 |
Recent Blog Posts in 2011 |
| 20 posts found. Viewing page 1 of 1. |
| June 20, 2011 |
| Cell Phone Use While Driving to Be Illegal in Nevada |
| Posted By Steve |
 |
Distracted driving is a serious problem, and Nevada is now joining other states that ban the use of cell phones while driving.
The RGJ reports that Gov. Brian Sandoval signed into law a bill that makes texting or talking while driving illegal in Nevada.
The law allows exceptions for using hands-free devices. Fines range from $50 to $250, and a person convicted of three or more offenses within seven years can have their license suspended.
The fines and penalties become effective Jan. 1, 2012. |
 |
| Continue reading "Cell Phone Use While Driving to Be Illegal in Nevada" » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| May 31, 2011 |
| NV Supreme Court Addresses Seatbelt Evidence in Crashworthiness Case |
| Posted By Steve |
 |
|
The Nevada Supreme Court addressed issues of seatbelt evidence and violations of pretrial motions in limine in Roth v. BMW, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 11 (April 14, 2011).
The case involved a single car rollover in which the Plaintiff, Alyson Roth, was rendered a paraplegic. Roth was a passenger in a 1987 BMW 528e, and she was sleeping in a reclined position in the front passenger seat when the car strayed onto the shoulder, swerved back across the road, and rolled 2.5 times before coming to rest on its roof. Roth was ejected from the vehicle and suffered severe injuries to her spine.
Roth sued the driver of the vehicle for negligence, and BMW for strict product liability. Roth's theory against BMW was that the car's safety restraint was defective and allowed her to be ejected from the vehicle. Roth and the driver of the car both claimed that Roth was wearing her seatbelt at the time of the accident.
In a pretrial motion in limine, Roth moved to preclude BMW from introducing evidence that Roth was not wearing her seatbelt. Roth based this motion on Nevada's seatbelt statute, NRS 484D.495, which requires that an adult wear a seatbelt but that failure to wear a seatbelt "may not be considered as negligence [or] misuse or abuse of a product or as causation in any [civil] action." NRS 484D.495(4). BMW argued that the statute could not prohibit evidence of seatbelt nonuse where the plaintiff sought damages for enhanced injuries due to defects in the safety restraint system.
The Court ruled that Roth had to show that she was wearing her seatbelt at the time of the accident, so BMW could introduce evidence of nonuse of the seatbelt. However, the Court crafted a limiting instruction, given before opening statements and again before deliberation: "BMW [will introduce] [has introduced] evidence the Plaintiff was not wearing her seatbelt. This evidence may be considered by you in evaluating Plaintiff's claim against BMW that the subject vehicle was defective and unreasonably dangerous. You may not consider this evidence for any other purpose."
In opening statements, BMW's attorney stated that the evidence would show that Roth was ejected from the car because she wasn't wearing her seatbelt, and had she been wearing her seatbelt, she wouldn't have been ejected and she wouldn't have received her spinal injuries. Roth's attorney did not object.
In closing arguments, BMW's attorney said, "[L]et's look at what [Roth is] claiming here and ask the question, did any of these alleged defects cause any injury to Ms. Roth or the accident? Take the seatbelt. It wasn't being worn . . ." Roth's attorney objected, and the Court clarified that BMW could "say that there is evidence she was not wearing her seat belt, so the seat belt couldn't have been defective, and, therefore, the defect in the seat belt could not be a cause of the injuries," but that BMW's attorney "can't say anything beyond that."
The jury returned a $5.9 million verdict in favor of Roth against the driver of the BMW for negligence, but returned a verdict in favor of BMW. The jury found no defect in the BMW.
Roth moved for a new trial against BMW based on NRCP 59(a)(2), which provides that misconduct may warrant a new trial if the misconduct "materially affect[s] the substantial rights of an aggrieved party." The district court granted the motion.
Violation of Motion in Limine
The Supreme Court addressed several issues in determining whether a new trial was warranted.
One issue was whether the prevailing party on a pretrial motion in limine must contemporaneously object to misconduct concerning a pretrial motion in limine. The Court concluded that whether a contemporaneous objection is required depends on whether the party prevailed on the motion in limine. Where the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial is pursuant to an order in limine, the alleged error at trial is the same as the error alleged in the ruling on the motion, and the party need not contemporaneously object in order to preserve claim of error on the ruling on the motion in limine. However, where the alleged error is attorney misconduct involving the violation of an order in limine, a contemporaneous objection must be made in order to preserve the claim of error on appeal. The Court explained the reasoning behind the distinction:
Dispensing with the requirement of a contemporaneous objection would allow the proponent of the order in limine to remain silent and hope for a new trial even though, in many instances, an objection and curative instruction would prevent the need to relitigate the case. Thus, contemporaneous objections to claimed violations of an order produced by a motion in limine are required to prevent litigants from wasting judicial, party, and citizen-juror resources.
BMW's attorney's references to seatbelt evidence in opening statements were not objected to; thus, claim of error was waived unless the misconduct was plain error. Noting that Roth did claim that the seatbelt system was defective, the lack of specificity in the court's order in limine, and the uncertainty in the law with respect to the seatbelt defense in crashworthiness cases, the Court ruled that the comments regarding seatbelt nonuse in opening statements were not plain error.
The Court then addressed the objected-to conduct in closing statements. Conduct that is admonished and objected to is subject to standards set forth in Lioce v. Cohen, 124 Nev. 1, 174 P.3d 970 (2008). Under
Lioce, "a party moving for a new trial bears the burden of demonstrating that the misconduct is so extreme that the objection and admonishment could not remove the misconduct's effect."
Lioce, 124 Nev. at 17, 174 P.3d at 981. The Court noted that "A violation of an order granting a motion in limine may only serve as a basis for a new trial when the order is specific in its prohibition and the violation is clear."
Black v. Schultz, 530 F.3d 702, 706 (8th Cir. 2008).
The Court held that the closing argument statements did not warrant a new trial, because the jury instruction cured any misconduct, and in fact, the jury found no product defect and did not reach causation. |
 |
| Continue reading "NV Supreme Court Addresses Seatbelt Evidence in Crashworthiness Case" » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| May 13, 2011 |
| Assembly Bill 280 Leaves Handwashing Out of Hospital Health Checklist |
| Posted By Steve |
 |
The Reno Gazette Journal's Frank Mullen Jr. reports:
A state Senate committee Thursday passed a hospital checklist bill, but declined to put a section about hand washing, requested by advocates for hospital patients, back into the measure.
Assembly Bill 280 would require safety checklists and patient safety policies at hospitals and other health care facilities.
Assembly lawmakers removed language that mandated health workers "wash their hands before and after every interaction with a patient and after coming into contact with a surface or object that may be contaminated."
The bill now refers to using proper "hand hygiene," a term that the bill's sponsor, health care industry lobbyists and a committee member said encompasses all types of hand hygiene, including soap and water.
"The sinks often are not close enough to the patient, but (alcohol-based) gels are," said state Sen. Joseph Hardy, R-Clark County, a doctor who is on the state Senate Health and Human Services Committee.
He said putting in a reference to hand washing would "send a message that hand washing is enough, but hand washing is not enough."
The Nevada Chapter of AARP and other advocates submitted an amendment that mentioned hand washing among the options available for hand hygiene.
They said that hospital staffers often ignore existing hand hygiene provisions and that the alcohol-based gels mentioned by Hardy don't kill an intestinal infection called Clostridium difficile, that is known to spread in health care settings.
"I personally prefer the (hand-washing) amendment," said state Sen. Sheila Leslie, D-Reno. "It would be in the bill as an option, not a mandate."
The measure passed without the amendment.
Steve Winters of Reno, who became an advocate for patient safety when his mother died last year of C. diff, said he was disappointed.
"Doctors don't want to be told to wash their hands," he said after the vote. "So, it's business as usual, and people will keep dying of preventable infections."
On Wednesday, three other hospital reform bills were heard in the Assembly Health and Human Services Committee with no action taken.
Senate Bills 209, 264 and 339 would require hospitals to publicly report their annual number of hospital-acquired infections and medical errors, require doctors to inform patients when they have an infection, and allow greater access to other patient safety information.
During the Wednesday hearing, health care industry lobbyists testified that they favor transparency, but objected to reporting raw numbers of facility-acquired infections for every hospital.
They would rather report infections in rates per 1,000 "patient days," a method they said allows fairer comparisons among large and small hospitals.
Patient advocates argue actual numbers of cases, not rates expressed in decimals, are more easily understood by consumers.
|
 |
| Continue reading "Assembly Bill 280 Leaves Handwashing Out of Hospital Health Checklist" » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| May 11, 2011 |
| AAJ President Explains How Litigation Has Made Cars Safer |
| Posted By Steve |
 |
American Association for Justice President Gibson Vance authored an article in the Washington Post last month explaining the connection between decreased traffic deaths and the civil justice system. The full article is below.
How our cars got safer By Gibson Vance April 16, 2011
Traffic deaths in the United States have dropped to their lowest level since 1949, according to a report released this month by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Remarkably, this drop occurred even as Americans drove 21 billion more miles in 2010 than they had the previous year.
The drop in fatalities is due in large part to the fact that cars are getting safer. Since the introduction of the Ford Pinto nearly four decades ago — a car synonymous with danger, destruction and executives putting profits ahead of consumer safety — amazing advancements have been made in auto safety. The technology is better, regulations are stronger and buyers have more information. Not surprisingly, consumers are drawn to cars with the latest safety features.
Yet these factors alone do not tell the whole story. History shows that litigation and the civil justice system have served as the most consistent and powerful forces in heightening safety standards, revealing previously concealed defects and regulatory weaknesses and deterring manufacturers from cutting corners on safety for the goal of greater profits.
The Ford Pinto litigation sent a strong message to the auto industry. Unfortunately, manufacturers have still sold dangerous cars. In June 2004, a Dallas-area mother stopped her Ford F-150 truck to speak with her husband through the driver’s side window. Her 3-year-old daughter leaned out the passenger’s side window and accidentally hit the rocker switch, causing the window to close on her neck. When her parents noticed moments later, it was too late — their daughter was strangled.
As power windows became more common, so too did instances of children being strangled. Seven children died within a three-month period in 2004. Manufacturers were aware of the issue, and the fix was relatively simple and inexpensive. In response to regulations in other countries, European and Asian cars already used a safer switch — one that must be pulled up to raise a window — and so did many U.S. manufacturers on cars they offered to foreign markets. Yet incredibly, U.S. manufacturers did not install the safer switches on domestic cars because NHTSA had no rules governing power-window safety. Litigation eventually forced universal acceptance of the safer switches in 2006.
It is easy to take for granted just how much safer vehicles have become and how safety measures have been standardized. For years, the auto industry has worked to undermine regulations and limit its liability by pushing for complete immunity from lawsuits when their vehicles comply with minimum federal safety standards. This would, in short, be devastating for consumers.
Recall that the Pinto’s design met all government standards of the time. Had compliance with federal standards been a complete defense of vehicle safety, Ford could not have been held accountable for the many burn victims that the company was later shown to have anticipated.
Put another way, without the civil justice system, gas tanks would still explode in rear-end collisions, seat belts and airbags would not be standard, and cars would roll over onto roofs that would be easily crushed.
There are multiple reasons behind the welcome news that traffic deaths continue to decline. But the role of the civil justice system is often overlooked. Litigation has spurred safety innovations in vehicles for more than half a century and will continue to be essential in keeping Americans safe and holding manufacturers accountable.
The writer is president of the American Association for Justice. |
 |
| Continue reading "AAJ President Explains How Litigation Has Made Cars Safer" » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| May 05, 2011 |
| Nevada Informed Consent May be Implied |
| Posted By Steven J. Klearman |
 |
|
The issue of informed consent frequently arises in the context of medical malpractice cases. I'm used to sitting in depositions in which a medical malpractice defense attorney will hand my client's informed consent over to my client and then proceed with a series of questions intended to confuse. Malpractice victims obviously do not consent to allow a doctor to commit malpractice, but defense attorneys like to use informed consents against a plaintiff in any way possible.
In Nevada, our Supreme Court recently clarified several informed consent issues in the context of a chiropractic malpractice case.
In Bronneke v. Rutherford, 120 Nev. 230, 89 P.3d 40 (2004), the Court held that consent to treatment may be express or implied. By seeking chiropractic treatment, a plaintiff's consent to the particular technique may be
implied because as a practical matter, health professionals cannot be required to obtain express consent before each touch or test they perform on a patient.
If you are a malpractice victim, ensure that you are properly prepared by counsel with respect to questions that may arise at deposition, and at trial, regarding informed consent.
|
 |
| Continue reading "Nevada Informed Consent May be Implied" » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| April 21, 2011 |
| Lyon County Sheriff's Office Enforcing Traffic Safety and Pedestrian Traffic Laws |
| Posted By Steve |
 |
The Reno Gazette Journal reports that the Lyon County Sheriff's Office, along with Joining Forces/Office of Traffic Safety, will be increasing efforts to enforce traffic safety and pedestrian traffic laws in Dayton, Fernley, Stagecoach, Silver Springs, and Mason Valley. From the RGJ:
The Lyon County Sheriff's Office will be enforcing pedestrian traffic laws and will also be out on the lookout for speeders in five communities in the county.
The LCSO will conduct traffic safety and pedestrian enforcement details in Dayton, Fernley, Stagecoach, Silver Springs, and Mason Valley through May 9.
According to an LCSO press release, the sheriff's office and Joining Forces/Office of Traffic Safety will be conducting the enforcement details.
Joining Forces/OTS is a federally recognized highway safety office in the state, has been in operation since 2000, and encourages law enforcement departments to co-op together on such traffic safety details.
The goal of the program is to unite Nevada law enforcement agencies and to reduce accidents, raise awareness and ultimately safe lives.
The Sheriff's Office has partnered with Carson City, Douglas County and Mineral County Sheriff's Offices to initiate its pedestrian safety operation.
On Monday, Deputies in the Dayton area will be on the lookout for vehicles that fail to yield to pedestrians, as well as pedestrians who fail to follow proper laws regarding crossing the streets, indicated the LCSO release.
The LCSO will conduct another operation in Fernley on May 7.
Additionally, the press release indicated, Deputies will be active in the Fernley, Dayton, Stagecoach, Silver Springs, and Mason Valley areas conducting extra traffic enforcement focusing mainly on speeding vehicles.
|
 |
| Continue reading "Lyon County Sheriff's Office Enforcing Traffic Safety and Pedestrian Traffic Laws" » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| April 04, 2011 |
| NHTSA Truck Regulations Fail to Protect Against Underride |
| Posted By Steven J. Klearman |
 |
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) is urging the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to adopt more stringent regulations for underride guards on large trucks and semis. Underride - where a smaller vehicle runs underneath a truck - is a significant danger in nearly all collisions involving larger trucks, and the IIHS is asking the NHTSA to act to help prevent underride.
Underride guards are regulated by two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, published in 1996, which specify equipment strength requirements, compliance procedures, mounting instructions, and location specifications. Some trucks may not even have to comply with these regulations, as exemptions exist. The IIHS urges more stringent standards because even complaint trucks don't adequately prevent underride for some vehicles, and don't adequately prevent side underride. Underride guards that are currently compliant can fail even in collisions at relatively low (30 mph) speeds.
The IIHS urges that the NHTSA adopts regulations that keep pace with the changes in passenger vehicles and that adequately protect against the dangers of underride.
Credit SafetyResearch.net
|
 |
| Continue reading "NHTSA Truck Regulations Fail to Protect Against Underride" » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| April 04, 2011 |
| NHTSA Truck Regulations Fail to Protect Against Underride |
| Posted By Steve |
 |
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) is urging the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to adopt more stringent regulations for underride guards on large trucks and semis. Underride - where a smaller vehicle runs underneath a truck - is a significant danger in nearly all collisions involving larger trucks, and the IIHS is asking the NHTSA to act to help prevent underride.
Underride guards are regulated by two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, published in 1996, which specify equipment strength requirements, compliance procedures, mounting instructions, and location specifications. Some trucks may not even have to comply with these regulations, as exemptions exist. The IIHS urges more stringent standards because even complaint trucks don't adequately prevent underride for some vehicles, and don't adequately prevent side underride. Underride guards that are currently compliant can fail even in collisions at relatively low (30 mph) speeds.
The IIHS urges that the NHTSA adopts regulations that keep pace with the changes in passenger vehicles and that adequately protect against the dangers of underride.
Credit SafetyResearch.net |
 |
| Continue reading "NHTSA Truck Regulations Fail to Protect Against Underride" » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| March 24, 2011 |
| Ten Hour Limit for Truck Drivers? AAJ Weighs In. |
| Posted By Steve |
 |
The U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) acts to prevent fatalities and injuries caused by commercial motor vehicles. The FMCSA enforces safety regulations for carriers and commercial motor vehicle drivers. Currently, truck drivers are limited to an 11-hour driving time limit, but the FMCSA is recommending that the limit be ten hours. Here's what the American Association for Justice has to say about the issue:
Proposed rules for commercial truck drivers do not provide the adequate level of protection needed to prevent driver fatigue, according to comments submitted today by the American Association for Justice (AAJ). The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has recommended a 10-hour driving time limit, but indicated they are open to maintaining the current 11-hour requirement.
Every year more than 4,000 people are killed in accidents involving trucks, according to the FMCSA. The National Transportation Safety Board has said driver fatigue is a factor in 30 to 40 percent of these crashes. In fact, research shows the risk of a crash increases twofold after eight hours of consecutive driving, and driver fatigue is the leading contributing factor in truck driver deaths from crashes.
"Driver fatigue puts not only the truck driver workforce at risk, but also other passengers who share the road. Ensuring our roads are safe should be the FMCSA's top priority," said AAJ President Gibson Vance.
AAJ also opposes FMCSA's proposed 34-hour restart period, which would allow truck drivers to bypass the 60/70-hour duty limit. This 34-hour restart period cannot ensure a truck driver receives proper rest. AAJ recommends that the FMCSA mandate a 48-hour restart requirement to provide commercial truck drivers with greater rest and recovery time after working long hours. It would also shorten the work week, meaning less fatigued drivers and safer highways. |
 |
| Continue reading "Ten Hour Limit for Truck Drivers? AAJ Weighs In." » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| March 14, 2011 |
| Ten Hour Limit for Truck Drivers? AAJ Weighs In. |
| Posted By Steven J. Klearman |
 |
The U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) acts to prevent fatalities and injuries caused by commercial motor vehicles. The FMCSA enforces safety regulations for carriers and commercial motor vehicle drivers. Currently, truck drivers are limited to an 11-hour driving time limit, but the FMCSA is recommending that the limit be ten hours. Here's what the American Association for Justice has to say about the issue:
Proposed rules for commercial truck drivers do not provide the adequate level of protection needed to prevent driver fatigue, according to comments submitted today by the American Association for Justice (AAJ). The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has recommended a 10-hour driving time limit, but indicated they are open to maintaining the current 11-hour requirement.
Every year more than 4,000 people are killed in accidents involving trucks, according to the FMCSA. The National Transportation Safety Board has said driver fatigue is a factor in 30 to 40 percent of these crashes. In fact, research shows the risk of a crash increases twofold after eight hours of consecutive driving, and driver fatigue is the leading contributing factor in truck driver deaths from crashes. "Driver fatigue puts not only the truck driver workforce at risk, but also other passengers who share the road. Ensuring our roads are safe should be the FMCSA's top priority," said AAJ President Gibson Vance.
AAJ also opposes FMCSA's proposed 34-hour restart period, which would allow truck drivers to bypass the 60/70-hour duty limit. This 34-hour restart period cannot ensure a truck driver receives proper rest. AAJ recommends that the FMCSA mandate a 48-hour restart requirement to provide commercial truck drivers with greater rest and recovery time after working long hours. It would also shorten the work week, meaning less fatigued drivers and safer highways.
|
 |
| Continue reading "Ten Hour Limit for Truck Drivers? AAJ Weighs In." » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| March 07, 2011 |
| Majority of Young Drivers Use Phone While Driving |
| Posted By Steven J. Klearman |
 |
The Reno Gazette Journal reports today that a Consumer Reports poll reveals the high usage of cell phones while driving:
63 percent of young people admit to using a handheld phone while driving, and 30 percent admit to sending text messages while driving.
Nevada is one of the minority of states that does not ban text messaging or cell phone use while driving. Many states prohibit or limit cell phone use and texting, especially among teen drivers. Click here for a state-by-state list of cell phone driving laws.
Alarmingly, the Consumer Reports poll revealed that only 30 percent of those under 30 believe that such behavior is very dangerous. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, distracted driving accidents caused nearly 5,500 deaths in the U.S. in 2009.
|
 |
| Continue reading "Majority of Young Drivers Use Phone While Driving" » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| March 07, 2011 |
| Majority of Young Drivers Use Phone While Driving |
| Posted By Steve |
 |
The Reno Gazette Journal reports today that a Consumer Reports poll reveals the high usage of cell phones while driving:
63 percent of young people admit to using a handheld phone while driving, and 30 percent admit to sending text messages while driving.
Nevada is one of the minority of states that does not ban text messaging or cell phone use while driving. Many states prohibit or limit cell phone use and texting, especially among teen drivers. Click here for a state-by-state list of cell phone driving laws.
Alarmingly, the Consumer Reports poll revealed that only 30 percent of those under 30 believe that such behavior is very dangerous. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, distracted driving accidents caused nearly 5,500 deaths in the U.S. in 2009. |
 |
| Continue reading "Majority of Young Drivers Use Phone While Driving" » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| March 05, 2011 |
| AAJ: House Medical Liability Bill “Beyond Extreme” |
| Posted By Steve |
 |
The following is a statement from American Association for Justice (AAJ) President Gibson Vance in response to H.R. 5, a “medical liability reform” bill that was introduced in January in the U.S. House of Representatives:
“After repealing a bill that provided health insurance to over 30 million Americans, the next proposal from the new House leadership is to take away the legal rights of injured patients, remove any incentive to improve safety, and leave people at risk for more injuries from negligent care. This is the most perverse form of legislating imaginable.
“Ten years ago, the Institute of Medicine found that as many as 98,000 people die every year from preventable medical errors. Recent studies have confirmed the problem is only getting worse.
“This bill will impose severe, one-size-fits-all caps on damages that injured patients can seek – not just when injured by medical negligence, but also by defective drugs, medical devices, or abuse suffered in nursing homes. It even extends this cap to health care providers that intentionally harm or kill patients, as well as insurance companies that refuse to pay just claims for medical bills.
“The bill is beyond extreme. Its authors should focus on real measures that will improve patient safety, not provide welfare to drug and insurance companies that stand to gain the most from this proposal.
“By removing legal accountability, attention to safety will go down and more people will suffer injuries and death from negligent care. Congress should put patient safety first.” |
 |
| Continue reading "AAJ: House Medical Liability Bill “Beyond Extreme”" » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| March 03, 2011 |
| AAJ: House Medical Liability Bill "Beyond Extreme" |
| Posted By Steven J. Klearman |
 |
The following is a statement from American Association for Justice (AAJ) President Gibson Vance in response to H.R. 5, a "medical liability reform" bill that was introduced late yesterday in the U.S. House of Representatives:
"After repealing a bill that provided health insurance to over 30 million Americans, the next proposal from the new House leadership is to take away the legal rights of injured patients, remove any incentive to improve safety, and leave people at risk for more injuries from negligent care. This is the most perverse form of legislating imaginable.
"Ten years ago, the Institute of Medicine found that as many as 98,000 people die every year from preventable medical errors. Recent studies have confirmed the problem is only getting worse.
"This bill will impose severe, one-size-fits-all caps on damages that injured patients can seek - not just when injured by medical negligence, but also by defective drugs, medical devices, or abuse suffered in nursing homes. It even extends this cap to health care providers that intentionally harm or kill patients, as well as insurance companies that refuse to pay just claims for medical bills.
"The bill is beyond extreme. Its authors should focus on real measures that will improve patient safety, not provide welfare to drug and insurance companies that stand to gain the most from this proposal.
"By removing legal accountability, attention to safety will go down and more people will suffer injuries and death from negligent care. Congress should put patient safety first."
|
 |
| Continue reading "AAJ: House Medical Liability Bill "Beyond Extreme"" » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| March 01, 2011 |
| Dept. of Justice Asks Tobacco Companies to Admit Lies |
| Posted By Steven J. Klearman |
 |
The Associated Press reports that the Department of Justice wants tobacco companies to fess up, publicly. The government released "corrective statements" that it proposes that tobacco companies should be required to make.
Here are a few of the statements, as reported by the AP:
- "A federal court is requiring tobacco companies to tell the truth about cigarette smoking. Here's the truth: ... Smoking kills 1,200 Americans. Every day."
- "We falsely marketed low tar and light cigarettes as less harmful than regular cigarettes to keep people smoking and sustain our profits."
- "For decades, we denied that we controlled the level of nicotine delivered in cigarettes," a third statement says. "Here's the truth. ... We control nicotine delivery to create and sustain smokers' addiction, because that's how we keep customers coming back."
- "We told Congress under oath that we believed nicotine is not addictive. We told you that smoking is not an addiction and all it takes to quit is willpower. Here's the truth: Smoking is very addictive. And it's not easy to quit."
- "Just because lights and low tar cigarettes feel smoother, that doesn't mean they are any better for you. Light cigarettes can deliver the same amounts of tar and nicotine as regular cigarettes."
- "The surgeon general has concluded" that "children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory infections, ear problems and more severe asthma."
Not surprisingly, these statements are met with opposition from the tobacco companies. Phillip Morris wants the Justice Department to water down those corrective statements to comply with an appellate court decision stating that corrective statements must be purely factual and uncontroversial.
The tobacco companies must respond to the proposed statements by March 3.
Credit Pete Yost of AP via MSNBC
|
 |
| Continue reading "Dept. of Justice Asks Tobacco Companies to Admit Lies" » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| January 31, 2011 |
| AAJ: Proposed Health Act is a New Attack on Civil Justice System |
| Posted By Steven J. Klearman |
 |
The American Association for Justice is warning the public about the sweeping new Health Act intended to replace Obama's health care law. AAJ President C. Gibson Vance issued the following reaction to the proposed Health Act and its effects on plaintiffs' rights:
The 112th Congress has been in session for only a few short weeks, and we have already seen that elections indeed have consequences. Instead of focusing like a laser on jobs, the U.S. House of Representatives has gone back to the past.
The House Judiciary Committee's first hearing was entitled "Oversight Hearing on Medical Liability Reform--Cutting Costs, Spurring Investment, Creating Jobs." Yesterday, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) introduced H.R. 5, the Health Act. The bill is an exact copy (it even has the same bill number) of H.R. 5 from the 109th Congress. The only difference is now there is a new justification; pass this bill to replace the new health care law. H.R. 5 is a very broad bill. It applies to all claims against health care providers, regardless of the theory of liability. It also applies to cases against the pharmaceutical, nursing home, and insurance industries. The bill preempts state law that is more favorable to patients while keeping in place state law that favors medical providers. Here are some of the major problems with the bill:
- Breathtaking scope. The bill applies to claims against health care providers, pharmaceutical and insurance giants, and the nursing home industry.
- Reduced statute of limitations. The legislation reduces the amount of time an injured patient has to file a lawsuit to one year from the date the injury was discovered or should have been discovered, but not later than three years after the "manifestation" of injury.
- Arbitrary and discriminatory $250,000 cap on non-economic damages. The bill limits non-economic damages to $250,000 in the aggregate, regardless of the number of parties against whom the action is brought.
- Elimination of joint liability for economic and non-economic damages. The bill completely eliminates joint liability, preempting the law in many states.
- Severe restrictions on contingent fees. The bill gives the court power to restrict plaintiff's attorney fees regardless of whether recovery is by judgment, settlement, or any form of alternative dispute resolution.
- Severe restrictions on punitive damages. The bill limits punitive damages to $250,000 or two times the amount of economic damages, whichever is greater. It further provides that punitive damages may only be awarded if the plaintiff proves by an impossibly heightened evidentiary and pleading standard.
- Immunity from punitive damages in product liability cases. The bill completely immunizes manufacturers of drugs and devices that are approved by the FDA from punitive damages.
|
 |
| Continue reading "AAJ: Proposed Health Act is a New Attack on Civil Justice System" » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| January 28, 2011 |
| Pfizer Chantix Lawsuit to be Heard in Alabama Court |
| Posted By Steven J. Klearman |
 |
Peggy Gargis of Reuters reports that over 1,200 lawsuits against Pfizer over its drug Chantix will be centralized in federal court, in the Northern District of Alabama.
Chantix is a drug touted to help people stop smoking. The lawsuits allege that Chantix leads to depression and suicide, and that the drug was put on the market without adequate warnings. The drug was apparently not tested in patients with mental conditions. As a result, thousands of users have died or have been seriously injured.
Pfizer defends its drug, claiming that it acted responsibly and that no reliable scientific evidence supports the plaintiffs' claims. Pfizer has added warnings to the drug's package insert.
|
 |
| Continue reading "Pfizer Chantix Lawsuit to be Heard in Alabama Court" » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| January 26, 2011 |
| Winter Driving Safety Tips from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration |
| Posted By Steven J. Klearman |
 |
Avoid car accidents and breakdowns out there on the road in these colder months. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration offers the following tips to be safe this winter.
Get your car serviced now.
- Visit your mechanic for a tune-up and other routine maintenance.
- Have your entire vehicle checked thoroughly for any leaks, bad hoses, or other needed parts, repairs, and replacements.
- Check your battery. When the temperature drops, so does battery power. Also, be aware that it takes more power to start your vehicle in cold weather than in warm. Find out if your battery is up to the challenges of winter by:
- Having your mechanic check your battery for sufficient voltage;
- Having the charging system and belts inspected;
- If necessary, replacing the battery or making system repairs, including simple things like tightening the battery cable connections.
Check your cooling system.
When coolant freezes it expands. This expansion can potentially damage your vehicle's engine block beyond repair. Don't let this happen to your vehicle this winter.
- Make sure you have enough coolant in your vehicle and that it's designed to withstand the winter temperatures you might experience in your area.
- A 50/50 mix of coolant to water is sufficient for most regions of the country. See your vehicle owner's manual for specific recommendations.
- Thoroughly check the cooling system for leaks or have your mechanic do it for you.
- If your system hasn't been flushed (draining the system and replacing the coolant) for several years, have it done now. Over time, the rust inhibitors in antifreeze break down and become ineffective. Coolant also needs to be refreshed periodically to remove dirt and rust particles that can clog the cooling system and cause it to fail.
Fill your windshield washer reservoir.
You can go through a lot of windshield wiper fluid fairly quickly in a single snowstorm, so be prepared for whatever Mother Nature might send your way.
- Completely fill your vehicle's reservoir before the first snow hits.
- Use high-quality, "no-freeze" fluid.
- Buy extra to keep on hand in your vehicle.
Check your windshield wipers and defrosters.
Safe winter driving depends on achieving and maintaining the best visibility possible.
- Make sure your windshield wipers work and replace worn blades.
- If you live in an area that gets a lot of snow and ice, consider installing heavy-duty winter wipers.
- Check to see that your window defrosters (front and rear) work properly.
Inspect your tires.
- If you plan to use snow tires, have them installed now. Check out www.safercar.gov for tire ratings before buying new ones. For existing tires, check to ensure they are properly inflated (as recommended by your vehicle manufacturer), the tread is sufficient with no uneven wear, and that the rubber is in good overall condition. Note that tire rubber starts to degrade after several years, and older tires need to be replaced even if they have not seen much wear.
- Regardless of season, you should inspect your tires at least once a month and always before setting out on a long road trip. It only takes about five minutes. If you find yourself driving under less-than-optimal road conditions this winter, you'll be glad you took the time.
- Check tire pressure and make sure each tire is filled to the vehicle manufacturer's suggested PSI (pounds per square inch) of air pressure, which is listed in your owner's manual and on a label inside the driver's door.
- Keep a tire pressure gauge in your vehicle at all times and check pressure when tires are "cold" -- meaning they haven't been driven on for at least three hours.
- Look closely at your tread and replace tires that have uneven wear or insufficient tread. Tread should be at least 1/16 of an inch or greater on all tires.
Know your car.
Every vehicle handles differently; this is particularly true when driving on wet, icy, or snowy roads. Take time now to learn how to best handle your vehicle under winter weather driving conditions.
- Practice cold weather driving when your area gets snow -- but not on a main road. Until you've sharpened your winter weather driving skills and know how your vehicle handles in snowy conditions, it's best to practice in an empty parking lot in full daylight.
- Drive slowly. It's harder to control or stop your vehicle on a slick or snow-covered surface. On the road, increase your following distance enough so that you'll have plenty of time to stop for vehicles ahead of you.
- A word of caution about braking: Know what kind of brakes your vehicle has and how to use them properly. In general, if you have antilock brakes, apply firm pressure. If you don't have antilock brakes, pump the brakes gently.
- If you find yourself in a skid, stay calm and ease your foot off the gas while carefully steering in the direction you want the front of your vehicle to go. This procedure, known as "steering into the skid," will bring the back end of your car in line with the front.
Plan your travel and route.
Keep yourself and others safe by planning ahead before you venture out into bad weather.
- Check the weather, road conditions, and traffic; plan to leave early if necessary.
- Don't rush! Allow plenty of time to get to your destination safely.
- Familiarize yourself with directions and maps before you go, and let others know your route and anticipated arrival time.
- Keep your gas tank close to full. If you get stuck in a traffic jam or in snow, you might need more fuel to get home or keep warm. Note: To avoid carbon monoxide poisoning when stuck in snow, be sure to keep your vehicle's exhaust pipe clear of snow and ice, run your vehicle only in the open with the windows partially down, and run it only long enough to keep warm.
- If road conditions are hazardous, avoid driving if possible. Wait until road and weather conditions improve before venturing out in your vehicle.
Stock your vehicle.
Carry items in your vehicle to handle common winter driving tasks, such as cleaning off your windshield, as well as any supplies you might need in an emergency. Keep the following on hand:
- Snow shovel, broom, and ice scraper;
- Abrasive material, such as sand or kitty litter, in case your vehicle gets stuck in the snow;
- Jumper cables, flashlight, and warning devices such as flares and markers;
- Blankets for protection from the cold;
- And a cell phone, water, food, and any necessary medicine (for longer trips or when driving in lightly populated areas).
Learn what to do in a winter emergency.
If you are stopped or stalled in wintry weather, follow these safety rules:
- Stay with your car and don't overexert yourself;
- Put bright markers on the antenna or windows and keep the interior dome light turned on;
- To avoid asphyxiation from carbon monoxide poisoning, don't run your car for long periods with the windows up or in an enclosed space. If you must run your vehicle, clear the exhaust pipe of any snow and run it only sporadically -- just long enough to stay warm.
Protect yourself and your loved ones.
- Remember to always wear your seat belt.
- Do not text or engage in any other activities that may distract you while driving.
- While thick outerwear will keep your children warm, they can also interfere with the proper harness fit of your child in their car seat. Place blankets around your child after the harness is snug and secure.
|
 |
| Continue reading "Winter Driving Safety Tips from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration" » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| January 06, 2011 |
| California Supreme Court: Police Can Search Your Cell Phone |
| Posted By Steven J. Klearman |
 |
On Monday, January 3, 2011, the California Supreme Court held that the 4th Amendment permits police officers to search the contents of the cell phone incident to a lawful arrest.
In People v. Gregory Diaz, the defendant was arrested after participating in a drug sale with a police informant. The defendant was taken to the sheriff's station, where his cell phone was seized. After the defendant denied involvement in the drug deal, the deputy who arrested the defendant searched the defendant's text messages in his cell phone. The deputy's search of the phone occurred about an hour and a half after defendant was arrested. The deputy found an incriminating message in the phone, showed it to the defendant, and the defendant confessed to participating in the drug deal.
The defendant plead not guilty to the charge of selling a controlled substance, and moved to suppress the incriminating text message and his subsequent confession. He argued that the warrantless search of the cell phone violated the Fourth Amendment.
The California Supreme Court held that the defendant's cell phone was "immediately associated with [defendant‟s] person," and therefore, the warrantless search of the cell phone was valid. The Court stated that because the cell phone was immediately associated with the defendant's person, the deputy was entitled to inspect its contents without a warrant.
The dissent argued that the privacy interests in cell phones is great, considering technological advances that make smart phones similar to personal computers, and the invasion of privacy of searching these phones without a warrant is also great. The dissent stated that this type of search is highly intrusive and unjustified, arguing that it fails to meet the warrant requirement or the reasonableness requirement of the U.S. Constitution.
|
 |
| Continue reading "California Supreme Court: Police Can Search Your Cell Phone" » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| January 05, 2011 |
| Nevada's New Laws 2011 |
| Posted By Steven J. Klearman |
 |
Nevada rings in the new year with several new laws taking effect as of January 1. Among them, as reported by the Daily Sparks Tribune:
- AB162 requires health insurance companies to screen and provide treatment for autism spectrum disorders up to a cap of $36,000 a year, until the child is 18 unless still in high school.
- Another law requires energy efficiency evaluations of homes before they are sold, if requested by a prospective buyer. Such evaluations can be waived by mutual consent between the buyer and seller. Regulations adopted this fall allow home sellers to satisfy the evaluation by providing a year's worth of utility bills.
- The construction worker safety bill, AB148, requires 10 hours of OSHA-certified safety training for employees and 30 hours for supervisors, with ongoing training required every five years.
- SB303 adopted the Interstate Compact on Education Opportunity for Military Children. Its provisions make it easier for children of military families to transfer between schools when their parents are forced to move between states while on assignment.
- AB513 sets pre-licensing and continuing education requirements for escrow agents, eliminates exemptions for consumer finance companies from licensing and other requirements imposed on mortgage brokers; and requires certain fee disclosures by brokers.
- AB202 requires cosmetologists, hair designers, aestheticians, electrologists, manicurists, nail technicians and cosmetic demonstrators to complete four hours of training on infection control before their license is renewed.
Read more: Sparks Tribune - New Nevada laws take effect today
|
 |
| Continue reading "Nevada's New Laws 2011" » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| 20 posts found. Viewing page 1 of 1. | |
 |