Injuryboard Commentary - Head & Brain Injuries

Beacon House: A Sanctuary for Traumatic Brain Injury Victims

Emily Mapp Brannon — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:59:31 GMT

Where do you go after suffering a serious brain injury and the life you used to lead has changed forever? You need help, but don’t know what to do or who to ask. Well, there’s a place in Hampton Roads that is providing assistance to nearly a dozen local people who have suffered from a serious brain injury and found comfort at Beacon House, a community-based clubhouse program for people living with the effects of brain injury, according to The Virginian Pilot.

At Beacon House, individuals can learn, or regain, skills necessary to live a productive and empowering life. Through contributing to every aspect of the clubhouse, members gain confidence and self-respect.

Many of these folks suffered a traumatic brain injury. A traumatic brain injury or “TBI,” is defined by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control as an injury caused by a blow or jolt to the head or a penetrating head injury that disrupts the normal function of the brain. Of the 1.4 million who sustain a TBI each year in the United States, 50,000 die; 235,000 are hospitalized; and 1.1 million are treated and released from an emergency department.

TBI’s not only effect the victim, but also their friends and family. Someone who suffered a TBI could endure behavioral and psychological changes that require constant attention and care. Some victims may even need assistance feeding and clothing themselves. It takes an emotional toll on everyone around them.

An example of this is the founder of the Beacon House, local resident Matt Buckley. He created the Beacon House to honor his wife, Mary Buckley. Mary was operated on at Sentara Bayside in 2004 for a routine bunion removal surgery. During the procedure, Mary’s heart stopped briefly and she was placed in a drug induced coma to prevent additional brain damage. Mary remained in a vegetative state for two years before she passed. Matt wanted to do something for other people who suffered like him. That is when he started the Mary Foundation and worked to get funding from local and state government.

The Beacon House is almost like a sanctuary for victims of TBI and Matt’s work should be celebrated. He endured a terrible tragedy, but persevered and is doing something to help numerous Virginians cope with the challenges of a brain injury.

About the Editors: Shapiro, Cooper, Lewis & Appleton personal injury law firm (VA-NC law offices) edits the injury law blogs Virginia Beach Injuryboard, Norfolk Injuryboard, and Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard as a pro bono service to consumers.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Emily Mapp Brannon

Parents Who Discipline Teens, Would Probably Make Good Lawyers

Steve Lombardi — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:01:00 GMT

How do lawyers know when you’re following too close?

Parents with teenagers often times have to ask a lot of questions to get to the bottom of "what went on"? Most parents learn the ropes by experience and common sense. The same goes for trial lawyers, judges and juries.

So how do lawyers know when the witness who was a driver in a crash was following too close? In this case someone was, or else, did someone cut the rear driver off? You be the judge.

Probably 90% of rear end collisions occur because of speed, inattention by the driver and following too close to the forward car or truck. Take a look at this accident resulting in a three-vehicle crash on I-380 in Iowa. This one took place on November 13, 2009.

In this accident we have Randy Thomas following Trudi Pillard who was following Josef Flanter. Poor Mr. Flanter, it seems his only role is he was paying attention and in the wrong place at the wrong time. They are all driving on Interstate 380 near Cedar Rapids, Iowa. They were all heading towards Cedar Rapids, as the officer has them heading northbound. The police report by Trooper J. Meggers from Post 11 notes the collision location is mile marker 30 in Linn County. Read what Trooper Meggers says about the sequence of the collisions between these three cars and ask yourself what you think happened that lead up to the collisions. While the officers description is brief there are nuggets from which you can draw several conclusion.

“REVISED REPORT - ALL 3 VEHS WERE NB ON 380 WHEN VEH 3 SLOWED FOR TRAFFIC AND WAS REAR ENDED BY VEH 2, THEN VEH 1 REAR ENDED VEH 2 INVEST PENDING.”

Here is who was involved in the collision and the corresponding numbers the officer assigned to each. You may need to re-read the trooper's description to get a handle on the sequence corresponding to the drivers named in the report.

Car 1: Randy Thomas driving a 1993 Chevrolet Blazer – he’s 47 and driving the car behind the other two.

Car 2: Trudi Pillard is driving a 2007 Chevy ADS – she’s 46 and driving the middle car.

Car 3: And Josef Flanter is driving is driving a Chevy Tahoe – he’s 65 and he’s driving the lead car.

For those of you who don’t know I-380 is a four-lane divided highway with an interstate speed limit. Like your state's divided highways cars are flying faster than the posted speed limit, driving too close to the car in front for comfort and all in a hurry to get someplace sooner rather than later. Some drivers are on cell phones, others eating a soon-to-be not so happy meal, drinking and some are even texting. They change lanes without using a turn signal; they cut drivers off and cut in front of drivers who do leave enough room between the car in front of their car-truck-semi or motorcycle, causing two cars that did have enough room between them to now be following too close. All of these distracted drivers are in some way responsible for precipitating road rage.

Back to the facts. I’m also interested in the sequence of the two or three collisions. The officer describes car 2 crashing first into the rear of 3, followed by car 1 crashing into car 2. Car 3 slowed for a car ahead of him; so you know that the driver of car 2 was in all likelihood driving too fast, following too close and perhaps not paying enough attention to what was going on in front of his car.

As you can see this is an interesting case for us to discuss because there may be two at-fault drivers and that fact alone should raise questions in your mind about what they were doing just prior to the collision. Generally speaking the driver of vehicle 2 struck vehicle 3 and then by the officer’s description vehicle 1 ran into the back of vehicle 2. We don't know if vehicle 3 suffered two collisions; meaning when 1 ran into 2 did 1 then strike 3 again? Remember the officer didn’t see the accident he pieces together his report from what people at the accident scene tell him and from what the physical evidence (mostly the car damage) looks like to him.

So we can’t just take his description as the Gospel truth; we need to make sure that the trooper’s description matches the physical evidence and what the drivers and witnesses say happened. Which brings up a good point; I wasn’t there either so I make no conclusions about exactly what did actually occurr. Lawyers are never there and if they are they aren't going to be a lawyer in the case; they instead will be a witness. But as a lawyer who for 30 years has dealt with car accidents, I’ve become accustomed to reading accident reports and getting hunches about what probably caused the collision. From there I frame my questions.

Also, don't forget I'm a parent. And as a parent who has listened to four kids tell me their teenage version of what happened, I’ve gotten better at asking questions to ferret out the truth. My kids will tell you I'd often say, "That's an interesting answer but how about if now you answer my question."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMGdMRAc_Yo

So what do you think happened? Think first, read second and third begin to verbalize what you believe is the sequence of events. Being able to verbalize your thoughts is an important part of trial work.

Assuming the officer’s description to be accurate, why do you think Trudi Pillard ran into the rear of Josef Flanter? And then ask yourself why Randy Thomas crashed into Trudi’s car. What keeps cars from colliding on the highway? And what causes cars to crash at highway speeds?

Here’s what I think and the reasons are as plain as the nose on your face; you and I see this every day. Either car 2 cut in between cars 1 and 3 or else both 1 and 2 were following too closely for the highway speeds. That means they were driving too fast for the distances they left between the front of their car and the rear of the car in front of theirs.

LEGALLY SPEAKING

As lawyers, jurors and judges the main issue to determine is fault. Who is at fault is what you the jury need to determine. Most people want to answer a different question that has nothing to do with making driver’s responsible drivers. “What is at fault?” This is a misleading question allowing the issues of responsibility to be skirted and does nothing to promote safe driving habits. Let me explain. It's not about what is at fault, it's about who is at fault.

As a client you need to think like the lawyer’s do or at least understand how we think to anticipate where the legal theories will lead your case.

So as a lawyer, my first series of questions center on whether car 2 cut into the space between 1 and 3.

Series 2 of questions work on a better understanding of how fast each car was driving.

Series 3 questions wants to know more about how long cars 1 and 2 had been traveling behind the involved cars.

Series 4 goes to what distractions, if any, were occurring in each car, with the exception of poor Mr. Flanter.

Remember the case is going to focus on did number 2 change lanes inappropriately, what were their speeds, were they following too close and distracted drivers. Distracted drivers cause accidents. Inconsiderate and aggressive drivers cause serious and deadly accidents. Inexperienced drivers do as well.

To be a good witness, client, trial lawyer, judge or juror you need to think like a parent quizzing your teenager about a car accident they were involved in. Most every teenager wants to blame it on something other than what they did or didn’t do. The weather, an unidentified car or driver, the road conditions, the sun or some inanimate object that wasn't driving their car. As parents we know this and our parental mindset has to be aware of this point of view when talking to them about fault. So with a jaundiced eye about the explanation they give, as a parent, you’re required to probe further than their first explanation. To know where to go with questions we rely on common sense and life experiences of what probably happened. In other words we have to draw a probably conclusion to know what questions to ask.

So when they say it was the car in front, common sense makes us question their speed, proper distances for speeds travelled and driver distractions.

Besides the drivers in this collision we also have several passengers who were injured and each has potential claims against all three drivers. There are four people noted on the report as having been injured, they include: Jennifer Willis, Maison Willis, Ruby Willis and the driver Trudi Pillard.

That’s enough for today, but come back tomorrow to read The Verdict blog/blawg at Lombardi Law Firm where we will discuss other car-truck-semi-motorcycle accidents in Iowa. And as always if you are in an accident and need legal services we encourage you to call us sooner, rather than later.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEOseanUuT4

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Voting with your feet; when an injury causes a career change

Doug Landau — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:10:53 GMT

The effects of a wrongful injury are manyfold. Victims suffer physical and emotional pain from their injury, they incur steep medical bills, and they can often lose their job if the injury impairs their ability to work according to Sterling Virginia injury lawyer Doug Landau of ABRAMS LANDAU, Ltd. When a worker loses their livelihood due to an injury that wasn't their fault, they lose their ability to pay for their own medical bills, and often suffer from even deeper emotional distress.

Many people are aware that, if they suffer from a wrongful injury that costs them their job, they are entitled to sue for the money that they lost from their income. This is known as "diminution in earnings and earning capacity", and is as important to a lawsuit's outcome as the cost of the medical bills or the suffering caused by the injury in question.

What many people do not know, however, is that there is a legal precedent in Virginia that also allows for victims to be compensated, even if they are able to find work at a less demanding job.

In the case of Exxon v. Fulgham, the courts established that, if you have to leave your current job due to a wrongful injury, and are forced into a job that pays less (even if the new position has the potential to pay more than the old position did), you can still be eligible for legal compensation. You must prove your pre-injury earning capacity, through documentation of your education, training, experience, etc, and then demonstrate how your injury will force you out of your current profession into one in which you are less qualified.

If you have lost any part of your income due to a wrongful injury, you should see an experienced Virginia injury and disability trial lawyer as soon as possible to discuss your options. It is very important for victims of wrongful injury to know their rights, so that they don't get cheated by large corporations or the insurance companies.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Doug Landau

Traumatic Brain Injury-What Family Should Be Looking Out For When Loved One Has a Closed Head Injury

John Cooper — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:44:46 GMT

A car accident can cause much more damage to drivers and passengers than the initial, visible physical effects seen by the police. Aside from broken bones and bleeding, many car crash victims suffer from traumatic brain injury, which can occur when a blow to the head, or jolt, forces the soft brain tissues against the hard inside of the skull. This can cause bleeding, the tearing of nerve fibers, or brain damage.

The symptoms of traumatic brain injury can vary from case to case, depending on the nature and severity of the blow or shaking, but the Mayo Clinic has listed some common symptoms of mild traumatic brain injury as:

A brief period of unconsciousness

Amnesia for events immediately before and after the injury

Headache

Confusion

Dizziness or loss of balance

Sensory problems, such as blurred vision, ringing in the ears or a bad taste in the mouth

Mood changes

Memory or concentration problems

For more severe cases of TBI, the symptoms are also more severe, including:

Persistent headache

Repeated vomiting or nausea

Convulsions or seizures

Inability to awaken from sleep

Dilation of one or both pupils of the eyes

Slurred speech

Weakness or numbness in the extremities

Loss of coordination

Profound confusion

Agitation, combativeness

TBI can be deadly if left untreated, which is why it is always important to seek medical treatment as soon as possible after you suffer any sort of blow to the head. Even if you have seen a doctor and they have determined that you do not have TBI, you should be sure to monitor your symptoms as time progresses, since microscopic tears in brain tissue can often develop into more severe conditions, and can often be missed in an initial examination.

Also, make sure that you are also conscious of the health of your friends and family members, since many people are too embarassed to seek medical treatment for a head injury after they've already been examined once. TBI is a serious condition, and no one should let shame or a lack of information stand in the way of their health.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Cooper

Dog attack victim comes to Virginia dog bite lawyer Doug Landau at end of statute of limitations

Doug Landau — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 01:52:00 GMT

Most Virginia injury cases have a two year time limit. Some personal injury cases get a longer "statute of limitations." Virginia dog bite lawyer Doug Landau of ABRAMS LANDAU, Ltd., was contacted by a young man whop was attacked by a neighbor's dog over 15 years ago ! While most cases that old or "stale" would be dismissed by the Court for having been filed past the time limit ("statute of limitations"), in cases involving minors under the age of 18, the law gives additional time to claims on behalf of children. Often, injured children in Virginia are given until their 18th birthday, and then the regular 2 year time limit begins to run. This young man was advised to wait by family members. He endured a difficult time in school because of his facial scarring and head injuries, and his doctor had retired and moved away. Defendant neighbors had also left the area years ago. The Defendants' dog had long since died. Any witnesses that may have been helpful in this case could no longer be found. The injured dog attack victim's original lawyer also had passed away.

So, while his claim was still within the legal time limits, his case would be impossible to prove at this very late date. Plus, the time limit for collecting any medical payments had expired over a dozen years ago. On these facts, we sadly had to tell this injured and permanently scarred young man that we would not be able to represent him. Had he (or his parents) contacted us a dozen years ago, or more, then we would likely have given him a different answer. But sometimes potential clients wait until it is too late to practically and effectively pursue their cases for permanent dog bite injury and scarring. Call or e-mail an experienced InjuryBoard dog bite law firm like ABRAMS LANDAU at once, because waiting can ruin your case even if you are within the legal time limits.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Doug Landau

Experts Not Permitted to Testify Plaintiff is Faking or Exaggerating Symptoms

Michael Phelan — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:21:33 GMT

A written opinion issued earlier this month from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division slams shut the door on the defense practice of hiring a medical expert to accuse the plaintiff of malingering, symptom magnification, being motivated by secondary gain, having somatoform disorder or any of the other names used by defense doctors to imply that injured plaintiffs are faking or lying. In Kidd v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 3:09CV264, Magistrate Judge M. Hannah Lauck ruled that even if a medical expert possesses sufficient psychological expertise to offer expert testimony as to whether the plaintiff evinces symtom magnification or somatiform disorder, the Court would not permit the experts to opine whether the plaintiff has such disorder because "[s]uch testimony far too easily invades the province of the jury or comments on the credibility of the Plaintiff."

One often sees in defense neuropsychological reports opinions along the lines that the plaintiff's complaints have a functional component, are motivated by secondary gain, represent symptom magnification or malingering, etc. I make it a practice to move to exclude such opinions as being the type of testimony the goes to the truthfulness or credibility of a witness and invades the province of the jury. See Pritchett v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 182, 186-187, 557 S.E.2nd 205, 208 (2002). Virginia state trial courts have been receptive to this argument, and it is good to see the federal district court following suit.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Phelan

La Salle University Settles With Family of Former Football Player for $7.5 Million

David Mittleman — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:00:00 GMT

In the past week the media has covered Ben Roethlisberger’s head injury and subsequent decision to first play in last Sunday’s game and then opt-out at the last minute when the doctors wouldn’t clear him. This was probably a good decision, since this is Roethlisberger’s fourth concussion. Unfortunately, Roethlisberger received flack from an unlikely source: his teammate, Hines Ward, suggested that Ben could’ve lied to team doctors for the good of the team. His reasoning was that he had lied to team doctors before when he wasn’t feeling perfectly healthy, so why couldn’t Ben? This is scary news in light of the mounting scientific evidence that repeated concussions can lead to severe brain damage and long-term neurological disorders.

Now the NFL might want to think twice about allowing this type of criticism of players who don’t play because they are seriously injured. In a lawsuit against La Salle University, the family of Preston Plevretes settled for $7.5 million with the school after Preston suffered a severe brain injury in 2005 after an earlier concussion went untreated. Preston will require care for the rest of his life.

Preston was a 19-year-old sophomore at the time of the incident. He was apparently injured during a 2005 game when he was hit while covering a punt against Duquesene University in Pittsburgh. He was immediately knocked unconscious and took three to five minutes to awaken. He then became extremely combative and lapsed into a coma. He later had surgery to relieve brain swelling, but returned to practice on October 4, where he sustained more helmet-to-helmet impact. Furthermore, he played in the next game but opted-out in the fourth quarter after complaining of a headache. Despite the settlement amount, La Salle University claims no responsibility in the accident.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Managing Brain Injury - new Guide now available from the National Rehabilitation Hospital

Doug Landau — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:26:00 GMT

In his continuing efforts to help those with traumatic brain injury and disabled from head trauma, Herndon Reston lawyer Doug Landau receives and reviews materials from the National Rehabilitation Hospital ("NRH"), Brain Injury Services, the Brain Injury Association and the Virginia Trial Lawyers Brain Injury Retreat. The NRH Press latest book offering is "Managing Brain Injury: A Guide to Living Well with Brain Injury."

This is the 4th book in a series of useful guides to help people face the challenges of life following brain injury. As Landau and the ABRAMS LANDAU trial team has worked with many victims of traumatic brain injury ("TBI") and closed head injury, they understand the importance of having resources such as this available for disabled clients and their families. This new NRH guide is intended to help make sense of the roller coaster ride of emotional and physical changes that can overwhelm patients and health care providers. To order this helpful book, visit NRH Rehab or call 202-877-1776

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Doug Landau

Older NFL Players More Proof That Concussions Have Long Term Dangers?

Mike Bryant — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:18:00 GMT

I've written a number of times about concussions. We see them in our practice very often and they need to be taken seriously. Little bumps on the head have lead to serious brain damage and even death. The more the medical community looks at these injuries, the more damage is being found long term.

This past week, the New York Times looked into the long term affect of these injuries on former NFL players. They used a study from the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research that interviewed 1,063 former players and found that 6.1 percent of players aged 50 and older reported that they had received a dementia-related diagnosis. The percentage is five times higher than the national average of 1.2 percent.

The NFL has been quick to point out that there are holes in the study, considering that it relies upon self reporting. They are presently working on their own study to look at the issue. But, looking at the concussion research out there already, it doesn't seem to be a big leap to the connections or at least to accept that there is enough of a concern that the issue needs to be looked into further.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Advanced Technology Showing How PTSD Alters Brain Function

David Mittleman — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:22:42 GMT

For years people suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were dismissed as complainers and fakers. Their cases were given little to no serious consideration from the medical community and from society at large. Slowly, that has started to change. As our National News Desk at InjuryBoard highlighted, PTSD is now listed in the diagnostic manual used by psychiatrists and psychologists along with the criteria for making the diagnosis.

Up until now, however, PTSD has largely been diagnosed through its symptoms without a significant method of objectively testing just how the mind has been affected by the traumatic events that led to the disorder. That is slowly starting to change. New and powerful imaging tests are being developed to detect just how the brain changes in people with PTSD. The disease that was once "just in your head" is turning out to be the result of damage to the brain's nerve fibers that handle memory and confusion.

The technique is called Diffusion Tensor Imaging. It is a non-invasive procedure adds just a little time to a standard MRI. It involves tracking how water flows through tiny, celery stalk-like nerve fibers in the brain, measuring the direction and speed of the water molecules to determine if the nerve fibers have suffered any damage.

While this research has been primarily driven by the waves of veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq who has suffered from PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injuries (PDF), the ramifications of this technology can be far reaching. Countless Americans suffer from PTSD and traumatic brain injuries, ranging from an auto accident to surviving traumatic events such as a rape or child abuse. Treatment for all these individuals will likely be altered from this research as scientists learn more about how the brain heals itself from traumatic events.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman