laws may vary and may contain statutory limitations on recovery, known as damages caps. Many attorneys consult for free or a minimal fee, so don't hesitate to contact a lawyer for help today.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/01/how-much-is-a-plastic-surgery-lawsuit-worth.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, January 4, 2019

Trucking Accidents: What Is a Downtime Claim?

Truck drivers may do work for large transportation companies and haul products or supplies for even larger manufacturing companies -- but many of them own their own trucks. And if they're in an accident that damages their truck, that can mean repair time that the driver isn't out making money.

Drivers can, however, file what is known as a "downtime claim," and get reimbursed for those losses from the insurance company for whoever was at fault in the accident. Here are more details on downtime claims, whether you might qualify, and how to file them.

Proving Your Damages

As noted above, certain states require insurers to compensate truck drivers for lost profits while their truck is being repaired, so long as the driver wasn't at fault in the accident. But how do you calculate those profits, and how do you substantiate those calculations?

You can look at your gross income over a period before the accident (as short as 90 days or as long as one year), and subtract expenses, like gas, tolls, maintenance, etc. Then, you can determine your daily net income by dividing that figure by the number of days you drove over the past period, then use that to determine your losses for each day your truck is out of commission.

Downtime claims will require some documentation, so be sure to keep track of:

  • Tax returns, invoices or billing statements, and profit and loss reports to prove prior income;
  • Accident reports, insurance settlements, and repair estimates and bills to prove loss following an accident; and
  • Any attempts to mitigate your damages.

Mitigating Your Damages

That last part is very important to any downtime claim. Along with the requirement that the person filing the downtime claim was not at fault for the accident, you are also required to mitigate your damages, which is legalese for minimizing your lost wages and profits while the truck is off the road.

You may need to prove that you tried to rent a replacement truck, even if renting was too expensive or the type of truck you needed was unavailable. Essentially, you will need to demonstrate that nothing you did delayed the repair or replacement of your truck and that another replacement truck or rental was not possible or financially feasible during the time your truck was down.

From demonstrating your losses to mitigating your damages, downtime claims can be complicated. To make sure you're fully compensated for the time you can't drive, talk to an experienced truck accident lawyer about your downtime claim.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/01/trucking-accidents-what-is-a-downtime-claim.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)