Wednesday, February 8, 2017

NASCAR Fan Settles Traumatic Brain Injury Lawsuit

A crash during the final lap of 2013 race at the Daytona International Speedway sent driver Kyle Larson's car airborne into the catch fence and debris flying into the grandstand. Some of that debris struck Allen Davis in the head, causing a catastrophic, traumatic brain injury.

Davis sued NASCAR and Daytona's parent company, International Speedway Corp., and was seeking NASCAR's investigation report of the accident. But the two parties settled out of court, allowing NASCAR to keep the report under wraps.

Race for His Life

Davis was sitting in the upper deck during the NASCAR Xfinity Series race when, according to the lawsuit, he "was struck in the head by a heavy piece of debris and suffered a catastrophic, traumatic brain injury." More than 30 other fans were also injured when a gate in the fencing around the track buckled and sheared the front off the front of Larson's car, sending a wheel, along with still-attached suspension pieces, into the stands. The other legal claims had all been resolved, and Davis's lawyer was on the eve of deposing six NASCAR drivers about the crash.

"He is actively engaged with a rehab hospital and he has a full-time health-care advocate," Davis's attorney Dan Iracki told ESPN Monday night, "and he's trying to make the best of his situation. This recovery is going to change [Davis'] life -- it will help in making sure he is taken care of the rest of his life."

Trading Legal Paint

NASCAR was battling the release of several reports and documents relating to the crash, including:

  • A crash reconstruction by its top two safety engineers to analyze what happened;
  • The design elements of the track fencing;
  • A review of track fencing and crossover gate fencing;
  • The design of a new Daytona flag stand, including grout specifications, and bracket and post specifications; and
  • Modifications to Daytona's fencing after that accident.

(Since the 2013 crash, the speedway said it has improved safety measures, including strengthening the fencing in several spots.) NASCAR claimed these documents were covered by attorney-client privilege. With the settlement, those documents will likely remain secret.

Suing over sporting event injuries can be tricky. While there is premises liability for places that open themselves to the public, some courts have found fans assume the risk of injury or waive venue liability by purchasing tickets and attending sporting events, and a special "baseball rule" exempts most ballparks from injury claims.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/02/nascar-fan-settles-traumatic-brain-injury-lawsuit.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Salt and Ice Challenge Can Cause Serious Injury

While watching the latest fad internet challenge is usually exciting, one new challenge is more concerning than anything else. The salt and ice challenge should just be avoided, as it is dangerous and is practically guaranteed to lead to injury.

Unlike the ALS ice-bucket challenge, which had some rather minor liability concerns, the salt and ice challenge is a legal nightmare. Parents need to read up on this one in order to educate their children on why they should avoid this challenge. In fact, schools and anyone in contact with youngsters should be aware of the dangers of this innocent sounding challenge.

Salt and Ice Challenge

So what is it? The salt and ice challenge involves an individual putting an ice cube on top of some salt on top of their skin. While this sounds innocent, it, like the cinnamon challenge, has a hidden danger that can cause serious injury.

The salt causes the ice's temperature drop even lower than it already is, and even a short exposure can lead to frostbite and permanent damage to the skin. Like other nonsense dangerous challenges, children have been seen attempting this despite not being aware of the permanent adverse consequences. Areas of the skin exposed to frostbite that become permanently damaged can lose sensation, feel leathery or different, and stop growing hair or appear discolored.

Liability for Injuries

If you or your child has been injured as a result of the salt and ice challenge, you or your child could potentially have an injury action against someone else if trickery was involved. Although kids playing pranks on each other is nothing new, when pranks lead to injury, especially permanent injury, the pranks stop being excusable as kids just being kids.

While parents are rarely liable for the children's actions, they can be held liable for negligent supervision and under other related civil theories and even criminal charges. Additionally, if the challenge occurs at school, schools could also be liable. However, most likely, due to the nature of how an injury would occur as a result of a child doing one of these challenges, there may not be anyone to hold liable at all.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/02/salt-and-ice-challenge-can-cause-serious-injury.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, February 6, 2017

Snapchat Avoids Liability for Injury Caused by Driver Distracted by Speed Filter

Snapchat, which achieved notoriety for its disappearing picture messaging app, has pulled off a different kind of vanishing act, but this time in court. The app company was being sued as a result of their speed filter for photos that the plaintiffs alleged encourages unsafe driving. Snapchat managed to have the case against it dismissed recently via a court motion, although the driver that caused the car accident while Snapchat-ing was not so fortunate and remains in the lawsuit.

Snapchat’s speed filter works by overlaying the speed a person is traveling on top of their snap (or photo). In the lawsuit, the injured driver plaintiff alleged that the defendant driver that caused the accident was not only using the Snapchat app at the time of the accident, but was deliberately speeding in order to take pictures using the speed filter showing a high rate speed.

Although Snapchat claims that they warn users not to “snap” and drive, the plaintiffs were seeking to hold the app maker liable, particularly because there have been other dangerous accidents caused by the irresponsible use of this particular filter and Snapchat had been put on notice of the dangers.

Snapchat Found to Be Immune From Liability

Snapchat was found to be immune from liability on the basis of a 20-year-old law that is making lawyers wonder exactly how this decision was reached. The law in question is the Communications Decency Act, which is less formally known as the Great Internet Sex Panic Act, because when it was passed it prohibited more than just obscene content from being shared, but even indecent content, under the guise of protecting children from the evils on the internet.

As part of the act, online service providers were given immunity for the content posted by the service’s users. This means that an internet service provider, like GoDaddy for example, that provides businesses and individuals with internet hosting space to put up their websites, will not be liable for the content one of their service users posts on their website.

The CDA immunity explicitly states that GoDaddy is not the publisher of its user’s content, and is immune from liability for what its users publish using their service. Shockingly, somehow the court found that this immunity provision of the CDA applied to the negligence claim against Snapchat for distributing an app they knew to be dangerous.

While plaintiffs are considering an appeal, this decision has the potential to make waves throughout the industry as device and app makers are facing more legal challenges than ever stemming from distracted driving lawsuits.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/02/snapchat-avoids-liability-for-injury-caused-by-driver-distracted-by-speed-filter.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, February 3, 2017

Types of Birth Control Lawsuits

Not all prophylactics are created equal. From permanent and temporary implants to the pill, there are plenty of options for female birth control out there, and unfortunately some are safer than others.

Whether making a device or a drug, birth control manufacturers can be liable if their product causes injury. Here are five recent birth control lawsuits, and what you need to know about the products involved.

1. Essure Birth Control Lawsuits: More to Come?

Essure birth control implants are permanent coils placed in the fallopian tubes, that in some cases have been known to fail, cause infection, and even lead to serious hemorrhaging. And while Essure says its implants "can help you stop worrying about an unplanned pregnancy," the FDA recently issued a "black box warning" on Essure implants, its most serious warning available, saying "some women may be at risk for serious complications."

2. New Lawsuits: Can NuvaRing Cause Deadly Blood Clots?

NuvaRing is a plastic device that can be inserted into the vagina to release hormones, most notably progestin, freeing users from the need to remember a daily pill while the ring is in place. But the progestin used in NuvaRing has been linked to an increased chance of blood clots, some of which may be fatal.

3. Can I Sue for Mirena IUD Complications?

Mirena IUDs are inserted into a woman's uterus and disseminate the hormone levonorgestrel into the uterus to prevent pregnancy. Sadly, lawsuits have claimed the device can migrate in women's reproductive systems, piercing fallopian tubes, causing miscarriages after removal, and leading to infertility.

4. Pfizer to Face Defective Birth Control Lawsuits?

Pfizer was forced to recall its Lo/Ovral-28 and generic Norgestrel/Ethinyl Estradiol birth control pills after it discovered the amount of contraceptive in the pills might not be enough to be effective, potentially exposing thousands of women to unplanned pregnancies.

5. Yaz Birth Control Pills' Blood Clot Risks

Similar to women with NuvaRing implants, those taking birth control pills Yasmin and Yaz ran an increased risk of dangerous blood clots. The drug drospirenone can make women 2-3 times more likely to suffer venous thromboembolism (VTE), and the FDA warned women on Yaz to stop taking the pills.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/02/types-of-birth-control-lawsuits.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, February 2, 2017

Can You Sue a Doctor for Withholding Information?

While most people think of medical malpractice claims only in terms of the clear errors, like amputating the wrong leg, or dropping a junior mint into someone’s body during surgery, it is generally much more nuanced. When a doctor fails to make an appropriate diagnosis, prescribes the wrong medication, or fails to communicate important information, malpractice claims may be possible in these situations as well.

Many people are shocked to learn that doctors and hospitals frequently fail to disclose important information to patients, sometimes intentionally. Sometimes the failure to disclose info relates to mistakes a doctor or hospital made, sometimes it’s about test results, and sometimes doctors are just trying to prevent needless worrying. However, if a patient is harmed or injured as a result of a doctor or hospital’s failure to communicate medical information, such as test results, then they may be liable for malpractice.

Delays in Treatment

In some situations, a patient may not receive important communications due to clerical errors. In these situations, if treatment of a treatable medical condition is delayed, or made impossible because of the delay, that failure to communicate can form the basis for malpractice liability. In fact, this sort of claim is among the fastest-growing type of medical malpractice, with a quarter of all failure to diagnose claims stemming from failure to communicate claims.

In one such case, a patient was diagnosed with an infection, but was not notified for over 2 weeks, despite ample opportunity to notify her earlier. The failure to notify the patient in a timely manner led to a 3 day in-patient treatment, rather than a single dose of antibiotics had she been notified and treated promptly.

Get Help With Malpractice Claims ASAP

Medical malpractice claims are incredibly complex cases, and the laws governing them vary from state to state. Even the most obvious malpractice claims will still require meeting numerous administrative, or claim filing, prerequisites, such as providing the doctor or hospital with notice, or even getting another doctor’s opinion. Some states even have shorter statute of limitations for malpractice claims.

Additionally, not all medical mistakes amount to malpractice. At the very first suspicion of medical malpractice, you should contact an experienced malpractice or injury attorney for a consultation.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/02/can-you-sue-a-doctor-for-withholding-information.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Flint Residents Sue EPA for $772M in Class Action

Jan Burgess, a Flint, Michigan resident, is the named plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed against the USA on behalf of over 1,700 residents of city alleging the Environmental Protection Agency failed to protect them from the Flint Water Crisis. Shockingly, the city still suffers from water problems today, but that has not stopped residents from seeking relief for the damages and injuries already suffered. And because they are alleging the EPA failed them, the case is against the United States of America.

The class action is seeking nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars for negligence, failure to warn, as well as a result of failures pursuant to the Safe Water Drinking Act. Emotional and physical injuries are alleged and include lead poisoning, dermatological conditions, loss of hair, as well as other injuries to both adults and children. Further damages include loss of value of real estate and personal property.

Flint Water Crisis

In 2015, it was discovered that the water in Flint contained dangerously high levels of lead and other contaminants. The contamination was the result of the city switching water supplies in order to save money due to a constrained budget. Unfortunately, the new water supply was not properly tested and as a result thousands of Flint residents were exposed to the dangerous, contaminated water.

What makes this a crisis is the fact that the residents were advised to drink the water despite officials knowing the dangers, and what's worse is that they have still not had the water problem corrected after over a year.

EPA Sued for Failure

While the lawsuit is seeking damages for the residents of Flint, it is doing so based on the failure of a federal agency to act. The EPA is alleged to have failed to protect the residents of Flint by failing to issue an emergency order when it discovered that the city's drinking water was contaminated, and also failing to take corrective action after discovering the problem, both of which are required by the SWDA.

The damages that are sought seek to compensate the residents who have suffered actual physical injuries as a result of their exposure to the contaminated water, as well as residents who have suffered emotional or consequential damages.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/02/flint-residents-sue-epa-for-772m-in-class-action.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Types of Medical Malpractice Lawsuits

Medical malpractice claims tend to be complex legal claims that not only require an attorney have specialized legal knowledge, but which will also likely require the assistance of qualified medical experts. Generally, medical malpractice claim is a type of negligence claim where a plaintiff claims that they suffered an injury as a result of a doctor, hospital, or other medical professional or facility, falling below the usual standard of care for medical treatment.

However, since the medical industry covers a wide range of treatments, facilities, doctors, and patients, there are several types of medical malpractice claims and lawsuits. Additionally, because medical malpractice is governed by state law, laws regarding suing doctors and hospitals will vary from state to state. Below are four of the most frequently brought type of medical malpractice lawsuits and claims against hospitals and doctors.

1. Patient Confidentiality

Most people have heard of HIPAA and are aware of the fact that their medical records are supposed to be kept confidential. If a hospital or doctor fails to keep your information confidential, you may have a legal claim for invasion of privacy or even medical malpractice, depending on your state's law.

2. Misdiagnoses, Failed Procedures, and Surgical Malpractice

The most common type of medical malpractice lawsuits occur when a doctor fails to properly diagnosis a patient, or makes an error during a procedure or surgery. While misdiagnosing, or making a mistake during a procedure or surgery do not automatically equate to malpractice, they are the most visible mistakes, and are frequently challenged as malpractice. While not all mistakes will be considered malpractice, sometimes, the mistake will be so obvious, such as leaving a tool inside a surgery patient, that a doctor or hospital can be found to be grossly negligent.

3. Birth Injuries

Despite the advances in medical technology related to the birthing process, injuries still occur during child labor at an alarming rate. When the injuries are the result of medical negligence, or a doctor, nurse, or other hospital employee's mistake, a medical malpractice claim can result on behalf of the injured child. If the infant dies, a wrongful death claim could potentially exist if malpractice or negligence occurred.

4. Hospital Negligence

Although doctors are ultimately responsible for the care of their patients, sometimes medical lawsuits get filed because hospital staff members make a mistake, or a hospital policy leads to medical negligence. For instance, if a person is injured because their chart was confused with another patient's, the hospital itself, rather than the individual doctor, can potentially be held liable.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/02/types-of-medical-malpractice-lawsuits.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)