Jonesboro Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Most Popular

US Airways Flight 1549:Tort Reform and the Media Bias

Paul Ford — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:51:53 GMT

We can all vividly recall the news of the "Miracle on the Hudson" when the US Airways miraculously landed in the Hudson River just minutes after takeoff from LaGuardia Airport. The story saturated the media over the next couple of days.

One interesting story I saw was on the O'Reilly Factor. Bill O'Reilly stated that he was going to be looking for any sleazy lawyer that would file a suit over this plane crash and indicated he would publicly lampoon him/her if such a suit were filed. He was on the tort reform bandwagon bashing lawyers. He simply assumed any suit would be filed by a "greedy trial lawyer" and such a suit would be frivolous. As I watched, I was enraged. I thought I should write him a nasty e-mail and defend reputable trial lawyers. Having been involved in airplane litigation, I knew there would be a complete investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board to determine how and why this plane crash occurred. I knew the rush to judgement made by Bill O'Reilly was just that, a rush to judgment.

Last night, my beliefs were confirmed. The same Bill O'Reilly told his viewing audience that the same plane that crashed into the Hudson had, just two days previously, suffered engine failures, and had been ordered to go through a full safety inspection. O'Reilly went on to say he thought US Airways was involved in a cover-up and that this plane was could not have been properly inspected and repaired in a 48 hour period. He strongly asserted wrongdoing on the part of US Airways, and that he would continue to monitor this situation.

There was, however, no retratction of the derogatory remarks about lawyers filing suit. He clearly was wrong to make such statments, but, like many others, has found it is popular to bash lawyers. But, as the truth comes out, we learn that there may in fact be negligence involved. Good trial lawyers do just that. They investigate the facts. And then and only then do they file suit. So, the next time you hear someone criticizing a trial lawyer, remember that all the facts may not be known.

Bottom line, when choosing an attorney, make sure you select one who will examine all the facts, and having done so, makes a sound determination about whether a suit should in fact be filed. And when you hear someone bashing a lawyer, remember, he may not have all the facts. And he may be wrong, just like Bill O'Reilly was wrong.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Ford

Tort Reform: Why Conservatives Should Oppose It

Paul Ford — Wed, 06 May 2009 09:51:18 GMT

I recently attended a legal seminar and heard Ken Connor, an attorney from Florida, speak. Ken is a conservative trial lawyer. And his perspective on tort reform and people of conservative ideology was extremely insightful. I have thought about his message many times and have come to conclude that conservatives are being sold a bill of goods on the subject of tort reform; and in fact, are departing from traditional conservative values when supporting Tort Reform.

Conservatives believe that the government closest to the people serves the people best. Thomas Jefferson established this core value and conservatives to this day hold to its truth. Conservatives do not want politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. or their state capitol making decisions that control their local school board. Conservatives believe that the size of government makes it subject to ineffeceincy, and even corruption. Money buys influence. Yet, in the support of tort reform, one must be willing to allow politicians, who are swayed by lobbyists, to determine that tort claims should be capped, for example, at $250,000. Yet the politicians know nothing about the particular case. This is a prime example of a government that is not serving its people, but instead is being influenced by the desire to control costs and increase profits.

Furthermore, conservatives believe that money is a motivator and that accountability leads to responsibility. Many conservatives will agree that society sets rules and that those who violate those rules should be held accountable and required to pay the damages caused by the violation of society's rules. Yet the core premise behind tort reform is to limit the amount one must pay, despite the true damage caused. That does not promote accountability. It destroys it.

Many conservatives, when asked, will tell you that if you do not punish bad behavior, you get more of it. Many conservatives believe in spanking their kids to teach them not to do the wrong thing. They believe that if you do not punish in proper relation to the extent of the wrong doing that you send the wrong message. That is exactly why tort reform sends the wrong message. Particularly when it comes to an artificial damage cap determined by politicians. It sends the message that no matter how wrong your behavior is and no matter how much damage is causes, you will only have to pay so much. That is a free pass and it promotes wrong behavior.

It certainly does not promote accountability and responsibility.

So, I encourage conservatives to consider the true impact of tort reform. It allows corporations to use their financial influence in the political arena to promote their own selfish agenda. Turn on the television, pick up a newspaper, or read online; and when you do so, the overwhelming truth is that companies will stop at nothing to make a profit. In fact, many will argue that the current financial crisis is brought on by corporate greed. Unregulated corporate greed. And tort reform is nothing more than another example of corporations seeking to be protected from regulation....protected from the voice of the people....the voice of a jury.

So, conservatives, rise up and speak out against tort reform before it is too late.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Ford

Ten Year Old Boy Dies From "Dry Drowning"

Drew Dixon — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:18:53 GMT

“Dry Drowning” is one more concern parents should have this summer as they take their children to swim. While it may sound impossible, the recent death of a 10 year old boy in South Carolina has doctors warning parents of such a danger.

Dry drowning occurs when a person’s lungs become unable to extract oxygen from the air, due primarily to:

§ Muscular paralysis

§ Puncture wound to torso (affecting ability of diaphragm to create respiratory movement)

§ Changes to oxygen-absorbing tissues

§ Persistence of laryngospasm when immersed in fluid

§ Breathing another gas besides oxygen too long (e.g. Helium)

However, the most common way in which “dry drowning” occurs is when a small amount of water is aspirated into the lungs. The water causes damage to the lungs and decreases the amount of oxygen flow in the blood. Thus, a person may effectively drown without being immersed in fluid. The laryngospasm reflex essentially causes asphyxiation and neurogenic pulmonary edema.

Some common signs of “dry drowning” include: difficulty breathing, extreme tiredness, and uncommon behavior.

IMAGE SOURCE: Wikimedia Commons

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Drew Dixon

Hospital Negligence: Yes, Hospitals are Dangerous Places

Paul Ford — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:32:20 GMT

A trip to your local emergency room can be a very dangerous experience. Hospital negligence is of epidemic proportions. And this in not the opinion of lawyers. It is the opinion of the medical community.

Current research done by the medical community suggests that nearly 200,000 patients die each year in hospitals as victims of medical mistakes.

Furthermore, there is little evidence that this stagering statistic has improved.

The 2008 study referenced above was conducted by a review of Medicare patient records, usually the poorest members of our society. Can one conclude that economics plays a role in the level and quality of healthcare one receives? Perhaps. But what is certain is that hospitals are dangerous places and medical errors do occur.

Imagine the uproar that would occur if 390 jumbo jets loaded with passengers were to crash and kill all of the passengers over the rest of the year 2009. The level of scrutiny would be unprecedented. The news coverage would be nonstop. People would be demanding that the system be fixed. Yet, as the 2004 study pointed out, that is the number of deaths occurring in American hospitals as a result of preventable errors.

It is not uncommon to pick up a newspaper or turn on the news and hear someone talking about the problems created by the filing of medical malpractice actions. Yet, when reviewing the studies referenced above, it is clear that the real epidemic is in the number of preventable medical errors occuring in hospitals. And the numbers cited above are for DEATHS, not injuries that the patient recovers from. When those numbers are added, the number of preventable errors in American hospitals each year is mind-numbing.

Perhaps you or a loved one has had a similar experience. If so, I would love to learn more about your experience. It is important to share this information. Further, I invite you to check back to this site as we post additional articles, written by a doctor and a nurse, about things you can do to help prevent such medical injuries and protect yourself and your loved ones.

GOLDEN, Colo. (April 8, 2008)

– Patient safety incidents cost the federal Medicare program $8.8 billion and resulted in 238,337 potentially preventable deaths during 2004 through 2006, according to HealthGrades' fifth annual Patient Safety in American Hospitals Study.

HealthGrades' analysis of 41 million Medicare patient records found that patients treated at topperforming hospitals had, on average, a 43 percent lower chance of experiencing one or moremedical errors compared to the poorest-performing hospitals

– An average of 195,000 people in the U.S. died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records that was released today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company

Lakewood, Colo. (July 27, 2004)

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Ford

Wearing a Bicycle Helmet May Save Your Life if You are in a Bicycle Accident

Paul Ford — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:06:19 GMT

I have been an avid cyclist for years and look forward to Daylight Savings time so that the days are longer and I can get in a bike ride after work. Already this year I have seen many others heading out for a ride in the afternoon now that we have had a few warm days as well. Yet sadly, I notice many are not wearing a helmet.

Having had numerous crashes, I know well how important it is to wear a helmet. Over 10 years ago I had a bad wreck that broke my collarbone and wrist. And that was after I broke my fall with my head. But for my helmet, I have no doubt that I would have been killed.

"It is so important that everyone who rides a bicycle wears a helmet," said Sara Snelling, a physical therapist at HealthSouth Deaconess Rehabilitation Hospital. "The risk of brain injury from a bicycle accident could be reduced by almost 90 percent if a helmet is worn."

The next great mistake that is made is by cyclist who think they are too experienced to wear a helmet. I myself made that mistake one day. I missed being hit by a car at highway speeds by less than 100 feet. I have worn one everytime since. And don't think it cannot happen to you. The infamous Lance Armstrong was recently involved in a wreck. No one cam claim more expereience than that!

Armstrong reportedly remains hospitalized in Spain following a crash this morning. The seven-time Tour de France champ was participating in his first professional race on European soil since winning his last yellow jersey when he got caught up in a massive pile-up involving dozens of other riders.

Reports say Armstrong went down about 12.5 miles from the finish line during the first stage of the 5-day race. Sources say the star athlete broke his collarbone. Some reports say the father of three young children (and one more on the way) appeared to be in considerable pain as he was rushed by ambulance to the Rio Carrion hospital in Palencia. Other reports say Armstrong has withdrawn from the race and will be flying back to the United States to seek advanced medical care

So when you head out on your bike for a little exercise, wear that helmet. It may just save your life. And after you follow safety tip #1, make sure you obey all safety and traffic laws.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Ford

A Car Wreck with an Uninsured Driver: What do I do?

Paul Ford — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:03:03 GMT

More and more drivers do not have insurance. The law refers to these people as uninsured motorists. And being in a car wreck with such a motorist can be extremely damaging to you, beyond the injuries you may have suffered. So, how can you protect yourself?

First, you should have full coverage. Both uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. Having minimum "liability only" coverage can cost you significantly. For example, you only have liability coverage and you are hit by a driver who ran a red light; then to make matters worse, this negligent driver does not have insurance. Because you had liability coverage only, there will be no insurance proceeds to repair your car, nor coverage for your injuries.

If you had uninsured motorist coverage, there would be coverage for both your car repair and any injuries you and/or your family may have suffered.

So, why have underinsured coverage? The State of Arkansas only requires a minimum of $25,000 in coverage per claim, $50,000 per occurrence. If that same driver that ran the red light only had the minimum coverage and you or a passenger were (unfortunatley) seriously injured, there may not be enough coverage to cover your medical bills, much less any lost wages or pain and suffering. By having underinsured coverage, you have provided extra coverage to protect you from these losses.

While it is my sincere hope that you are never involved in a car wreck, you may very well be in one some day...I sure have. And if that unfortunate event does in fact occur, not having sufficeint insurance coverage will only make it worse. So, protect yourself and your family and discuss these matters with your insurance agent. And I bet you will be surprised how little this very valuable and added coverage will cost.

Finally, when driving, be safe and buckle up!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Ford

You're the Patient-Take Charge

Jeanie Oliver — Fri, 23 May 2008 17:48:52 GMT

I think this post would be considered more of a conversation with you, the reader, the potential patient. There has been a lot of media attention around Dennis Quaid's twins and their experience with the drug, Heparin. I was reading today another short article about the situation and it brought to mind my own experience with this potentially lethal drug.

Having been admitted to the hospital for heart related problems, the nurse came in to give me a shot. A shot in the stomach. I questioned why I was being given medication when there was no diagnosis yet. The reply was that it is standard procedure to give the heparin, a blood thinner, when there is the possibility of a heart attack having occurred. I had not even met the cardiologist yet and I was being treated for a heart attack.

I asked her to wait a few moments while I thought about this. What if there was something else wrong with me and a blood thinner would make it worse? Could there not be dire consequences for some patients who are generically administered a drug based on the floor of the hospital they were admitted to upon arrival? While I pondered calling my family who would know a lot more about the situation than I did, I simply ask for a more detailed explanation about what Heparin does to the body. The reply was one that I'll not ever forget, "It's your life, and you might die without the proper medication."

How true. It is my life and it's your life. Ask for explanations and reasons for everything the medical community wants to do to your body. The nurse was so right, I might die without the proper medication, and we have subsequently learned that with my diagnosis, I should never take a blood thinner! So when they ask to see your tummy and hold those needles in the air, ask for a moment to think, "Do I need this, and what if I don't?"

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeanie Oliver

Recall - Children's and Infants Liquid Tylenol

Chrissie Cole — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:26:00 GMT

Certain lots of Children’s Liquid Tylenol Products have been voluntarily recalled because they may have bacterial contamination.

One of the inactive ingredients tested positive for B. cepacia. However, bacteria were not found in the finished product. While the risk of a serious medical event is minimal, the company decided to recall the products as a safety measure.

According to the CDC, B. cepacia is the name for a group or “complex” of bacteria that can be found in soil and water which is often resistant to common antibiotics.

The following brands are included in the recall: Children’s Tylenol Suspension 4 ounce Strawberry, Children’s Tylenol Pediatric Suspension 1 ounce Cherry, and Infant’s Tylenol Suspension Drops ½ ounce Grape.

Consumer Information: Contact Johnson & Johnson’s McNeil unit at 1-800-962-5357 with further questions.

All 21 recalled Tylenol products and their corresponding lot numbers.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Popular Kids' Meals Contain Too Many Calories

Drew Dixon — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:49:05 GMT

More than 90 percent of kids' meals at popular fast-food restaurants contain far more than a meals worth of calories. In fact, the kids' meals also are loaded with too much fat and salt.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest found it difficult to find a kids' meal remotely healthy at a number of restaurant chains. In fact, "nearly every single possible combination of the children's meals at KFC, Taco Bell, Sonic, Jack in the Box and Chick-fil-A is too high in calories," the group said in a statement.

Researchers at the Baylor College of Medicine recommend that children should eat 1200-1400 calories per day. However, ninety-three percent of 1,474 possible choices at the 13 chains exceed 430 calories—an amount that is one-third of what the researchers recommend that children aged four through eight should consume in a day.

For more information on nutritional recommendations for children, check out the USDA/ARS Children's Nutrition Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine website at www.bcm.edu/cnrc/consumer/archives/percentDV.htm.

Image Source: Wikimedia Commons

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Drew Dixon

Is The Federal Government Supporting Negligent Corporations?

Frank Bailey — Wed, 14 May 2008 17:58:16 GMT

The Bush administration’s effort to limit consumer’s access to courts and protect negligent corporations has reached new heights. It is rewriting the bureaucratic rulebook.

Jon Haber, AAJ’s chief executive officer, says the agencies are engaging in “a brazen end run around Congress, the Constitution and the states in an effort to let negligent corporations off the hook and knowingly put consumers at risk.”

Dennis Quaid and his wife will testify before congress about their suit against the maker of the blood-thinner heparin in Illinois state court. Their newborn twins were given massive doses of the blood thinner at a hospital. They have alleged the manufacturer was negligent in packaging different doses of heparin in similar vials with blue backgrounds.

The defendant, Baxter Healthcare Corp. is seeking to use the doctrine of preemption to shield it from any civil liability, claiming that once the FDA approved the labeling and packaging it is immune from civil suits.

Joan Claybrook says, “What the companies want is complete immunity and the regulators in the Bush administration are helping them.”

We need to contact our Senators and Congress and put a stop to this practice NOW!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Frank Bailey