Cape Cod Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Most Popular

Landlords Can Now Be Liable for Pit Bull Attacks

Bruce Bierhans — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:30:29 GMT

It has long been the law in Massachusetts, and in many other states, that if your dog causes injury, you are liable regardless of whether or not you were negligent. This is called "strict liability" and imposes automatic liability on the dog "owner".

However, if you were suing a landlord that was not the dog owner, you had to show that the dog had "vicious propensities" prior to the attack and that the landlord knew or had reason to know of those propensities.

In the case of Nutt v. Florio, the Massachusetts Appeals Court has ruled that where the dog at issue was a pit bull, the issue of the landlord's negligence may go to the jury for a determination of whether or not "the dog had dangerous propensities, whether the defendants knew or should have known about them, and, if so, what actions would have been reasonable, in light of their duty as landlords to protect tenants from reasonably foreseeable risk of harm."

In effect, the court is saying that if a pit bull is involved, you don't necessarily have to show that the dog attacked in the past. The landlord's knowledge that a dog is or may be aggressive may impose a burden on a landlord to be alert for their tenants' safety, particularly where there are complaints from other tenants, or other evidence of "potential" aggression. As stated by Lawyers Weekly, a landlord may now be liable for injuries even though the landlord was not the animal's owner and there was no evidence that the animal had ever attacked anyone before.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bruce Bierhans

MA Insurance Board of Appeal to be Dissolved

Carrie Strasser — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:51:15 GMT

On April 1, the Division of Insurance Board of Appeal, that hears approximately 50,000 motor vehicle insurance surcharge cases annually, will be dissolved reported the Boston Globe. The decision, said insurance commissioner Nonnie Burnes, came about after last year's implementation of a "managed competition" system that allows drivers dissatisfied with their insurance bills to switch carriers.

If insurance companies determine that a driver is more than 50% at fault in an auto accident, they can increase premiums by levying surcharges. These penalties can cost drivers hundreds of dollars annually and last for up to six years. Approximately 25,000 of the 50,000 appealed cases each year are overturned by the board and the drivers are reimbursed.

State lawmakers are in the process of signing a bill that would require the Board of Appeal to remain in effect.

The "managed competition" system was designed to aid consumers by increasing competition among insurance companies to offer better prices, services and features. However, this new system also called for the dissolution of the Appeals Board.

"Consumers should have an independent board to challenge a decision that could result in hundreds of dollars a year in higher premiums," said Deirdre Cummings, legislative director for the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, an advocacy organization. "This is a straight-up consumer protection."

Burnes disagrees saying the appeals board is not consumer friendly because it costs $50 for a hearing and can take up to 6 months for a driver's case to be heard. But, compared to a misapplied surcharge that could cost a driver hundreds of dollars over many years, $50 and 6 months seems like a small price to pay.

However, Burnes believes that some insurance companies' new "accident forgiveness" policy will allow drivers who feel that they have been improperly charged to drop their insurance carrier for one that will be more accident friendly.

Frank Mancini, president of the Massachusetts Association of Insurance Agents, which supports keeping the board, said the savings offered by accident forgiveness programs won't help all motorists because switching insurers won't necessarily lower a driver's bill.

"The accident follows you," said Mancini. "It doesn't go away if you move to another insurer."

Burnes has proposed a system whereby the insurance company would review a driver's claim of an improper surcharge. However, Mancini does not believe this would work since companies often review claims but end up not changing their original decision.

Being involved in an auto accident is stressful and costly enough without having to worry about a steep rise in your insurance premiums from an accident that might not have been your fault. For information on dealing with your insurance after an auto accident, click here. Our firm handles a wide variety of auto accident cases and is ready to assist you with your claim.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Carrie Strasser

Study Suggests Patients Requiring Heart Implant Devices Should Seek Out Specialists

Carrie Strasser — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:01:00 GMT

The New York Times reported on a study released Tuesday that indicated that patients who had specialists implant their heart defibrillators had fewer complications than their counterparts whose surgeries were conducted by other doctors.

The study, headed by Dr. Jeptha P. Curtis of Yale University, examined 110,000 patients who had received defibrillators and other heart devices over 1.5 years from 2006 to 2007.

Overall, the study found that the rate of serious complications like heart attacks or internal bleeding that occurred during the implant of a heart device was lowest — about 1.3 percent — when the procedure was performed by an electrophysiologist, the name for a cardiologist formally trained in device use.

The study reported that most implant procedures, approximately 70%, were conducted by electrophysiologists. The highest rate of complication, approximately 2.5%, was reported among thoracic surgeons.

The increase in defibrillator implantation in recent years has led to increased questions regarding physician training in these implant procedures. Some defibrillator makers have even begun training programs for doctors who are not electrophysiologists.

This has caused some specialists to argue that patients requiring heart implant devices should seek out electrophysiologists to conduct their surgery. Other doctors have argued that, in some areas, there are too few specialists to meet the demand.

If you find yourself needing heart surgery, don't hesitate to question your surgeon about his/her experience and training. It is his/her job to put you at ease and instill confidence that he/she is the best person for you to trust. For information about heart health, click here. For information on medical devices and implants, click here.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Carrie Strasser

A New Study Shows that Stopping the Heart is the Best Method for Bypass Surgery

Carrie Strasser — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:30:54 GMT

A study published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine and reported in the New York Times found that bypass surgery performed using a heart-lung machine, or pump, was more successful in the long term than the recently popular off-pump procedures.

In the study, published Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine, 2,203 patients were randomly assigned to have their bypass surgery on pump or off. Because the study was sponsored by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the patients were mostly men.

A year later, those who had had off-pump surgery had poorer outcomes. Fewer bypasses stayed open and patients were more likely to have needed a repeat operation or to have had a heart attack or to have died. They were no less likely to have had strokes or difficulty thinking.

Initially, doctors switched to off-pump procedures for fear that the pump could lead to strokes, memory problems or personality changes. The increasingly popular off-pump procedure requires doctors to operate on a still-beating heart.

Off-pump procedure patients had fewer blood transfusions but spent a longer period of time in the operating room. Patients of both procedures spent similar lengths of time in intensive care, on ventilators and in the hospital.

Certain surgeons who have made the off-pump procedure their common practice say they will not change because they have developed an expertise in the procedure and the study does not reflect their actual outcomes.

Approximately 20% of the over 200,000 people having bypass surgery each year opt for the off-pump procedure. In the beginning, this procedure was not easy with surgeons having to operate on a moving, beating heart. Many surgeons were pressured into learning this procedure and instruments were soon developed that assisted in keeping the heart steady.

However, despite the fact that some surgeons eventually became "experts" at off-pump procedure, the purpose of the study, says Dr. Michael Lauer, Director of Cardiovascular Sciences at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, was to determine "how well will the procedure work in the hands of a typical surgeon." Dr. Lauer added that very few surgeons have actually attained a high level of expertise in this off-pump procedure.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Carrie Strasser

FDA Meeting Held to Address Complaints About the Medical Device Approval Process

Carrie Strasser — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:44:55 GMT

The New York Times reported last week that a rare internal meeting was held by the FDA on Wednesday to address the complaints surrounding the medical device approval process.

Dr. Donna-Bea Tillman, director of the agency’s office of device evaluation, sent an e-mail message on April 10 announcing an “all-hands meeting” to discuss the strategic direction of the device center. Such a broad-based meeting that includes all scientists within the device evaluation office has not been held for years, two agency officials said.

This meeting was spurred by letters to President Obama signed by nine scientists alleging that agency officials had acted improperly and put patients at risk by approving medical devices for use in spite of numerous objections from scientists reviewing the devices.

These letters have led to the opening of a Congressional investigation and a critical report of the device center released by the Government Accountability Office in January. Additionally, Congress is to propose legislation this week asking the Institute of Medicine to investigate the device division.

Specific devices that the scientists complained about were imaging equipment used to detect breast cancer and an orthopedic knee device. The scientists also charged that the agency has allowed hospitals to clean and reuse certain devices intended for only one use.

This meeting will hopefully be the first step toward greater concern for patient safety when it comes to medical devices. As of now, many patients harmed by certain medical devices have no recourse through the judicial system. However, if the approval process becomes more rigid, this could prevent avoidable injuries due to faulty medical devices. For more information on medical devices, click here.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Carrie Strasser

Some Helpful Hints to Avoid Long ER Waits

Carrie Strasser — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:03:21 GMT

CNN reported that, since 2002, the average waiting time for Emergency Room visits had increased 27 minutes. In 2008, the average waiting time in the ER was four hours and three minutes.

The increase in time spent waiting at the ER can be attributed to the increase in people who have lost their jobs and, in turn, lost their health insurance. These newly uninsured usually have delayed seeking medical care and are unwittingly putting strain on an already burdened system.

Here are some hints offered by four Emergency Room doctors to get attention in the ER if you feel that you or your loved ones will be harmed by delaying care:

1) Describe your loved one's worsening condition to the triage nurse:

This would work most of the time. If I got a hostile answer, I would ask to speak with the charge nurse or charge physician. If I felt like I was not getting anywhere, I would ask to speak with the administrator on call. The last resort is to call the hospital operator (dial 0 from the emergency department waiting room phone) and ask to page the patient advocate and hospital administrator. ... I would not use inappropriate or threatening language.

2) Don't be confrontational:

A basic principle of medical care is that 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease.' I would recommend advocating on behalf of your spouse. It's uncomfortable that it has to be this way, but it works the same in any service business. The more you complain, the faster the service. But it's a fine line. Complaining can piss off the staff, so it's important not to go over the top. Family members who are too vocal are sometimes escorted out by security.

3) Empathize with the fact that the ER staff is busy, but be persistent in advocating for your loved one:

I would ask to speak with the Emergency Department director. If they weren't there, I would ask to speak with the charge nurse or shift supervisor. ... I would advise them that you think the patient has an 'emergency medical condition that should be evaluated right away.' Most of us in emergency medicine define the urgency in those terms and should be responsive.

If you don't get a response, advise the individual in charge dispassionately and without confrontation, 'I understand you are busy, but I feel the patient will have a bad outcome if not seen right away.' If the person in charge was a nurse, ask to speak with the physician and repeat the same thing. If there's no response, further advise the individual in charge, 'I feel strongly about this and must call the administrator on call.' If no response, I would call the hospital administrator on call and advise him or her of those same concerns.

4) Name drop if necessary, but only with caution:

As far as invoking the threat of a letter to the CEO, that can trigger the 'VIP Care' response, which may save time, but also may expose the patient to increased risk by changing practice patterns. VIP treatment subverts the normal way we practice medicine and in my experience usually leads to medical errors. I have made my worst mistakes while treating friends, colleagues, and other VIPs. ... Belligerence, histrionics or requests for VIP treatment usually end up working against the doctor-patient relationship.

Basically, if you remain calm, but forceful in seeking medical attention for your loved ones, you may be able to decrease that wait time. The important thing to remember is to try to maintain a balance between respecting the ER staff while advocating for a patient.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Carrie Strasser

Documents Show that Psychiatrist Promised Favorable Results for Drug Company

Carrie Strasser — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:02:39 GMT

Dr. Joseph Biederman, a prominent child psychiatrist at Harvard University, promised the drug company Johnson & Johnson that certain studies of its medicines in children would yield positive results for the company, reported the New York Times on Friday. Documents outlining these interactions between Dr. Biederman and Johnson & Johnson came to light as a result of the multistate litigation regarding the improper marketing of antipsychotic drugs. The New Jersey Superior Court Judge overseeing the multistate litigation ordered that Dr. Biederman be deposed and as a part of that process, Biederman released certain documents to his lawyers about his interactions with Johnson & Johnson.

Dr. Biederman is a staunch advocate of diagnosing bipolar disorder in young children and using antipsychotic drugs to treat this disease. However, much of his work has been funded by drug companies for whom he does private consulting.

An inquiry by Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, revealed last year that Dr. Biederman earned at least $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007 but failed to report all but $200,000 of this income to university officials.

Dr. Biederman is currently being investigated by both Harvard and the National Institutes of Health to determine whether the psychiatrist violated federal and university research rules.

In a number of the documents provided by Dr. Biederman, he promised a positive outcome in his research studies for Johnson & Johnson drugs such as Risperdal and Concerta.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Carrie Strasser

Marshall University Board Named in Slip-and-Fall Lawsuit

Chrissie Cole — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:11:09 GMT

The Marshall University Board of Governors has been named in a slip-and-fall lawsuit filed by a woman that fell on Marshall's Huntington Campus.

The woman, along with her husband, filed the lawsuit, June 8, in Kanawha Circuit Court, naming the Board of Governor's of Marshall University as the defendants.

The suit claims on September 8, 2005, the woman was walking on campus nearby the entrance of the memorial Student Center, when she tripped over a raised curb and fell. She was injured when she fell, including a fractured ankle.

The lawsuit claims the Board of Governors didn't properly maintain the sidewalk nor remove any obstacles. The suit seeks compensation for her injuries and damages.

Her husband claims he has lost the consortium, services and companionship of his wife and seeks compensation.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Britain Takes Another Look at Mammograms and their Benefits

Carrie Strasser — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:57:06 GMT

Advocates and experts urged British health officials to revise informational fliers about mammography in a letter to the Times of London, reported the New York Times on Tuesday. The officials promised to rewrite these fliers to avoid overstating the benefits of mammograms and to include information about the potential harm involved.

In the letter, experts explained that women are not told that up to ten healthy women are given diagnoses (and sometimes surgery) for a slow-growing cancer that was not life threatening, for every one woman actually saved by breast cancer screening. This is a statistic that not many American women are likely to hear either. One survey conducted of American women found that only 7% were even aware that some cancers grow so slowly as to not need treatment.

A 2006 analysis by the Nordic Cochrane Center collaborative, an independent research and information center based in Copenhagen, found that for every 2,000 women age 50 to 70 who are screened for 10 years, one woman will be saved from dying of breast cancer, while 10 will have their lives disrupted unnecessarily by overtreatment. The figures were cited in the letter to The Times.

Director of Cancer Screening Programs in Britain, Julietta Patnick, explained that the informational fliers were being revised but also stated that the figures cited by the Cochrane study were inaccurate. Ms. Patnick said that British studies show that the ratio of women saved to women over treated is more likely one to one.

Often, slow-growing cancers look very similar to aggressive cancers when examined under a microscope so it is not necessarily easy to determine which ones should be left alone.

The United States has more aggressive screening for breast cancer than Britain, where women start at 50 and only get mammograms every 3 years as opposed to the annual mammograms recommended for women starting at age 40 in the U.S.

Dr. Ned Calonge is Chairman of the United States Preventive Services Task Force and explained that in America, mammography is often oversold to women.

“Some women would have the same outcomes, whether the cancer is detected clinically or by mammography,” he said. “And there are women whose cancer is so aggressive we cannot detect it early enough to make a difference in mortality.”

The American Cancer Society still endorses annual mammography and Robert Smith, their director for cancer screening, stated that overdiagnosis is minimal.

In the end, it's obviously the woman's choice and whether you get regular mammograms or regular check-ups or conduct your own self exams, it's always best to stay informed and be aware of changes in your body. Don't hesitate to get a second or third or even a fourth opinion because doctors are human too, and gathering all the information is the only way you will be able to advocate for the best treatment options for yourself. For more information about breast cancer and screening options, click here.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Carrie Strasser

Elder Abuse Rises in Massachusetts

Carrie Strasser — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:37:06 GMT

The Boston Globe reported on Monday that economic stress is causing more family caregivers to abuse and/or neglect elderly relatives. This is not only due to economic pressures on the individual families, but also because the social services that once provided much needed assistance with elder care, are being scaled back.

Dale Mitchell, the executive director of Ethos, a Boston nonprofit that runs the city's protective services program, explained that families taking care of elders are under an enormous amount of stress in this present economy.

Mitchell said his office received 134 reports of alleged elder abuse and neglect in January, the highest for any month in the agency's 32 years of running the program. Because of the caseload, workers are more frequently "triaging" cases, investigating only the most serious ones, Mitchell said.

Mr. Mitchell's, Ethos, is only one of almost two dozen programs in Massachusetts under contract with the state that investigates allegations of elder abuse. In the past, approximately 30 percent of these allegations were confirmed and now, that number is at more than 60 percent in the first quarter of this fiscal year.

Investigators have seen a spike in financial exploitation cases where family members have taken an elder member's life savings.

Directors of these programs explain that what has hurt family caregivers the most is the cut in state-subsidized homecare services. This service sends aides to elders' residences a few hours per week to assist with personal care and household chores. Since October, almost $4 million was cut from this program, resulting in a waiting list of 675 people.

The current economy has placed added pressure on every aspect of our lives, so it's no wonder that family caregivers are finding it more difficult to provide for their older relatives, while also trying to take care of themselves. But, added financial stress should not lead to abuse of our elderly loved ones. Here are some helpful tips to identify elder abuse.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Carrie Strasser