Virginia Personal Injury Blog - Miscellaneous

Children Hurt at Daycare Centers

John Cooper — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:22:31 GMT

With more Americans having to have two incomes to make ends meet, more and more people have to put their kids in daycare from early ages. Parents often assume that they are entrusting their child's safety to a responsible and caring adult, but this is sadly not always the case. Stories of children dying from neglect at daycares, or suffering from physical or sexual abuse at the hands of their work day guardians are becoming more and more frequent.

The story of a 22 year-old Virginia woman who is accused of "striking, slapping and sitting on" an 18 month-old baby at the daycare center where she worked is no exception.

According to a local news source:

Ila Howell of Suffolk, who worked at the First Baptist day care center on Main Street, is accused of striking, slapping and sitting on the child who was in the care of the center, said Debbie George, police spokeswoman. The incidents reportedly occurred in the last two weeks of October.

Police issued warrants for Howell's arrest Friday but could not locate her, George said. She turned herself in to police Saturday morning.

Howell faces three counts of misdemeanor simple assault. She was released from Western Tidewater Regional Jail on $1,000 bond.

This is a woman who was hired to be a caregiver to young children. The fact that she exhibited this type of aggressive behavior while on the job is inexcusable. What makes this story worse is that this daycare had already been investigated for inappropriate forms of discipline, but the complaints were thrown out.

We need to know that our children are safe, even when we cannot personally see to their safety. This is the responsibility of daycare owners and employees, and anyone who would shirk such an important responsibility should not be in the daycare business.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Cooper

Ethical Law Firm Marketing?

Michael Phelan — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:51:49 GMT

The endless quest to improve search engine optimization may have landed one Wisconsin personal injury firm in hot water. Wisconsin’s largest personal injury law firm, Habush, Habush & Rottier, is suing another firm, Cannon & Dunphy alleging that Cannon has been hijacking Habush's name in Google searches. The suit claims that Cannon is paying Google and other search engines to direct people who search for Habush to the Cannon website. The suit says consumers could be confused when their search for the Habush law firm turns up a competitor. "Defendants' obtaining and using the keywords 'Habush' and 'Rottier' is an intentional and illegal effort to trade on the hard-earned names, personal reputations and good will" of the plaintiffs, the suit claims.

If these allegations are true, I hope the Habush firm prevails. Aside from the privacy right and consumer law implications, the alleged hijacking seems, in my opinion, to be plain wrong and unethical. I cannot imaging making the decision to try or allowing a SEO marketing company I hired to try to divert consumers searching for a competitor firm to my website. Aside from the obvious appearance of an impropriety, and the concern about false and misleading information, the activity is just wrong. I'm sure most lawyers know this and would never undertake such Rambo marketing tactics.

In fairness to Cannon & Dunphy, its name partner Patrick Dunphy said he thought a marketer made arrangements with search engines, and that his firm never requested that Habush and Rottier keywords bring up his firm in search results. On the other hand, Dunphy does not concede that there is anything wrong with the alleged diversionary tactic. If Dunphy's professed ingorance is true, I believe C &D should have instructed their marketer to stop the practice as soon as they learned about it.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Phelan

International Paper Killing Jobs in Franklin, Virginia (VA)

John Cooper — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:21:01 GMT

In today's tough economic times, no one can really be certain about keeping their jobs. This truth hit the people of Franklin, Virginia (VA) very hard, when they learned that a local paper mill was closing. This mill employed over 1,000 people, all of which are now going to be without work.

Carroll Story, the president of the United Steelworkers local that represents the workers, said: "Right now, everyone is in a hole. They're in a daze, a dream. They're like, 'What happened?' "

"You have people here 30, 40 years, and this is all that they've ever done," said Story, 49, who has worked at the mill for 31 years. "It's going to be devastating to the community. There's not enough work in this area to absorb this work force."

The Memphis-based company, International Paper, has been closing several mills around the country, but shutting down the Franklin mill alone is going to account for more than 2/3 of the company's recent lay-offs.

While the laid-off employees will be getting severance packages, and job-placement assistance, it will be difficult for the surrounding community of Isle of Wight County, Virginia to absorb the new pool of labor. Thus, a community that has depended on this mill since 1887 is now going to be forced to undergo drastic changes.

The paper company's representatives claim that it was a difficult decision for them, and in no way reflected on the employees' skills or hard work, but many in Franklin are now bitter about the way big business has chosen profit over people. Often, a corporation, in selling a plant, will refuse to sell it to anyone who competes with the company pulling out in paper products which is likely the best use for the property and would be the easiest way to reuse the factory.

It is certainly a difficult situation for everyone involved, but my heart goes out especially to the citizens of Franklin, Virginia, who are the most recent victims of the recession and the greed of corporate America. Loss of your job is a devastating problem for a worker or family to face. Although the people of Franklin will survive this body blow, it is sad that the company did not do more to prevent this damage to people who had given so much to the business for so long.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Cooper

Guardian Insurance Cancels Policies in Certain States

Greg Webb — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:19:05 GMT

Guardian Life Insurance, a New York-based insurance company, has begun canceling lines of coverage and specific policies in entire states in order to avoid paying high-cost claims; they are canceling coverage in entire states, such as Colorado, and certain policies in states such as New York, New Jersey and South Carolina because they are barred from discriminating specifically against policyholders that file large claims each month. The company only took aim at the plans whose claims were the highest.

For example Guardian discontinued its coverage of Ian Pearl, a muscular dystrophy victim, because his medical care costs about $1 million a year. In an e-mail, a Guardian Life executive called such high-cost patients “dogs” that the company could get rid of. A federal court has deemed this action legal, so unless the federal Department of Health and Human Services decides to intervene, Pearl and many like him will lose their coverage on December 1. A Guardian spokesman claims the policy Pearl had, which offered unlimited home nursing, became too expensive for new small-business customers to buy so the demand was diminished and a new plan was instated; the spokesman went further to state that neither Medicaid nor Medicare offer twenty-four hour home nursing. As a last resort, Ian can be admitted to the hospital under Medicaid, however his parents feel this is a death sentence since Ian needs one-on-one medical care.

Ian’s father claims Guardian Life Insurance have been trying to find a way out of paying Ian’s medical costs for years, sending private investigators to his workplace and to the family’s home to try to catch them in a lie. Guardian Life Insurance, which is a 150-year-old mutual company, reported profits of $437 million last year, a 50 percent increase over its $292 million profit in 2007. According to its annual report, it paid dividends of $723 million to policyholders and had $4.3 billion in capital reserves. The company's investment income totaled $1.5 billion that year, a small increase from the year earlier.

In July, Judge William Pauley, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, ruled in Guardian’s favor saying the move by the insurance company was meant to increase its competitive position by reducing what it paid out in claims; this would help lower the overall rates and allow them to compete for more business. The judge also found that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) could only be enforced by the Department of Health and Human Services and private citizens cannot sue under it, as the Pearl family was attempting to do.

Guardian executives claimed they were no longer offering the plan Ian Pearl was under because it was too expensive and small businesses were not willing to purchase it. As a result, they were forced to offer different plans. The Pearl family is continuing to pursue a trial in order to get Ian’s policy reinstated.

In a recent flip-flop, probably because of media pressure and the public outcry, Guardian reversed its position and stated that it would restore Ian's policy. Guardian also apologized to Ian and his family for what occurred, and also for calling the policy a "dog" in internal emails.

One question remains for this writer: what about the others that have had their policies canceled because of Guardian's internal policies? Will Guardian only restore the policy for which a public outcry is made?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Are Enemies of 7th Amendment Outraged About This Frivolous Defense?

Michael Phelan — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:29:19 GMT

Let's see if the insurance industry-sponsored lobbyists who call themselves tort reformers hold any press conferences or buy any advertisements to criticize the frivolous defense being put forth in the case where the pet chimpanzee ripped the face off of a woman. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting because this frivolous legal maneuver benefits the defendant chimpanzee owner's insurance company. Consequently, I don't expect any outrage from the so-called tort reformers. They only seem to become outraged when trials guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution benefit individual citizens.

In the case of the maraudering chimp, the attorney representing the owner of the beast that mauled and blinded a woman is calling the attack a work-related incident and said her case should be treated like a workers' compensation claim. The strategy, if successful, would bar the victim's claim against the chimp's owner and limit her damages to whatever is recoverable under the applicable state worker's compensation statute, which statutes typically provide for partial payment of lost wages and payment of medical bills. Claims for permanent disfigurement, pain, humiliation, embarassment and loss of enjoyment of life (sypmtoms one would expect in connection with loss of one's face) are typically not covered by worker's compensation.

Here's the genesis of the worker's comp defense. Sandra Herold owned a tow truck business called "Desire Me Motors." Travis the chimp's face was painted on the side of the tow trucks and he apparently appeared at company promotional events. Sandra Herold lives in Stamford, Connecticut where she keeps the 200-pound chimp. One day in February 2009, Ms. Herold could not get Travis to come into the house from the yard, so she asked her friend and employee Charla Nash to help lure him back into the house Stamford. The animal ripped off Nash's hands, nose, lips and eyelids, and she remains hosptialized. Nash was an employee of Herold's tow truck company. When police arrived at the scene, Travis attacked them too. The police were forced to shoot and kill the chimp. Test results showed that the chimp had the anti-anxiety drug Xanax in his system. Does helping her "friend" lure her friend's pet into the house sound like part of Nash's duties as a tow truck company employee? Not in a million years.

Nash's family filed a lawsuit against Herold, saying she was negligent and reckless for lacking the ability to control ''a wild animal with violent propensities.'' But Herold's attorney filed court papers saying that Nash was working in the scope of her employment with Desire Me Motors at the time of the attack. He argues that Travis was an integral part of the business, and that Nash's claims against Herold are barred by the workers' comp statute. I wonder if he'll be arguing that Travis was a statuory co-employee.

Here's the good news. We don't need tort reform or any other sweeping government intervention into the legal system in order to address this or any other case. The system will likely sort this case out. For the most part, we have excellent trial judges and responsible jurors in this country. I predict that this workers' compensation plea will not succeed.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Phelan

Health Insurance Reform-Why We Need It Now

Doug Landau — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:53:38 GMT

As a personal injury attorney, I see on a daily basis what health care expenses can do to a family's savings and economic status. Bellow are just a few of the problems in the current system in need of correction:

1. Coverage is currently denied to 36 percent of people who try to purchase health insurance directly from insurance companies in the individual insurance market. People are being terribly discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition or dropped from coverage when they become seriously ill.

2. Every year Americans pay more money for less coverage. Employer sponsored premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, this inflationary rate is almost triple wage increases over the same period.

3. Americans in rural areas are finding health care to be less and less accessible. Higher rates of poverty, mortality, and the lack of medical accessibility in these areas create huge health disparities between urban, suburban, and rural America.

4. Small businesses can't afford to offer insurance to their employees. From 2000 to 2007, the percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable.

5. Half of all personal bankruptcies are medical expense related.

6. More than 80% of America's uninsured are WORKING families. without reform projections indicate that these numbers will continue to increase.

Without health care reform we are becoming a sicker, more impoverished country. Our country needs health insurance reform.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Doug Landau

Professional Football Careers May Lead to Memory-Loss

Greg Webb — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 01:00:00 GMT

A recent telephone study done by the University of Michigan at the request of the NFL has found that retired NFL players may be more prone to cases of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease than non-football players of the same age.

The survey asked over 1,000 former NFL players if they’d ever been diagnosed with a memory-loss related condition or disease. Two percent of former players between the ages of 30 and 49 said “yes.” According to the MSN article, “Ex-NFL players report higher rates of dementia,” that’s 19 times higher than normal. The results were 5 times higher for retirees over 50.

David Weir, the lead author, emphasized (perhaps downplayed) that the findings did not show a direct causal link between football and memory loss, only that the risk is worth studying. msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10148102/Ex-NFL-players-report-higher-rates-of-dementia

This writer is a huge football fan. But the fact is, a concussion is a brain injury, and to the extent football players are getting concussions (repeatedly, in many cases), they are getting brain injuries. The NFL needs to do something to take care of these guys, who literally sacrifice their bodies for this game, nothwithstanding they make a good living. Given what they put their bodies through, the money they make is justified. When guys weighing between 200 and 350 pounds, who move very fast, are pounding each other at high speeds, concussions (and other debilitating orthopedic injuries) are simply going to happen. The NFL needs to do more for them as they develop dementia, Alzheimer's, and other neurologic injuries.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Private Insurance Bureaucracies Abusing the System?

Greg Webb — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:52:07 GMT

A House subcommittee held a hearing last Tuesday regarding private insurance bureaucracies’ abuse of the health insurance system. "The hearing was part of a continuing Democratic effort to promote an overhaul of the nation’s health care system by focusing on alleged abuses by health insurers" reported The Washington Post in a September 17 article entitled, "House Subcommittee Hearing Focuses on Alleged Insurer Abuses".

The need for the hearing stemmed from "the actions of insurance company bureaucrats in causing needless delays and denials for coverage for prescribed treatment," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), chairman of a House subcommittee on domestic policy.

Jim Jordan, the subcommittee’s ranking republican, said that he feels insurers cancelling policies on policyholders when they become sick is, naturally, "inexcusable." He also noted that he feels "most Americans instinctively realize that trading some challenges with the insurance companies for the bureaucracy of the federal government is not the solution." Despite the Republican stance that "legislative proposals would put government bureaucrats between patients and doctors," the hearing was effective in showing that "patients now contend with private insurance bureaucracies."

When questioned about how much they were paid, some insurance company executives were expectedly withdrawn. Executives were given the choice to either answer at the hearing or submit their answers in writing.

That didn’t stop Colleen Reitan, executive vice president of Health Care Services Corp. from sharing, however. Her company does business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas, and she confessed that she makes $728,000. Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.) claims that what he finds so disconcerting about all of this is that Cigna's head earned $11 million last year. Rep. Kennedy also believes that the insurance company earnings are coming from denied claims.

As an example, Kucinich cited the story of cancer patient Esther Dardinger. Esther was successfully undergoing chemotherapy treatment when her insurer, Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, decided to stop paying for it. "The decision was based on a 10-minute review of the case, according to court records" reported The Washington Post. Although she appealed, Anthem maintained its position, eventually leaving her family to cover the cost of the treatment itself. Esther Dardinger died at the age of 49, and "would have lived an additional eight months to two years, ‘maybe longer,’ if her chemotherapy had not been interrupted, her doctor testified during the litigation."

Furthermore, Kucinich cited a recent report done by the California Nurses Association that claims "six of the largest insurers operating in California rejected 47.7 million claims – 22 percent of the total" filed from 2002 through the first half of 2009

The executives of these companies testified last Thursday that, in actuality, the rejected population is much smaller than the percentages claimed by the study. Wellpoint, now the parent of Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Ohio, said "the nurses association used data from a regulatory filing that included claims initially rejected for any reason – for example, if patients had not met their deductibles or the claims lacked supporting information."

Tom Richards, senior vice president of CIGNA, told the subcommittee, "[o]ur mission is to improve the health, well being and sense of security of the customers we serve."

This writer has to respectfully disagree with Tom Richards. I think CIGNA's mission, and the rest of the insurance industry, is to make money, and hold onto the money they have, as long as possible. That is what I see.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Wheel to Work Day In Herndon

Melissa Landau — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:36:45 GMT

Doug Landau will be a sponsor on Saturday September 19th at Wheel to Work Day in Herndon, VA. The event will take place from 9am until 1:30 pm at the Town of Herndon Square on Elden Street off the W and OD Trail.

The Northern VA park authority is partnering with Herndon Parks and Recreation to host this fun, free, and informative event. The day has been planned to help Bike commuters to learn the safest and quickest routes to work. Doug will be at the event to help educate cyclists on Virginia's bike/road laws. He will also be distributing bike safety coloring books to attending children. The event will include many other take home goodies such as maps and water bottles.

Mr. Landau's recent successful representation of cycllists who were ticketed during this summer's charitable MS tour sparked a large number of questions and conversations about bicycle laws here in Virginia. Doug will answer questions about these laws and how they apply to cyclists. He will also be sharing technology with allows cyclists to evaluate the efficiency of their pedaling circular efficiency.

If you are local to Northern Virginia then please consider attending Wheel to Work. It's sure to be a fun and informative day.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Melissa Landau

Ghostwriting Issues Abound in Scientific, Medical Publications

Greg Webb — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:43:04 GMT

A September 11 article published in the New York Times entitled, “Ghostwriting Is Called Rife in Medical Journals,” reports on the findings of a recent survey conducted by the editors of The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that addresses the amount of ghostwriting that takes place in the creation of scientific literature.

JAMA created an online questionnaire that found “Among authors of 630 articles who responded anonymously…7.8 percent acknowledged contributions to their articles by people whose work should have qualified them to be named as authors on the papers but who were not listed.”

The NY Times article defines ghostwriting in scientific literature as “major research or writing contributions” done or made by professional medical writers to articles that get published under the names of other academic authors.

What has editors really in a tizzy, though, is that it appears “six of the top medical journals published a significant number of articles in 2008 that were written by ghostwriters” according to the study, with The New England Journal of Medicine having the highest rate at 10.9 percent. In a twist of irony, JAMA’s study found a rate of 7.9 percent of ghostwriting in…JAMA.

Joseph S. Wislar, “a survey research specialist and lead author of the study,” is calling for greater action to ensure all contributors are at least acknowledged if not credited as authors.

Ginny Barbour, chief editor of PLoS Medicine, told the NY Times that she considers her journal’s policies “tough” and “explicit,” yet even she feels that “we’ve basically been lied to.”

It should be noted that “the response rates from authors of articles varied widely, ranging from 58.3 percent for one journal to 85.9 percent for another journal.” In addition, there has been some backlash, especially from The New England Journal of Medicine, whose spokeswoman Karen P. Buckley issued a statement claiming JAMA “used an improperly broad definition of ghostwriting” in its study.

Annette Flanagin, a JAMA editor and co-author of the report, claims that they used “the standard definition.”

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb