I have seen an avalanche of new medical malpractice inquiries coming to my office regarding overdoses caused by prescription painkillers, most notably fentanyl.  Just during July I received three inquiries from families of people killed while using the fentanyl patch.  It may come as a surprise to most readers of this post to find that an FDA approved drug has caused so much disaster.  The fact is prescription painkillers killed over 16000 people in 2013.  Heroin?  Just 6200.  I will leave it for a different blog and more analytical political observers to ask why drugs that kill tens of thousands of people are approved by the FDA while marijuana (which killed zero, yes 0) people in 2013 remains illegal.  (check out drugwarfacts.org for more information and the total chart of which drugs kill people.)

Just because a drug is FDA approved does not mean that an overdose or death caused while using the drug is not a case of medical malpractice.  After all, if legally prescribed and used, where is the negligence?  Quite the opposite, there is a strong chance of malpractice.  I have handled these cases in the past and I am quite familiar with the power of this drug.  Fentanyl is shockingly strong and intended for use only for the most severe cases such as dying cancer patients in hospice.  Prescription of the patch outside of its recommended use or for the wrong patient can be grounds for a medical malpractice claim.  In other words, a person with a marginal history of back pain should not legally be prescribed such a powerful drug.  Fentanyl patch overdose can often be caused because it is prescribed to the wrong person or the person is not properly informed how to use the patch.

The patch itself can cause an overdose but it is particularly dangerous when paired with other drugs, particularly anti-anxiety drugs.  This interaction can be fatal and it is graded as a moderate drug interaction, meaning that it should be avoided and only used under close observation.

I’ve previously spoken on this blog about how Facebook and social media can affect your personal injury claim and/or lawsuit.  It is well established that insurance companies and defense attorneys will examine your Facebook profile if it is open to the public.  They will use anything to their advantage to discredit you or your case.  Examples of ways in which your social media can effect and harm your personal injury claim:

  • Pictures or descriptions of yourself going to the gym or for a jog while claiming disability (even if it is rehab and stretching exercises, it looks bad);
  • Pictures or descriptions of yourself doing work (even if unpaid) while making a claim for lost wages or loss of earning capacity (for instance, helping a friend move or doing remodeling work on your home);

News today reports that a RIPTA (Rhode Island Public Transit Authority) bus was involved in a pretty serious accident with a tractor trailer.  The accident which happened Tuesday at the corner of Church and Pine Streets disabled both vehicles and sent at least two bus passengers to the hospital with several others complaining of pain.  This follows accidents  in March involving a pedestrian very seriously injured when struck by a RIPTA bus and several other high profile accidents in the past few months.

In this case, the RIPTA investigation (unsurprisingly) claims fault is with the truck driver who allegedly ran a red light.  Both drivers may argue fault in this matter and debate who had the right of way.  Fortunately, passengers on the bus are entitled to compensation no matter who is at fault.  Joint and several liability holds that anyone who carries no negligence (passengers clearly can’t be at fault since they were not in control of either vehicle) are entitled to obtain compensation from one at fault party, or the other, or both.  In short, either the truck driver or RIPTA will be paying the claims to these injured passengers.

RIPTA in general is notoriously difficult to work with and very rarely settles cases for fair value without a lawsuit.  RIPTA is also self-insured meaning that they settle all of their claims “in house” and attorneys do not deal with a traditional insurance company.  My office has handled a number of RIPTA cases, and honestly, we just file suit right away.  There is little point in trying to negotiate directly with RIPTA especially in a case like this where they are alleging the other party is at fault.  If you have been hurt in an accident with a RIPTA bus or while riding as a passenger on a RIPTA bus, be sure to talk to your attorney about his or her experience in dealing with RIPTA and hire an attorney who has a record of success against RIPTA and who is prepared to file the often necessary lawsuit.  If you have been injured in this accident or any other bus accident, contact our office right away for a free consultation.

Todays local news bring the tragic story of a young Coventry couple killed in a motorcycle accident following collision with another vehicle.  While details are still scant at this moment, it is a bitter reminder of how dangerous riding bicycles and motorcycles can be.  The warm weather has brought out cyclists of every kind and the accidents the come with them.  Already this year, I have seen many new cases come into my office including a motorcyclist who shattered his knee when forced to drop to the ground when cut off by a vehicle turning left.

Drivers must be aware that this weather brings out thousands of bicyclists and motorcycle riders.  They are not able to maneuver or stop in the same way in which a car can.  More importantly, minor contact with little physical damage can cause serious personal injury to the operator.  Bikers can be thrown from a bike causing head injuries, broken bones, road rash and other serious injuries.

Motorcyclists are by nature defensive drivers because they simply need to be, as drivers of motor vehicles sharing the road, we need to be defensive as well.

I read this tragic story this morning out of Alabama.  A young boy was shopping with his mother at a Publix supermarket and asked for a cookie in the bakery section.  The boy suffers from a very serious allergy to tree nuts of all kinds.  As many as two percent of all children today suffer from this allergy which can range in severity from mere annoyance to fatal. Unfortunately, for this young man, he had a fatal allergy.  The family has brought a wrongful death lawsuit against the supermarket.

The cookies in the market were not marked as containing nuts of any kind.  Aware of the seriousness of her sons allergy, the victims mother specifically asked the girl at the counter if there were any nuts in the cookie.  She was told “no.”  The boys mother even tried the cookie herself first but did not notice any nuts in the ingredients.  Horribly, after just 2-3 bites the boy knew something was wrong because his mouth was on fire.  Despite the use of benadryl and an epi-pen, the boy still passed away on route to the hospital.

This story is all the more tragic because it was absolutely unnecessary.  With great credit to the boys parents they claim that this lawsuit is not about money but about awareness.  Even though the country is pretty aware of the existence of peanut allergies and many schools now forbid nuts of any kind, there remains far too much ignorance on the subject.  It is, as it was here, literally a matter of life and death.  Supplying an allergic boy with a cookie containing (even trace amounts of) nuts is the equivalent of handing any one else a cookie containing cyanide.  Hopefully this lawsuit can have their desired effect of informing the public just how important it is to be aware of the presence of nut allergens.

A California lawsuit alleges that nearly a hundred wines from a dozen or more producers contain enormous amounts of arsenic much higher than the legally permissible limits.  Its tough to avoid this story that seems to be everywhere and as a self appointed amateur wine connoisseur, I have to admit to finding the story fascinating.  The Plaintiffs allege that independent testing reveals arsenic levels as high as 500x what is considered safe (kind of scary that number is not 0).  Of course, the wine institute believes the lawsuit is nonsense and that all of the listed wines are safe to drink.  To be fair, the plaintiffs were not killed as a result of drinking this wine, they are simply appalled at the results of independent testing.

It began with an independent test in Denver.  They sought to review approximately 1300 bottles of the most common wines on the marketplace.  In fact, these 1300 bottles represented 75% of all wine drank in the US.  Of course, since we are talking about commonplace and high volume wines, many of those tested were cheap and inexpensive bottled (or boxed) wine.  Shockingly, 83 of the bottles tested revealed excessive arsenic levels.  Those 83 bottles are:

  • Acronym’s GR8RW Red Blend 2011

I came across this interesting article on CNN.com regarding a massive class action lawsuit involving hundreds of auto bodys from nearly every State in the Country against the insurance industry and major insurance companies.  The complaint at the heart of the lawsuit concerns the use of old and/or junk parts in the repair of vehicles and steering by the insurance company to “preferred” body shops.  The body shops along with Attorney Generals representing several States have initiated this action to end both of these practices by the insurance company which they feel are unsafe and deceptive.

LKQ / USED PARTS IN THE REPAIR OF A VEHICLE

The term LKQ stands for Like Kind and Quality.  It means a replacement part that came off of a previously totaled or salvaged vehicle.  Massive salvage yards are in every corner of the country with thousands of vehicles that were deemed total losses following an auto accident.  These salvage yards remove every piece of a vehicle and post them for sale.  When a body shop or insurance company calls the salvage yard looking for a 2004 Camry headlight, they will very likely have one in stock.  Then that used headlight goes into your repaired 2004 Camry.  The insurance companies claim that they do not owe for a brand new Toyota headlight because the car being fixed is not new.  In other words, the insurance companies justify this practice by saying “we replaced a ten year old Camry headlight with another ten year old Camry headlight.”  There may be some fair rationale to that argument.  This lawsuit alleges, however, that used parts in a salvage yard are not always safe or in the best condition.  For that reason, forcing body shops to use such parts can potentially create a hazardous situation.  And lets be honest, if a tree falls on your house and you make a homeowners claim, would you expect your contractor to use 30 year old wood while re-constructing your house or brand new materials?  Junk parts are just that – junk.

Considering that most New Englanders now feel they are living in Alaska, it is not surprising that snow and ice are causing a lot of car accidents in the past weeks.  This has led to a common recurring question – why am I at fault for an accident caused by snow or ice?  It is a reasonable question.  If your car slides on ice and you are unable to come to a stop despite your absolute best efforts, then why should you be responsible if you rear end someone.  You couldn’t help the slide, after all.

As reasonable an argument as that may be, the reality is that anyone who operates a vehicle in snow and ice willingly takes on the risk that comes with those conditions.  We all know that it is dangerous to drive in the snow and therefore we take responsibility if we lose control of our car.  Any injuries or property damage that are caused will be the responsibility of the person who lost control in the snow.

Aside from this, auto accidents caused by snow and ice are subject to the same rules of the road as any other car accident.  If you hit a patch of ice and slide through a stop sign striking another vehicle, you will be responsible for the damages caused.  Rhode Island does not become a no-fault state because of snow and ice.  If you have been hurt in a car accident caused during the recent snow storms, contact our office for a free consultation.

Much like the seemingly never-ending construction on Reservoir Avenue around our office, our driveway has now been torn up creating a huge hole. It led me to think about the dangers of such environments and how the law approaches holes and other defects on property.

8122096871_be6bfb65e4.jpg
Slip and fall cases can often be very tricky and in order to obtain fair compensation for your injuries, these cases will often require a lawsuit. In order for a landlord to be responsible for your injuries, in part, he or she must have known or should have known about the defect causing the fall and subsequent injury. If aware of the defect, the landlord must notify and warn all visitors or immediately fix the defect so that it is no longer dangerous. It is their duty to protect guests from known dangers. One exception to this rule is the “open and obvious” doctrine.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court has held that a landlord is under no obligation to warn against an open and obvious condition on the premises. Stating further that the duty is on the plaintiff to act as a reasonable and prudent person. A landlord may be responsible if he failed to warn or repair of a defect that injured a person. That landlord, however, may not be responsible if the defect is so large or easy to see that there is no reason the plaintiff should have missed the defect. In other words, the defect is so large and easily visible that the plaintiff was negligent for not seeing it in advance and taking steps to avoid it.

Welcome news this morning as I was reading the Turn to 10 webpage. It appears that RI Lawmakers have put in place mechanisms to check and ensure that Rhode Island drivers have active automobile insurance coverage. Failure to maintain active auto insurance can result in suspension of your driver’s license. A link to the story can be found here.

This is certainly welcome news since 1 in 5 vehicles on the road in Rhode Island is currently uninsured. Every week I have to give the extremely upsetting news to a car accident client that the at fault driver did not have auto insurance at the time of the accident. That means that despite thousands of dollars in vehicle damage and serious bodily injury, the at fault driver will not be able to compensate the victim. Luckily, on many occasions my clients have uninsured motorist coverage on their policy and they are able to receive compensation through their own insurance company. Many clients, however, do not have this coverage and are out of luck.

Theoretically, you can sue the at fault driver for damages with or without insurance. Unfortunately, this is a time consuming and complex process. There are also quite a few costs associated with a lawsuit. Drivers who do not possess auto insurance on their vehicle are also very unlikely to have any money or assets since a person of wealth would never risk driving their vehicle without insurance. So, you have a time consuming and complex lawsuit against a defendant with no money. That is why a personal injury attorney is unlikely to help you if there is no insurance.