Virginia Beach Personal Injury Lawyer

Electronic System Could be Source of Toyota Gas Pedal Problem

John Cooper — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:51:22 GMT

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is looking into the possibility that the root of the gas pedal problem in Toyota cars is in the electronic throttle control system (ETCS) which is found in many models.

Toyota recently claimed that it “rigorously tested” its ETCS under a variety of circumstances, including subjecting the ETCS to various forms of electromagnetic radiation while in use and the car manufacturer has been unable to find any problems, according to CNN.com.

Toyota’s proposed solution to the gas pedal problem is a steel rod that would reduce friction within the pedal system. However, this fix may not actually solve the problem. According to thetruthaboutcars.com , the fix “will profoundly reduce the likelihood or possibility of the pedal being stuck or slow to return. But the trade-off may not be immaterial. Undoubtedly, Toyota’s intended degree of friction will be compromised by this fix, to one degree or another. And drivers may find the fix unpleasant or uncomfortable, also to some degree or another. Clearly, this fix is a band aid to fix the intrinsic limitations of this design.”

If it’s discovered the actual problem is within the ETCS, Toyota may be forced to issue another major recall (their most recent recall involved over four million cars). Class action lawsuits have been filed against Toyota and one of the suits alleges that gas pedal problems were arising in 2002 and the ETCS is the culprit.

Here's a video discussing the suspicion of ETCS problems with the sudden acceleration issue...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ847n_UsYc&feature=related

The NHTSA is considering issuing civil penalties against Toyota over their handling of the recall, according to the CNN article . Toyota initially claimed the problem was with their floor mats , then claimed it was due to the gas pedal being too long , and now they claim the steel rod fix will solve the problem. All the while, Toyota drivers were on the road at risk of a potential sudden acceleration which could lead to a major car wreck and serious injuries.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood recently stated Toyota drivers should stop driving their cars in the hopes of preventing a serious car accident , but then changed his statements and encouraged Toyota drivers to take their car to a dealership so they can get the steel rod “fix.”

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 John Cooper

Surgeons Could Improve Patient Safety, Reduce Medical Mistakes with Use of “Safe-Surgery Checklist”

Jim Lewis — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:40:09 GMT

Surgeons could reduce patient complications and deaths, and consequently reduce medical mistakes and malpractice lawsuits, by following a “safe-surgery checklist,” according to a study recently published by the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

The “safe-surgery checklist,” which was in part developed by surgeon Atul Gawande for the World Health Organization (WHO), offers a way to lessen, if not eliminate, the alarming number of surgical objects left in patients after surgery. The “safe-surgery checklist” mandates that surgical teams stop at three critical points pre- and post-surgery to ask essential questions concerning the operation. USA Today reports that questions may include: “Is there enough blood on hand in case of severe bleeding? Have antibiotics been administered? What are the anesthesiologist's and nurse's main concerns?”

The “safe-surgery checklist” has proven effective thus far. The study shows that approximately one third of patient complications and deaths were reduced when surgeons followed the “safe-surgical checklist.” Despite its effectiveness, only 20 percent of hospitals have adopted it, according to Gawande.

In Virginia (VA), North Carolina (NC), South Carolina (SC) and West Virginia (WV), tens of thousands of surgeries take place every year. Of all surgeries, it is estimated that one in every 5,000 patients will unfortunately have a surgical object left inside them. Further, Science Daily reports that, across the United States, an estimated 1500 surgical items, such as towels, sponges and medical tools, are unknowingly sewn up into patients every year. This negligence is dangerous to the patient, as it can cause physical discomfort, septic shock, infection and sometimes death. This negligence is also the source of a number of medical malpractice lawsuits each year.

With the development and proven effectiveness of this checklist, hospitals and surgeons should take note. If more hospitals implemented such checklists, the quality of patient care would increase significantly and the number of surgical mistakes would decrease. Surgical errors like this are considered “never events,” meaning that with the execution of proper procedures, they should never occur.

USA Today noted “that help can come from a checklist, much like one routinely used by pilots before every flight.” Just as pilots refer to a checklist to ensure the efficiency of a flight so to should surgeons to ensure the efficiency of a surgery. The checklist in both instances serves as a guide and is ultimately beneficial for all parties involved.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jim Lewis

Warnings: When to Prescribe Fentanyl/Duragesic Patches

Rick Shapiro — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:53:55 GMT

This article briefly outlines one perspectiveon when medical professionals including doctors/physicians should consider prescribing Fentanyl or Duragesic pain patches to their patients. This article is authored by a personal injury trial attorney who is currently involved in Fentanyl/Duragesic pain patch cases, and has also researched and authored previous articles on this topic. If you are a medical professional you are mindful of legal liability issues, and must stay up to date on contra-indications and proper indicators for the prescription of these powerful Fentanyl pain patches and I think this article will be relevant to you. Here are my views:

1. The first thought should be: Do not prescribe a Fentanyl or Duragesic pain patch at all. Of course, this medication is 80 to 100 times more powerful than morphine, drop for drop, and your chances of any possibility of your patient overdosing and dying from a medication you prescribed decreases considerably if you simply do not prescribe a Fentanyl/Duragesic pain patch of any particular dosage because of the high rate of accidental overdoses and accidental deaths that have been increasingly tied to this medication.

2. As I have previously written, the FDA has issued a series of warnings and cautions to consider before the prescription of Fentanyl or Duragesic pain patches should be made and they are only proper for chronic pain patients that cannot be managed by any other suitable medication. The problem here is that there is a virtual epidemic of accidental overdoses nationwide of Fentanyl and Duragesic pain patches and, wrongful death actions have been filed nationwide against the manufacturers, including Johnson and Johnson, Mylan, and the other generic manufacturers of the pain patches. The allegations include unintended leakage from the pain patches, by those using heat pads or other possible unusual uses causing a sudden discharge of too much medication, or, what seems to be the most common, is that the patient does not understand the toxicity pain patch and places a second patch on the skin while the first patch has not discharged all of the transdermal medication, unbeknownst to the patient.

3. Who are the proper patients? - The only proper patient for these types of pain patches are chronic pain patients that cannot be managed by any other medication that has less accidental wrongful death associated with the medication. This Fentanyl and Duragesic pain medication was originally intended for cancer patients, for those patients with unfortunate terminal diseases that have incredible pain, and is not intended for persons that are suffering chronic pain that may be manageable by other medications. However, aggressive sales tactics by sales representatives with the various companies producing the Fentanyl/Duragesic pain patches has resulted in an incredible increase in the prescription of these pain patches. When the pain patches work well, the patient of course does not experience pain. This is good. However, the potential for unintended, accidental death with these pain patches is a very real and present danger and a medical professional should stay away from any prescription of such a drug based on the hypocratic oath, the basic tenet learned in medical school that above all "do no harm."

Here's a video discussing Fentanyl/Duragesic pain patches being misprescribed by doctors and nurses...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyi3E3JFPxY&feature=related

Please review any of the prior articles that are mentioned as links in this article for further detail on the dangers of Fentanyl/Duragesic pain patches. Hopefully, as the mounting accidental deaths continue to increase, the FDA will take further action restricting the prescription of Fentanyl/Duragesic pain patches.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rick Shapiro

Grounded: Investigation Calls Airline Safety Into Question

Jim Lewis — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:31:15 GMT

A recent investigation into the airline industry revealed some shocking information. First and foremost, planes have taken off and been used numerous times even after the FAA discovered maintenance problems, according to USA Today. The investigation estimates 65,000 flights took off when they shouldn't have.

USA Today analyzed data from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and found maintenance was "a cause, factor or finding" in 18 accidents since the beginning of January 2000. An example is United Airlines, which was fined by the FAA for operating a Boeing 737 jet "not in airworthy condition" on over 200 flights between February and April of 2008.

"Many repairs are not being done or done properly, and too many flights are leaving the ground in what the FAA calls 'unairworthy,' or unsafe, condition," said John Goglia, a former airline mechanic.

One possible reason repairs are not being done properly, if at all, is the rise in uncertified repair stations and mechanics. FAA regulations let airlines use uncertified repair facilities and mechanics, as long as a certified mechanic approves the repairs and the airline oversees them. However, these uncertified facilities aren't required to be located in aircraft hangars or employ supervisors and inspectors to monitor their work. Due to cost-cutting efforts, the number of uncertified repair stations has more than doubled in the past 15 years.

As a licensed pilot, I fully appreciate the challenges of operating an airplane and have great sympathy for airline pilots who have to handle these defective planes. They are put at higher risk, along with the passengers, for a serious injury from a major aviation accident because of this shoddy repair work.

The FAA needs to step its game up and exert some genuine oversight on what repairs have been completed and what needs to be done for each and every U.S. airline. The safety and peace of mind for passengers and airline pilots requires strong, deliberate action to resolve this issue.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jim Lewis

Proving Manufacturer Liability in Motorcycle Accidents Can Be Difficult

John Cooper — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 05:35:07 GMT

A lawsuit currently before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (WV) illustrates how difficult it can be to show that design defects and manufacturing mistakes contributed to a fatal motorcycle accident.

A thorough summary of the case brought by the widow of man who died of internal and external injuries after losing control of his 2005 Suzuki Boulevard motorcycle and crashing into a highway guardrail in West Virginia (Docket No. 3:09-cv-1284) appeared in the Jan. 27, 2010, West Virginia Record. In short, the woman is alleging that her husband crashed and died because his bike tended to become unstable at high and low speeds and had other design and manufacturing defects that made it shut down unexpectedly and difficult to control while driving through curves.

American Suzuki Motor Corporation, named as the defendant in the civil liability lawsuit, faces charges that it produced and sold a defective product and also failed to adequately warn Boulevard owners and riders about problems with the motorcycle model. The company could also be made to pay punitive damages if it is shown that Suzuki acted with conscious or reckless disregard for public safety.

Not surprisingly, Suzuki is denying that it did anything wrong, claiming that the victim of the fatal accident was driving unsafely and may have modified the motorcycle in ways that affected its steering and performance. The company has recalled the 2005 Boulevard three times to fix problems with the ignition system and the fuel tank mounting.

To substantiate her claims, the widow of the Suzuki accident victim will need to show that the company knew or should have known of the alleged problems with the 2005 Boulevard bike model and did not do enough to fix those problems. Physical examinations of the motorcycle itself and bikes of the same type by qualified experts can go a long way toward answering such questions. So can exploring the history of relevant product recalls and company records concerning the making and marketing of the bike.

For Suzuki's part, the company will probably request a forensic reconstruction of the accident and explore the victim's driving history (e.g., Did he have a current motorcycle operator's license? Did he complete motorcycle safety courses? Did he customize the bike?). Because West Virginia has comparitive negligence rules for determining fault for injuries, the victim's damages can be reduced if the person is found to be at some fault for the accident. Suzuki will try to avoid liability in this case by showing that something the victim did or failed to do was 50 percent or more of the cause of the accident.

Completing the investigations necessary to make both the plaintiff's and defendant's case could take months or even years. The time and effort can be worth it for this widow, however, if she makes her case and receives justice for the wrong done to her husband, herself and her family. A vicotry for the plaintiff could also help ensure that Suzuki takes responsibility for compensating other victims of similar accidents and working to prevent future fatalities.

About the Editors: The Shapiro, Cooper, Lewis & Appleton personal injury law firm, whose attorneys work out of offices in Virginia (VA) and North Carolina (NC), edits the injury law blogs Virginia Beach Injuryboard, Norfolk Injuryboard, and Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard as pro bono services.

EJL

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Cooper

What Road Warriors Need to Know About Car Insurance

Rick Shapiro — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:10:12 GMT

If you are “road warrior” with a job/occupation which requires you to drive many days of the week on interstate highways, so that you rack up fairly significant mileage in a given year, you need to pay special attention to your car insurance coverages. The simple fact is that if you are putting 20 or 30,000 miles on your car in a year, you have a significantly increased chance of being in a car accident and suffering serious personal injuries or even accidental death. Persons who are involved in sales jobs, such as traveling sales agents, persons who served to deliver goods or services such as courier services, van or truck services, and any person who drives their own car and receives a car allowance from their employer should read this article. The occupations and jobs we are talking about are: traveling sales agents/representatives, real estate agents, pharmaceutical/ drug representatives, general sales agents (who call on customers using their own car especially), couriers, and any commercial delivery services.

Lots of Mileage Can Mean Lots More Accidents (Statistically)

If you have ever obtained car insurance or renewed car insurance, you know that there are questions on your application about how many miles you typically drive in a week, month or year. The simple fact is, the more that you drive, the more likely the statistics are that you may suffer personal injury or accidentally even be killed in a car accident, and it may be one that is not your fault. For example, I recently talked to a sales agent for one of the yellow pages companies that calls on our law firm. It was interesting to me that she had suffered two car accidents in the last several years, neither that were her fault and her most recent injury lawsuit was still in court-with her NC injury attorney. I asked her how much she drove in a typical year and she said about 30,000 miles. This is a fairly significant amount of car mileage in one year and just think about how statistically she is more likely to be the victim of a serious personal injury or wrongful death because of all the miles she puts on her car driving highways and interstates, such as I-64, I-95, or the other interstates in North Carolina (NC) and Virginia (VA) as she calls on customers in both states. She routinely drives between Norfolk, Virginia Beach, the Outer Banks, down to Greenville, and west over to Roanoke Rapids-tons of driving.

What Occupations Have the Highest Crash Rates?

According to Insurance.com's 2006 Occupation Report, scientists, pilots/navigators and actors/performers/artists pay the lowest insurance rates of all the occupations reported. Whereas, attorneys/lawyers/judges, executives and business owners pay the highest insurance rates of the occupations reported. The group of attorneys/lawyers/judges, executives and business owners typically have more stressful jobs and tend to spend more time on the highways and interstates as well as more time on their cell phones, which comes at a higher risk for the car insurance companies. On the other hand, scientists, pilots/navigators and actors/performers/artists are less risky to insure because their driving habits, as a whole, are reflective of skills arising from their occupations.

A good example is the detail-oriented and meticulous nature inherit with scientists—which statistically results in safer driving and therefore lower insurance rates. Surprisingly, doctors and lawyers have the highest rates of car crashes of any occupation, and the reason may be that they are just plain tired. For doctors the accident rate is 109 accidents per 1,000 drivers, and for lawyers it is 106 accidents per 1,000 drivers, the Journal News reports. Robert Sinclair, spokesman for AAA New York, told the Journal News that the reason for the high rate of accidents may simply be fatigue. "These are professions that put in lots and lots of hours," he said. "Often fatigued driving can be a greater impingement on skills and abilities than alcohol."

It’s the Car Policy Uninsured Motorist Coverage You Need To Attend To

It’s the UM coverage you need to pay attention to in my view as an experienced injury attorney who has seen too many catastrophic injuries or deaths with resulting inadequate insurance available. I can tell you how many families have suffered serious injuries, and we must report that the uninsured car insurance is really not nearly enough to compensate my client. If you thought that this uninsured car/motorist insurance stuff was to pay the uninsured drivers out there you are not clued in. Read on…

As I have outlined in a number of prior articles and reports, uninsured motorist coverage is probably the most important coverage you have on your car insurance because it will protect you if the other driver has no car insurance or inadequate car accident insurance. Accordingly, the uninsured motoris (car) coverage should be no less than $300,000 per person/$500,000 per accident. This essentially means that you will have no less than $300,000 worth of insurance to protect you in the case of serious or catastrophic injuries that you suffer in an accident that was not your fault-and even if the other car driver has no insurance. For example, if a drunk driver or hit and run driver (disappears) with no car insurance causes your serious personal injuries, it is your car’s uninsured motorist protection insurance coverage that will offer protection to you. Under what seems very strange to people that do not understand the system, your own car insurance company essentially becomes adversarial to you and must hire an attorney to represent the uninsured or underinsured driver of the other car that causes such an accident.

Our law firm has written a free report on the issue of barely and uninsured car drivers and how to protect yourself. If you are in a job/occupation where you have a car allowance but you own your car, you should pay careful attention and be sure that your liability insurance coverages are at least $300,000 per person, $500,000 per accident. Most importantly, you must have adequate on insured/underinsured motorist coverage equal to your liability car insurance—liability coverage protects you if the car accident is your fault, while uninsured coverage protects you or a family member when it’s the other driver’s fault. Accordingly, the take-away from this article is that you should have $300,000 per person or better yet $500,000 per person of uninsured car/motorist coverage on your car insurance policy if you are this type of driver who must log significant miles on the car because of your job.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rick Shapiro

President's High-Speed Rail Initiative: Devil May Be in Details with FELA/Labor Protections

Rick Shapiro — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:10:55 GMT

When President Obama passed the Recovery and Reinvestment Act last year, $8 billion was allotted for high-speed light rail expansion. The president also requested Congress to provide another $1 billion a year for five years to pay for building 100-to-600-mile-long intercity rail corridors to accommodate trains traveling up to 150 mph, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

It’s a bold initiative aimed at reducing congestion on our highways and generating a new sector for job/economic growth. Reducing congestion on the highways could reduce the number of major car wrecks and this could provide a whole new career sector for track repairmen and engineers. Not only will we need workers to build the track, but workers to operate and coordinate the high-speed trains.

Here's a video of President Obama talking about the high-speed rail initiative...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu4aQTexL-U

However, what type of laws and regulations will protect theese workers? It’s a question that hasn’t received a straightforward answer. We know President Obama supports rail workers being covered by federal laws. He recently asked Congress to give the Federal Transit Administration authority to impose safety standards on subways, light rail and other urban train systems.

The federal government has regulated airplanes, Amtrak and even ferries, but a law passed in 1965 prohibits federal regulation of subways, according to the Washington Post. Safety oversight of light-rail and subway systems is currently delegated to 27 regional bodies controlled by the states. Though, this law was passed before Metro was built and the idea of light-rail was a mere fantasy. One of the biggest challenges to determining applicable law has to do with the aforementioned clash between state regulations and federal regulations. Yahoo News reports some of the light-rail project money will go to as many as 10 regions:

Northern New England line
Empire line running across New York State (east to west)
Keystone corridor through Pennsylvania (east to west)
Southeast network connecting the District of Columbia to Florida and the Gulf Coast
Gulf Coast line extending from eastern Texas to western Alabama
A corridor in central and southern Florida
A Texas-to-Oklahoma line
A California corridor from San Francisco to Los Angeles
A corridor in the Pacific Northwest.
The Northeast corridor between Washington and Boston

These projects are massive in scope crisscrossing states. Therefore, it would make sense that the workers building the interstate light-rail track would be protected by federal law. However, railroad companies asked the Florida state government to allow workers to be state employees, subject to worker compensation, avoiding FELA law. Railroad companies even had the audacity to ask for immunity from liability in case a light-rail worker suffers a serious injury. Fortunately, this request was denied, but it illustrates the tactics some railroad companies will take to try and avoid properly protecting workers.

This leads to another important question – who will own the light-rail track? Will it be a federal system akin to Amtrak or owned privately by a big railroad company like Norfolk Southern or CSX? Could there be a public-private partnership? As you can see, the idea of a massive interstate light-rail system is a great idea with a lot of positives, but the details of actually making this idea a reality gets very complicated when you delve into the details.

Here's a video of a recent public event with President Obama and Vice President Biden promoting high-speed rail projects...

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

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 Rick Shapiro

The Recalls Continue for Toyota Motor Corp.

John Cooper — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:35:48 GMT

Toyota Motor Corp. is in the midst of another major recall. A total of 2.3 million vehicles have been recalled due to a potential problem with the gas pedal getting stuck and possibly leading to a serious car accident. This will be the third recall in less than a year for the world’s most popular car company.

The recall affects these Toyota vehicles:

2009-2010 Toyota Rav4
2009-2010 Corolla
2009-2010 Matrix
2005-2010 Avalon
2007-2010 Camry
2010 Highlander
2007-2010 Tundra
2008-2010 Sequoia

The first recall was issued back in September of 2009 for 3.8 million vehicles and the problem was supposedly centered around faulty floor mats. Our law firm was skeptical from the beginning that floor mats were the culprit in numerous car wrecks. The media highlighted a particular car crash where an off-duty police officer and his family were killed when the Lexus they were in accelerated suddenly to 120mph and slammed into an SUV.

Toyota issued a second recall (a total of four million vehicles), this time focused on the gas pedal. However, Toyota claimed the problem was that the gas pedal was too long and simply needed to be reduced in size so it didn’t get caught in the aforementioned floor mat.

Given this newest recall, it appears the problem is much deeper than an elongated pedal. The current recall highlights a mechanical issue where the gas pedal can get stuck (floormat or not) and/or return slowly to an idle position leading to over acceleration, according to CNN.

"The news that Toyota has expanded this recall, in conjunction with a statement that removes blame from the previously identified faulty floor mats, is proof that this situation is slowly spiraling out of control. As a company with a reputation for steadiness, these must be uncomfortable days for Toyota," said James Bell, who works for Kelley Blue Book.

Here's a video discussing the Toyota recall and providing examples of how dangerous this gas pedal problem is to Toyota drivers...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTOxYFt1yT8

I believe Toyota made an error in September by simply recalling vehicle floor mats. If they had issued a single major recall focused on the gas pedal from the beginning, maybe they wouldn’t have been forced to issue three of the largest recalls in company history in such a brief period of time.

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 John Cooper

Video and Voice Recorders in Locomotives to Prevent, Detect Unsafe Crew Actions

Rick Shapiro — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:34:47 GMT

Fifteen months of investigations and hearings have lead the National Transportation Safety Board to conclude that the chief engineer of a Los Angeles-area Metrolink commuter train was texting when he ignored a red light and collided with a Union Pacific freight train. The Sept. 12, 2008, accident killed 25 people and injured more than 100 others.

In light of these findings, the agency is asking rail operators to speed up their adoption of required positive train controls that will permit the automatic and remote slowing and stopping of trains at risk for crashing. The NTSB is also recommending the installation of cameras and voice recorders in all locomotive cabs.

Many rail operators, including Norfolk Southern, already use video cameras to show and record conditions in front of moving locomotives but not within the interior, and management has agreed not to use the video for general random discipline The NTSB is now advising companies and regulators to point cameras inward. The agency has specifically requested that

The Federal Railroad Administration "require the installation, in all controlling locomotive cabs and cab car operating compartments, of crash- and fire-protected inward- and outward-facing audio and image recorders capable of providing recordings to verify that train crew actions are in accordance with rules and procedures that are essential to safety as well as train operating conditions."
Rail operators "regularly review and use in-cab audio and image recordings ..., in conjunction with other performance data, to verify that train crew actions are in accordance with rules and procedures that are essential to safety."

Each camera and voice recorder should have 12 hours of recording capacity, according to the NTSB. Companies would not have to release full tapes to the public in most circumstances.

Currently CSX and NS, for example, do not have cameras directed towards the crew, although audio and train performance data such as speed and horn use are detected. The NTSB recommendation is likely to set off a firestorm of controversy, as railroads would apparently have the right of general disciplinary use of the video and audio even when there is no collision or even a "near miss." Railroaders will worry about unfair "big brother" harassment use of such video.

My colleagues and I have argued for the necessity of positive train controls to reduce the risks for rail collisions. The value of external cameras to record the circumnstances of a crash and possibly to prevent accidents at railroads has been evident for some time, but the use of such devices is not mandatory.

Placing cameras and voice recorders inside locomotive cabs, however, will definitely allow operators to identify crewmembers who are doing unsafe things such as texting while trains are in motion. The presence of the cameras could certainly discourage unsafe activities, but where does safety begin and "big brother" use of surveillance end?

The NTSB often makes positive safety recommendations, but only the FRA and the U.S. Department of Transportation can implement regulations that become mandatory. If interior recordings of crew are implemented, the rules must bar any harassment or retaliatory use of the films and provide other protections of crews against arbitrary use of the films. In other words, labor and management will need to agree on clear rules if this recommendation is to become law.

EJL

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rick Shapiro

Pre-Existing Condition Can Be Used Against You in Court

John Cooper — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:55:03 GMT

A 35-year-old truck driver in Virginia (VA) allegedly suffered a traumatic head injury and soft-tissue spinal injuries after being hit by another truck and propelled into trees. The at-fault driver admitted liability, but the defense attorneys used the victim’s previous head injuries as a child to try and reduce potential damages, according to Virginia Lawyers Weekly.

The victim suffered head injuries as a small child and teenager. The defense argued that the physical and mental difficulties the victim has been dealing with stem from those earlier injuries, not the most recent head injury.

The existence of a pre-existing condition is a common tactic used by defense attorneys to try and reduce damages owed to the victim. They scour through years of medical history to try and find anything that could help get out of responsibility.

The best way to combat this type of defense is to be as up front and detailed as possible with your attorney about your medical history. Provide all medical information as well so your attorney can construct the best argument on your behalf.

The attorneys for the 35-year-old trucker used medical expert testimony to contend the injuries sustained from the truck wreck exacerbated the previous head trauma their client was struggling with. The law in Virginia (VA) generally is that the person hurt in an accident cannot recover for the pre-existing condition, but can recover for any worsening of that condition by the accident in question.

Their argument was compelling enough to produce a $1,250,000 settlement.

Just imagine if the truck driver failed to mention their previous head injuries to the attorneys. It would have severely hindered their chances at successfully litigating the case. Also, if they can, the insurance defense lawyers for the wrong doer will try to insinuate that the plaintiff and his lawyers were hiding past medical history.

Fortunately, the attorneys had time to prepare medical expert testimony to refute the arguments from the insurance defense attorneys, and now the victim has the financial compensation to cover medical expenses and rehabilitation.

So again, if you decide to file a claim for a personal injury, be as forthright as possible with your attorney regarding your medical history. It’s essential for a successful resolution to your potential case.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Cooper