Monday, February 13, 2017

Most Common Health Insurance Claims by State

As the saying goes, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." But there are times when statistics can be illuminating, if not humorous as well.

For instance, would it surprise you to learn that Floridians lead the nation in head injuries? Or that brawls in the Empire State alone account for ten percent of "medically documented fist fights" in the United States? Each state has its own quirky injury statistics, so here are some numbers on their health insurance claims.

Uncommonly Common Injuries

The data for state-by-state injury analysis comes from over 3,000 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, which are logged every time an injured person sees a doctor. The most common physical injuries are pretty normal: bruising, open wounds (injuries where the skin is broken, including minor cuts), and falls. But researchers were also able to suss out the injuries that were more common in some states than others.

For example, residents of Texas, Nebraska, Missouri, and the Carolinas were more prone to insect bites than the rest of the country, and there's an unusual cluster of six western states -- Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada -- where suffocation is disproportionately frequent. Why are Hoosiers more likely to be struck by objects than their Kentucky neighbors? We may never know. But it's not hard to figure out why folks living in the cold and icy climes of South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Minnesota suffer from abnormally high rates of spine dislocations, or why so many people in Hawaii, a state fully surrounded by the sea, nearly drown.

Common Insurance Claims

Of course, injuries lead to health insurance claims, and, hopefully for those injured, coverage for the cost of medical attention. But not everyone has health insurance coverage, and not every claim can fully cover the cost of care. Additionally, there are times when even an accidental injury occurs due to another's negligence.

In those cases, you may need to contact an attorney to fully recoup the costs of your medical care, missed time at work, or pain and suffering. Finding one near you is easy.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/02/most-common-health-insurance-claims-by-state.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Prognosis Misdiagnosis: Can You Sue If Wrongly Diagnosed With Alzheimer's?

When a person is diagnosed as having an illness, a doctor is generally the one who makes that decision. That’s because doctors have been specially trained to make diagnoses, are certified by medical boards, and are more often than not insured against making errors.

A lawsuit filed in Ohio last year against a cognitive clinic shows just how destructive a wrong diagnosis can be — especially for a serious illness like Alzheimer’s. The lawsuit includes 50 plus people who all allege they were misdiagnosed by the clinic. Among the most heart-wrenching tale involves one man who committed suicide after learning of the misdiagnosis, only for his wife to learn that an autopsy revealed no Alzheimer’s disease at all.

Specifically, the case alleges that the clinic’s director, while holding a PhD, was not properly credentialed, nor trained, to make diagnoses, yet he would diagnosis patients, and sometimes whole families, with Alzheimer’s. It is alleged that she abused her husband’s actual real medical licensing to order patient tests. Additionally, she would attempt to persuade patients against medications (which she couldn’t prescribe anyway) and getting second opinions from actual licensed doctors.

Prognosis Misdiagnosis and Liability

If a doctor misdiagnoses a patient, there very well could be a medical malpractice, a medical negligence, or a professional negligence claim that you can sue over. Misdiagnosis liability is generally evaluated the same way as any other medical malpractice claim would be evaluated by comparing what your doctor did, with what a reasonable doctor in the community would have done.

If a reasonable doctor would have made the same misdiagnosis, your claim may not be winnable. However, what a reasonable doctor would do is most likely a question of fact that medical experts can disagree about, leaving a judge or jury to decide what’s reasonable.

Medical Malpractice

Medical malpractice cases are rather nuanced, and can be incredibly complicated. If you believe that you have suffered an injury as a result of a misdiagnosis, contacting an experienced injury attorney is a good first step in determining whether you have a worthwhile case or claim.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/02/prognosis-misdiagnosis-can-you-sue-if-wrongly-diagnosed-with-alzheimers.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, February 10, 2017

When Can You Sue a Church Leader for Sexual Assault?

News of children, teens, and even adults being sexually assaulted or even raped, by religious leaders is unfortunately something that appears in the news too often. Just last week, a lawsuit was filed in North Carolina alleging that a youth counselor who was attending seminary training abused his authority and attempted to groom a teenage girl for sexual assault.

The lawsuit alleges that the counselor urged the teenager to confide in him, especially when it came to sexual urges, so that they could talk about those urges to supposedly resist them. However, when the counselor was invited into the girl’s family home for Christmas dinner, the situation quickly escalated. After eating, he took the teenager on a drive, where he parked the car at the church, then allegedly raped her. If this wasn’t bad enough, the counselor is alleged to have continued to manipulate the teenager, by telling her that people would turn against her, her reputation would be damaged, and no one would believe her, all so that she would continue to have sex with him.

Authoritative Abuse

When a church leader or employee abuses a minor, it is handled similarly to when a teacher takes advantage of a school-aged child, or a therapist sexually assaults a patient. Generally, individuals who are in positions that place them as an authority figure will have additional duties they owe to those whom they have authority over. Those duties expose the authority figures to potential criminal and civil liability, and even civil penalties, if they are caught abusing their authority to perpetrate sexual assaults.

For a church leader to attempt to have a sexual relationship with a member of the congregation, in and of itself, may not be criminally illegal (so long as they are both consenting adults). However, there could very well be civil liability and consequences.

As a preliminary matter, the person could lose their position with the church (or other organization). In addition to that relatively minor consequence, they can be civilly sued under several legal theories of liability, including fraud, misrepresentations, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and others.

Statute of Limitations for Assaults on Minors

Typically, when a minor is injured, they do not have to worry about the statute of limitations expiring on their case until after they reach the age of 18. This means that a child who is assaulted at age six, can sue their attacker over a decade later. If the state provides for a two year statute of limitation, then in this example, the child would have until they turn 20 years old to file the lawsuit.

For adult victims, each state has a different statute of limitations that will apply to your case. If you or someone you know has been sexually assaulted, abused, or raped by a church leader or other authority figure, you should seek legal help.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/02/when-can-you-sue-a-church-leader-for-sexual-assault.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, February 9, 2017

The Crumb-Tire Turf Wars: Parents Sue School Over Use of Recycled Tire Fields

Despite the fact that using recycled and reclaimed materials in building, and renovation, is a rather popular trend, a group of parents in the San Diego Unified School District are anything but excited about the new fields made from recycled tire rubber.

In a lawsuit filed this month by a parents' group called Keep Turf Safe, the San Diego school district is being sued for installing a type of astro-turf known as tire-crumb turf at several schools. The parents allege that the tire-crumb turf is toxic, contains carcinogens, and endangers the health and safety of the school children who play on it.

Cancer Risk and Other Harms Claimed

The lawsuit alleges violations of the California Environmental Air Quality Act (CEQA) for failing to conduct environmental impact analyses, nor notifying the public prior to the installation. The complaint contains allegations that children could potentially ingest the rubber if eating something while on the fields, as well as be exposed to high levels of carcinogens while rolling around and playing on the fields.

The complaint sites to a study which found that youth soccer goalies that played on this type of tire-crumb turf had a much higher incidence of cancer than children who did not play on the fake turf. In addition to the risk of children being exposed to the toxins and carcinogens, the complaint explains that the small rubber pellets can easily break free from the artificial turf and cause environmental harms, or worse, find its way into the waterways.

Injunctions and Mass Toxic Torts

Similarly to the asbestos exposure cases, mass toxic torts, or mass toxic injuries involve groups of individuals who have all suffered injuries or damages as a result of exposure to toxic substances. While this turf war lawsuit isn't necessarily a toxic tort case, it anticipates injuries as a result of exposure to known toxins and is attempting to prevent these types of injuries from ever occurring.

To accomplish that goal, the parents are seeking an injunction to prevent the school district from installing any more tire-crumb turf fields until they come into compliance with CEQA, though it seems the parents to not believe that is possible with the tire-crumb turf.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/02/the-crumb-tire-turf-wars-parents-sue-school-over-use-of-recycled-tire-fields.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

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:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)