Virginia Beach Personal Injury Lawyer - Miscellaneous - Most Commented

Critic Raises Questions over Crash and Death Rates of Cirrus Aircraft In “Dead Pilots Don’t Lie”--Surprising Fatality Safety Analysis of Cirrus “Parachute” Planes vs. Cessna Small Planes

Rick Shapiro — Wed, 06 May 2009 08:00:17 GMT

I just returned from the Buffalo, NY funeral of my good friend, Michael Doran, a successful personal injury lawyer from Buffalo, New York, who last week died in a Cirrus SR20 plane he was piloting, that crashed just after take-off near Cleveland. Michael, age 51, of Doran & Murphy law firm was an avid pilot and had recently purchased a Cirrus aircraft, the new breed of small plane which features safety parachute technology. Michael and a young promising attorney named Mathew J. Shnirel who had recently joined his law firm had just taken off from a small airport near Cleveland when (apparent) engine trouble forced him to immediately circle back toward the airport, before the plane crashed just outside a residential area according to news reports-it appears Mike purposefully and heroically barely cleared a residential area, crashing beside a church.

Was it mechanical failure? Why couldn't Michael have deployed the parachute-was the altitude and speed too low or did an engine failure prevent parachute deployment? Even my law partner, Jim Lewis, himself a pilot of small planes who blogs on aircraft accidents, did not have any answers though we all suspect engine failure. Following the emotional funeral and moving eulogies by family and friends, I still was looking for answers to difficult questions on my return home. Also, I recalled Michael telling me (we snow skied together) that he bought the Cirrus aircraft partly because of the safety parachute feature and I knew he was a safe pilot just from him explaining how very careful he was with weather conditions before ever flying his small plane. As of the drafting of this article, there has been no NTSB preliminary accident report, but this article deals with safety issues of the Cirrus and its main competitor, the Cessna aircraft, two of the most commonly piloted small planes. Note: I am not a pilot, but this article mainly deals with safety statistics surrounding popular small aircraft.

Cirrus aircraft are equipped with proprietary technology which can employ a special parachute and Cirrus planes also have an anti--spin feature incorporated in the wing design that is marketed as a feature that can prevent the plane from going into a deadly spin potentially saving the life of those on a Cirrus plane. As a prolific U.S. inventor myself, there is no question that Cirrus should be applauded for bringing the parachute safety feature to the small aircraft market. No other small aircraft has this safety feature. However, there are very troubling statistics relating to the Cirrus aircraft crash and death rates for the just 10 years since the Cirrus have been in use.

It’s been over a decade now since Cessna resumed small airplane production in 1997 and Cirrus delivered the first SR20 composite body plane in 1999. Together by year-end 2008, both companies delivered nearly 13,000 new aircraft, accumulating over 12 million hours flown.

Cessna aircraft are one of the most popular competitors to Cirrus planes, especially since the late 1990s. Cirrus planes go faster and feature proprietary parachute and anti-spin technology, Cessna’s metal body aircraft cost less generally. If one compares the government statistics relating to safety of the Cessna versus the Cirrus since the late 1990s, the rates show that the Cirrus aircraft has been in 2.8 times more crash deaths than the Cessna, per aircraft, per hour flown, according a long analysis called “Dead Pilots Don’t Lie” by Stephen Wilson on his aircraft/piloting blog.

Wilson is a mechanic, pilot, and operates a Cessna aircraft sales business and it is no a secret that he favors the Cessna aircraft and the Cessna safety record over the Cirrus's safety record hands down-and essentially backs up his claims on his aviation blog that he has authored since at least 2002. He is an aircraft mechanic, aircraft owner, and flight instructor; a full-time aircraft professional in the single engine aircraft business for 23 years and also was an NTSB-trained Air Safety Investigator, who represented the Cessna Aircraft Company in field accident investigations. NO question he comes to the discussion with a bias, but he may have good reason to be biased. According to his analysis of NTSB records, although always equipped with an emergency parachute, Cirrus occupants were killed three times more frequently than those in Cessna planes with no parachutes to save them. The data contained in one hundred forty-one NTSB reports to date confirm what Wilson shows in tables on his website blog, and some are shown below.

A look at some of the key statistics according to Wilson from a review of the pertinent NTSB records:

Cessna (Single Engines Mfg 1997 and Newer vs. Cirrus)

The Serious Accident Tally

1997-2009	Total Serious Accidents	Fatalities
Cirrus	59	97
New-Production Cessna (Skylanes and Stationairs Only)	36	53

1997-2009	Total fleet hours	Hours Flown per Serious Accident	Hours Flown per Death
Cirrus	2,650,000	44,900	27,300
New-Production Cessna (Skylanes and Stationairs Only)	3,590,000	99,700	67,700

Wilson's charts indicate that serious accidents occurred 2.2 times more frequently in Cirrus aircraft than in Cessna’s. 2.5 times as many people were killed in Cirrus’s than in Cessna’s given the same number of hours flown-basically an apples to apples comparison.

He also took a look back from the date of accident in either aircraft in that timeframe to analyze safety statistics in a different way as follows:

Comparing Total Hours on Aircraft at the Accident Site
Consider how many hours (total aircraft time) accident aircraft accumulated from date of manufacture until the day they crashed. The NTSB recorded aircraft total time on 41 Cirrus and 72 Cessna accident investigations where there was serious injury or death in the last 10 years.

Hours on Accident Aircraft before the Serious Accident Occurred

1997-2009	Number Reports That NTSB Reported Total Time	Hours Flown	Number of Fatalities	Average Aircraft Total Time at the Accident	Number of Aircraft Hours per Fatality
Cirrus	41 reports	17,835	61	435	292
Cessna	72 reports	76,680	95	1,065	807

Cirrus serious accidents were 2.8 times more fatal than Cessna in the same number of fateful hours flown, Wilson says, based on the NTSB statistics. To see the underlying statistics, click here:

Cirrus NTSB Serious Accident Reports
Cessna (Single Engines Mfg 1997 and Newer) NTSB Serious Accident Reports

As an injury lawyer representing victims of injury, I don't have any personal bias between Cirrus and Cessna airplanes, but I have a strong interest in personal injury/wrongful death safety in the United States, whether it be in the workplace or in airplanes-and my good friend died piloting a Cirrus. It is striking that the aircraft with the most advanced safety features (parachute and anti-spin technology), has a clearly higher rate of serious accidents or death per hour flown, compared to a more standard aircraft such as the Cessna. What is causing this as it seems counter-intuitive? Could Cirrus argue that “inexperienced” pilots fly the Cirrus vs. the Cessna? Doubtful this would skew the statistics so violently.

As of March 2009, there were 18 reported deployments of a Cirrus parachutes with at least 30 survivors. BRS, the parachute manufacturer for the Cirrus, has been installing parachutes on small ultralight and experimental planes since 1983. To date, the company claims 228 “lives saved” (assuming the plane’s occupants would have suffered death in the event). A three-year-old report from BRS shows that nearly half the “lives saved” in the most recent 50 incidents were Cirrus occupants. Obviously, there is merit to the safety feature of the parachute, but something is going on with the overall control issues on the Cirrus to make the fatality statistics so skewed in favor of the Cessna aircraft record over the last ten years.

More comparison details from Wilson: in a Cirrus, the passenger must shut off power to the engine, and follow the instructions on the emergency placard to activate the parachute. A passenger in a Cessna can also shut off power by pulling a big red knob, then turning the elevator trim wheel full up to attain best glide speed. With a Cessna, there's remains an opportunity to steer the plane to avoid injury to people on the ground as much as possible. With over 20 knots greater stalling speed, greater landing distance required and other factors, the Cirrus may be less crashworthy than the Cessna, according to pilot Wilson (not covered in this analysis). All of this is food for thought if you are pilot ready to either purchase one of these aircraft, or planning to just fly one regularly. Sometimes a safety improvement must be considered with all other available safety data. In the Cirrus crash that killed my comrade, I do not know the answers yet. And, unfortunately, none of this analysis will bring my friend and pilot Mike Doran back. God bless him, his family and the Schnirel family.

Note: If you have an important safety comment or thought on these issues, please write a comment on my blog!

May 10, 2009 Update Alert: National News Desk Reporter Jane Akre, with Lisa Brown did a national followup story on the Cirrus safety debate. Click here to read "Cirrus Fatalities Have Critics Questioning Safety."

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, as well as the Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard as a pro bono service to consumers. Lawyers licensed in: VA, NC, SC, WV, DC, KY, who handle car, truck, railroad, aviation and medical negligence cases and more.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rick Shapiro

Obama Acts To Restore State Civil Justice Laws, Reducing Federal Agency Controls

Rick Shapiro — Wed, 20 May 2009 19:22:24 GMT

Today, President Obama issued a Directive to the Heads of all Executive Branch Departments and Agencies stating it is the policy of his Administration that “preemption of State law by executive departments and agencies should be undertaken only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption.” Preemption of state common law will no longer be presumed or asserted by regulatory agencies absent “explicit preemption by Congress or an otherwise sufficient basis under applicable legal principles.”

What is significant is that many Republicans argue that federal government is "too big" and "too regulatory" over American lives. However, despite this "rhetoric" the Bush Republican agencies systematically acted to wipe out state civil tort laws, in an unprecedented 8 year federal power grab. Eventually, by the end of the Bush second term, states began to recognize that the federal government agencies were by mere "declarations" in the federal register, asserting that federal laws snuffed conflicting state laws.

President Obama's new directive went on to state:

In order to ensure that executive departments and agencies include statements of preemption in regulations only when such statements have a sufficient legal basis, the President’s directive provides that:

"1. Heads of departments and agencies should not include in regulatory preambles statements that the department or agency intends to preempt State law through the regulation except where preemption provisions are also included in the codified regulation.

2. Heads of departments and agencies should not include preemption provisions in codified regulations except where such provisions would be justified under legal principles governing preemption…

3. Heads of departments and agencies should review regulations issued within the past 10 years that contain statements in regulatory preambles or codified provisions intended by the department or agency to preempt State law, in order to decide whether such statements or provisions are justified under applicable legal principles governing preemption. Where the head of a department or agency determines that a regulatory statement of preemption or codified regulatory provision cannot be so justified, the head of that department or agency should initiate appropriate action, which may include amendment of the relevant regulation.”

This is a major victory for all United States consumers, and essentially will end the federal agency power grab of the last 8 years.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rick Shapiro

Dog Attack Highlights Necessity of Proper Pet Ownership and Vigilance

Randy Appleton — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:52:00 GMT

A woman was walking across the parking lot of a WilcoHess gas station on the 4400 block of Princess Anne Road in Virginia Beach, Virginia (VA) when a dog jumped out of a car and viciously attacked her. Severe damage was done to her throat, which required surgery.

The dog was an Akita and is currently in quarantine at an Animal Control Center, according to The Virginian-Pilot. There’s a misconception that pit bulls are the only violent dog breed, but this situation makes it clear that many breeds can become violent.

A study done in 1997 on dog bite fatalities between 1979 and 1996 revealed that the following breeds killed one or more people: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. Since 1975, fatal attacks have been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds, according to dogbitelaw.com.

As a personal injury attorney with 20 years of experience, I’m always saddened to hear about a traumatic injury that could have, and should have, been prevented. This attack is a clear indication dog owners must exercise consistent vigilance over their pets and manage them properly.

Charges are pending against the owner of the Akita, and rightfully so. The owner should have taken the necessary steps to prevent the dog from leaving the vehicle (such as having a leash on the dog and connected to a seat in the vehicle) and taken the dog through proper training to ensure the animal would obey rather than ignore commands.

Here is a video about what to do to prevent a dog attack

Over 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year. Approximately 885,000 people seek medical attention for those bites, according to the CDC. 386,000 of those people require emergency medical treatment and nearly 12 people die each year from dog-related attacks. Clearly, this is a serious issue and not an isolated incident. In fact, an American has a one in 50 chance of being bitten by a dog, according to the CDC.

Fortunately, Virginia (VA) has a Dangerous Dog Registry where you can find out where aggressive and violent dogs are in proximity to your home.

About the Editors: Shapiro, Cooper Lewis & Appleton personal injury law firm is based in Virginia (VA), near the NE North Carolina (NC) border and handles car,truck,railroad, and medical negligence cases and more. Our lawyers proudly edit the Virginia Beach Injuryboard, Norfolk Injuryboard, and Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard as a pro bono public information service. Lawyers licensed in: VA, NC, SC, WV, DC, KY.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Randy Appleton

Man Sues Taco Bell After Suffering Injuries from Swallowing Bones

Emily Mapp Brannon — Fri, 22 May 2009 09:33:00 GMT

Hungry? You may want to think twice before you think outside the bun. Just ask George Phelps, a VA Beach man who suffered severe injuries to his throat after swallowing bones in a Mexican pizza from Taco Bell. In the lawsuit, filed in Virginia Beach Circuit Court, George E. Phelps Jr. said he "endured the vomiting of blood-streaked phlegm" after three animal bones got caught in his throat. He’s seeking $70,000 in compensation for his injuries from Taco Bell of America and Yum Brands Inc.

Phelps missed work for three days, rang up medical bills, and "suffered great mental anguish," the suit says. He ordered the pizza on April 13, 2007, at Taco Bell on Fordham Drive, near Indian River and Kempsville roads. He began coughing and choking, and was able to pull one of the bones from his throat, the suit says. Doctors pulled two more from his throat at the hospital.

Rob Poetsch, a spokesman for Taco Bell, wrote in an e-mail that the safety and health of customers and employees is the restaurant's priority. The company is investigating Phelps’s case. This is not the first time Taco Bell has been sued for tainted food. Last year, a Nebraska family was awarded $40,000 after eating urine-tainted food from a KFC/Taco Bell restaurant.

Great mental anguish? I would say so! With today’s stop-and-go traffic, hurry-up-and-wait lifestyle, this type of thing was bound to happen sooner or later. It’s bad enough that American families don’t have the time or resources to make decent, healthy meals at home. It’s even worse that finding a healthy meal at a reasonably-priced restaurant is like a real-life Where’s Waldo. Now, sloppy fast-food joints are further tainting our food with animal and human refuse!

What can you do as a consumer? Educate yourself! As a personal injury attorney, I know that prevention boils down to being knowledgeable about risks. Take a minute to think about the food you’re eating. Aside from absorption through skin, ingestion by mouth is the easiest way to poison yourself. Look around the restaurant: is it clean? Can you see a health department sanitation score? Have your friends and family gotten sick after eating at that restaurant? Trust me, making the effort to think for a minute about what you’re eating is well worth it. After all, your health is your true wealth.

Shapiro, Cooper Lewis & Appleton personal injury law firm is based in Virginia (VA), near the Northeast North Carolina (NC) border, practicing primarily in the southeastern U.S. and handles only injury law, including car, truck, railroad, and medical negligence cases and more. The firm's website is: hsinjurylaw.com, the firm edits the injury law blogs Virginia Beach Injuryboard, Norfolk Injuryboard, as well as the Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard and also hosts a video library covering many FAQ’s on personal injury subjects. Lawyers licensed in: VA, NC, SC, WV, DC, KY. CA

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Emily Mapp Brannon

COURT ORDERED MEDIATION IN PERSONAL INJURY CASES

Randy Appleton — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:36:46 GMT

Authored by: Randall Appleton

Many courts throughout the country are utilizing court ordered mediation as an alternative dispute resolution tool to assist parties in resolving cases prior to jury trials. Although the procedure varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (primarily in the timing of the mediation conference in the litigation process) the format is relatively consistent.

Of course, a lawsuit is initiated when the plaintiff files a Complaint in an appropriate court and has the Complaint served upon the defendant. The parties typically engage in discovery by sending written questions concerning the case to each other to be answered within a time frame prescribed by statute. Depositions may also be conducted which involves the attorneys representing each party making arrangements to pose questions in person to a witness or opposing party who has been placed under oath by a court reporter. Typically, once the parties have concluded the initial discovery in a case, the court will issue an Order directing the parties to participate in a mediation conference to discuss the case with the opposing party and a neutral party or mediator.
The plaintiff's counsel is usually charged by the court with the responsibility of scheduling the mediation conference and the opposing attorney will typically agree on a mediator to conduct the conference; however, in some jurisdictions the court appoints the mediator and it is the mediator who schedules the conference. Each party is typically required to be represented by an individual who has the capacity to agree to terms which will ultimately lead to settlement of the case. This means the plaintiff and a representative of the defendant's claims department or insurance company with the authority to obtain funds in an amount sufficient to settle the case for a reasonable amount are usually in attendance.
Each party is typically represented by counsel at the mediation conference. The mediation session typically begins with the plaintiff and defendant along with their attorneys meeting with the mediator jointly in a conference room. The mediator will typically introduce himself or herself to the parties and explain the guidelines for the process and their fee. Mediators are typically paid an hourly rate for their preparation for, and participation in, the mediation.
Once the mediator has made the initial introductions and provided an explanation of the process, the plaintiff's attorney will typically provide a brief description of the plaintiff's case as well as any settlement negotiations that were conducted prior to the mediation conference. The defense counsel will typically provide a brief description of the defenses available in the case following the plaintiff's counsel's summary.
Following the statements by both attorneys, the mediator will typically place the defendant and defense attorney in one room and the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in another and will meet with each party separately. At this time the mediator will begin eliciting settlement proposals from each party and communicating it to the opposing party with hopes that these communications will ultimately lead to a settlement of the case.
If the parties are able to reach an agreement which settles the issues in a case, the mediator will reduce the terms of the settlement to writing and have the attorneys and parties sign the agreement to indicate their consent to the settlement. If the parties are unable to settle a case at mediation, the mediator will report to the trial court that the mediation failed and the case should proceed to trial.
There are some important things to know about mediation. Mediation is generally a voluntary process in that the mediator is not empowered to force a party to take any action involuntarily. The mediator simply facilitates focused discussions concerning the potential for settlement of the case. However, if the parties do reach an agreement which settles a case, that agreement is in essence a contract and both parties are bound to comply with the terms of the agreement.
Mediation offers advantages to both parties. It allows the parties to meet and explore the potential settlement prior to incurring all the costs associated with a jury trial and a potential subsequent appeal. Mediation also allows the parties to meet relatively early in the litigation process (in most cases) which may also lead to an early resolution fo a case to the benefit of all parties. Of course the potential benefits of mediation are tempered by the conduct of the parties. If either party maintains an unreasonable position, the chances of resolving a claim are essentially nonexistent. On the other hand, if each party realistically evaluates the case and enters the mediation session with an open mind, the process may work to the benefit of all parties involved in the case.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Randy Appleton

Big Verdict Against Fringe Baptist Church Members Who Protest At Military Funeral--Family Outraged and Apparently Maryland Jury Was Too!

Randy Appleton — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:18:57 GMT

By Randy Appleton, HSCLA Attorney

Imagine that you are the parent of a young patriotic man who desires to serve in the United States
Military and who ends up traveling to Iraq. Months later your son is killed in Iraq and you have
the unthinkable task of attending the funeral of your own child. Last, add to the unthinkable funeral that dozens of protesters suddenly show up at the cemetery carrying signs such as "God hates you!" and "God is your enemy!" and other signs which suggest that war in Iraq is punishment on the United States for tolerating homosexuality. A sci-fi movie? No.

In fact, this is exactly what happened at a funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snider, who was killed in Iraq, buried in York, Pennsylvania, and picketed by devout members of the Westboro Baptist Church, a fundamentalist Kansas church that has picketed military funerals out of a belief that society is being punished with the war in Iraq because of tolerance of homosexuality.
The family, through attorney Craig Trebilcock, convinced a Maryland jury to award a total of $11 million in damages in favor of the family. The award broke down as $2.9 million in compensatory damages, and then in a second verdict considering punitive damages, the jury awarded $6 million more for invasion of privacy and $2 million for emotional distress. The Snider's attorney was quoted as saying "that says don't do this in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again." The church members routinely picket military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they carry signs as above mentioned and others that say "Thank God for dead soldiers."
While one might believe that everyone has a first amendment right to protest, the U.S. Supreme Court has long held that restrictions on free speech that are reasonably tailored, are constitutional. For example, protesters that want to protest outside of the White House must obtain permits and meet other requirements and similar restrictions are placed on protests around funeral sites, in various states. Actually, Congress has also passed a law prohibiting such protests at federal cemeteries. The main theory of the lawsuit was invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress, and the verdict was rendered by a federal jury. According to published reports this was the first such lawsuit around the country brought on behalf of a military family relating to such protest.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Randy Appleton

Independent Panel Finds Virginia Tech Mishandled Student Cho Massacre

Rick Shapiro — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:20:48 GMT

As parents, we think we've done our jobs well when our children turn 18 and go off to college. At college, we expect they will be safe and secure- safe to have a happy college experience and prepare for a bright future. This is what the parents of dozens of Virginia Tech students expected when they sent their children off to college. And tragically, this is not what happened. On April 16, 2007 mentally-disturbed student gunman Seung-Hui Cho entered Virginia Tech dorm West Ambler Johnston Hall and fatally shot two students, and several hours later opened fire in the Norris Hall academic building, killing 30 more students and faculty, setting the terrible U.S. record for the most deadly shooting by a lone gunman.

This month, an independent investigation panel formed by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, upon reviewing thousands of documents and interviewing over 200 people, found that lives could have been saved had Virginia Tech handled the Cho situation differently in several ways.

First of all, it found that, despite "clear warnings of mental instability" that were widely known by various individuals and departments in the university, the university "did not intervene effectively" and that "no one connected all the dots." For example, one of Cho's professors, famous writer Nikki Giovanni, was so disturbed by Cho's writings and classroom behavior in the fall of 2005 that she told the head of the English department she would resign if Cho were not removed from her class. According to the panel's report, the university began preliminary proceedings to have Cho's mental health evaluated after this incident, but somehow Cho fell through the cracks and no one followed through with getting him psychiatric treatment. Around this same time, campus police were receiving complaints from female students that Cho was stalking them and engaging in other strange behaviors, but appropriate parties were not made known of these incidents. Eventually, Cho was even institutionalized in a mental health facility, an incident his parents never even knew about.

One of the reasons for the university's ineffective response to Cho's condition was that it misunderstood federal laws regarding privacy of health and education records - the university did not believe it could legally communicate Cho's mental health problems to other university departments and Cho's parents, when in reality, federal and state laws "afford ample leeway to share information in potentially dangerous situations" such as this situation. Had the university not made this mistake, students and faculty may not have lost their lives. In addition to this incorrect interpretation of privacy laws, the panel also found that the Cook Counseling Center at Virginia Tech "failed to provide needed support and services to Cho" due to a lack of resources and simple passivity, yet another fatal mistake on the university's part.

In addition to errors made before April 16, Virginia Tech and its police department also made some huge mistakes on the day of April 16. The two shootings that occurred in West Ambler Johnston Hall occurred several hours before the shootings in Norris Hall, yet most of the campus community never knew about the earlier shootings and had no reason to believe they needed to be more vigilant in their activities that day. The campus police made the mistake of assuming that their initial lead in the two early-morning shootings was a good lead and that the suspect was really off the campus. Tragically, they did not "take sufficient action to deal with what might happen if the initial lead proved erroneous." According to the panel, the police should have requested a campus-wide notification be sent out that two people had been killed and that the campus needed to be alert and vigilant, and senior administrative officials should have made sure such notification was sent out. Just perhaps, had this notification been sent, the death toll that day might have stayed at two instead of 32.

This Virginia Tech shooting is one of the most tragic events that has ever occurred in American history, much less on a college campus, typically assumed to be a place of low need for security. Our sincere and deepest sympathy goes out to the many victims and victims' families of that day-especially since our personal injury law firm, Hajek, Shapiro, Cooper Lewis & Appleton, P.C., is based in Virginia.

For more information on this subject, please review our section on Wrongful Death.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rick Shapiro

New Report Urges Making "Bad Doctor" Information Available to the Public

Rick Shapiro — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:15:29 GMT

Authored by: Richard N. Shapiro
A recent report by a Washington D.C. based consumer advocacy group recently concluded that more work needs to be done to make the general public aware of the identity of those doctors who are repeat offenders in the medical malpractice arena. In addition to recommending improvements in patient safety and healthcare providers training, the report stressed the importance of disciplining repeat offenders. Only 33% of the medical doctors who made 10 or more malpractice payments were disciplined by their state medical board and some doctors, with up to 31 medical malpractice payments have never been subjected to any disciplinary action.

Currently, attorneys and patients have no way of knowing who these "Bad Doctors" are. This is because the National Practitioner Data Base public use file conceals practitioners personal information. The consumer advocacy group urged Congress to lift the veil of secrecy which is used to hide doctors who are frequently accused of medical malpractice, especially considering the small percentage of doctors responsible for the majority of the malpractice committed in the United States.

While 82% of doctors had not made a medical malpractice payment since 1990, 5.9% of the others accounted for 57.8% of all medical malpractice payments since 1991.

The report pokes a hole in the myth that it is lawsuits that is driving malpractice insurance premiums through the roof. It validates a lot of what consumer advocates and plaintiff attorneys have been saying for a number of years - that there is a great medical malpractice hoax being promoted by the medical community and insurance industry in this state.

For more information on this subject matter, please review our section on Medical Malpractice and Negligent Care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rick Shapiro

Firework Safety

Randy Appleton — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:31:08 GMT

The beginning of July is a special time for many families in Hampton Roads. Families in Williamsburg, Suffolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Newport News, Norfolk, and Virginia Beach, VA celebrate this nation's independence with one another by doing many activities, such as going to the beach and picnicking. Seeing fireworks is almost always one of these activities, and while fireworks on the Fourth of July are about as American as apple pie, they can also be quite dangerous.

This year in Vienna, VA, nine people, including children, were injured when a fireworks display went wrong and launched into a crowd of over 2,000 people, and last year in Gastonia, NC, a three-year-old child received second and third degree burns when neighborhood fireworks went haywire. In fact, it is estimated that in 2005, over 10,000 people nationwide were treated in emergency rooms because of fireworks injuries.
During this summer's festivities, please be safe when using fireworks. Know Virginia's (VA's) laws regarding fireworks. Personal fireworks are usually prohibited in Hampton Roads, VA. Fireworks that explode or travel laterally in the air, such as firecrackers and skyrockets, are prohibited across VA. In Hampton, VA, fireworks other than sparklers are prohibited unless authorized by a fire code official, and sparklers are allowed only with adult supervision. Newport News, VA, Williamsburg, VA, and Virginia Beach, VA allow no personal fireworks at all without a permit. Also follow basic fireworks safety guidelines by not allowing young children to play with fireworks, keeping a bucket of water close by in case of emergencies, never lighting fireworks in a container, and never having any portion of your body directly above a firework while lighting it. Make sure that all fireworks are functioning properly, and check with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission to make sure any fireworks you use have not been recalled.
If you receive a fireworks injury and feel that someone else's negligence caused the injury, please feel free to contact one of our personal injury attorneys for a free consultation. But better yet, please be careful to not receive a fireworks injury by following the laws in your VA locality as well as proper fireworks common sense.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Randy Appleton

Constitutional Protections Apply Even In Civil, Personal Injury Cases

Rick Shapiro — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:32:16 GMT

Do the various United States Constitutional rights and privileges that we think of as being protections against criminal prosecution apply even in a personal injury case? The answer, at least in Virginia (VA), is yes, all constitutional protections apply even in a personal injury or other type of civil case.

In Virginia (VA), there is even a state statute that sets forth, with regard to the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination the following:
"In any civil action the exercise by a party of any constitutional protection shall not be used against him." (This is Virginia Code 8.01-223.1). What this means is that an attorney cannot ask an injured plaintiff (or defendant) in a personal injury lawsuit whether they are using illegal drugs, or have actively done some act which is a crime. And yes, this can come up in personal injury cases. In one recent case of mine, the plaintiff became depressed about being out of work and actually got involved in the abuse of legal drugs (using legal drugs in an illegal way) and found himself in protected drug rehabilitation counseling. Because we knew the other party may discover this information the best course of action was to actually disclose the information to the other attorney prior to the time the injured plaintiff was going to be deposed for purposes of the personal injury case. This is a difficult course of action to take for a personal injury lawyer, but many times we as personal injury lawyers must rely upon the protections that the courts will give our clients for matters that are truly irrelevant to their personal injury case.
The rules in virtually every state and federal court allow a defendant to obtain many types of information in a deposition, even if that same information may not be admissible as evidence at a trial, whether before a judge or jury. In other words, a defendant can fish around for all kinds of potentially inadmissible information in a deposition. That same information may be completely irrelevant to the trial and a judge may exclude it as too prejudicial, and not really central to any issue relating to the personal injury.
So, many kinds of odd situations arise. Sometimes a defendant wants to ask about a nasty divorce or criminal warrants that have been taken out between an injured personal and an ex spouse. Sometimes, the defendant may want to look into drug counseling or a prior bad act relating to illegal drug use. All kinds of things can arise and many of these circumstances are completely irrelevant to a personal injury action.
However, our courts generally allow parties to probe into this information during a deposition, which is the client's testimony taken under oath. We count on the courts to protect our clients from prejudicial information that really has nothing to do with the extent of their personal injury.
Its rare that we must interject an objection under the constitution against our clients incriminating themselves, but it does happen. In my recent case, I refused to allow my client to answer questions that would have asked him to admit illegal drug use. The defendant later sought a hearing to require my client to answer those same questions. Fortunately, the judge would have none of this and upheld our opposition to the deposition being reconvened. The judge sustained our right to the constitutional protection fully applying and not being used against our client. Particularly, in the case in question, I did not obstruct the defendants lawyer from asking many other questions relating to drug counseling even though I knew those areas would probably be off limits at any trial. It was probably the reason that the judge sustained our objection to any reconvening of the deposition because the defendant lawyer had already gotten any potentially relevant information in the deposition the first time around.
Federal law protects against the disclosure of drug counseling, alcohol counseling or rehabilitation, and there are many other federal laws that protect against certain disclosures of information. As lawyers for personal injury clients, we have to review all of this available information with our client and make a reasonable decision on what must be disclosed and what must be objected too. It is then up to the judge at a later date to determine whether this type of information is so prejudicial that it may not be admitted at a trail. It only makes since that the United States Constitutional protections will apply in personal injury cases, and other civil cases just as they would in a criminal courtroom.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rick Shapiro