Maryland Accident Law Blog

Dentist Pleads Guilty to Medicaid Fraud, Using Paper Clips Instead of Dental Supplies

2012-01-30T18:23:38Z

A former Massachusetts dentist, Michael Clair, pleaded guilty to Medicaid fraud and a number of other charges stemming from allegations that he used paper clips while performing root canals instead of the stainless steel posts normally used. He will serve one year in jail. Medicaid reportedly suspended the 53 year-old dentist in 2002, but he continued to file claims under different names belonging to other dentists in his practice until 2005. Massachusetts suspended Clair’s dentistry license in 2006, and he is reportedly not currently licensed to practice in any state. He has resided in Maryland for several years.

Numerous patients also reported infections, pain, and other problems stemming from his treatments. One patient, a teenager, had to have his tooth removed after a root canal performed by Clair in 2005. The tooth turned black and caused him severe pain. The teen’s mother claimed that Clair also performed shoddy dental work on her other children.

Prosecutors accused him of defrauding Medicaid of around $130,000 for his claims made using other dentists’ names. They also charged him with assault and battery in connection with his root canal procedures and other practices, illegally prescribing medications, and witness intimidation. Clair reportedly pleaded guilty to all or most of the charges. Prosecutors had asked the court for a sentence of five to seven years. The judge sentenced him to one year in prison, citing Clair’s guilty plea and willingness to accept responsibility, his lack of a prior criminal history, and “certain mental health issues.” The judge did not elaborate on that last factor. Clair will serve his sentence at the Bristol County House of Correction in North Dartmouth, Massachusetts.

Clair’s use of paper clips in root canals is a particularly egregious breach of the trust placed in dentists by the law and by society in general. Dentists, just like medical doctors and other medical professionals, undergo a considerable amount of training and education. As a result, they are entrusted with a great deal of responsibility over their patients. A dentist has a duty to provide diligent and competent service to all his or her patients, and to obtain informed consent for all treatments and procedures. A root canal, known more formally as endodontic therapy, is a complicated procedure. Few laypeople understand how the procedure works, and tend to trust dentists to perform the work. Using common items like paper clips in the procedure in place of specially-designed materials intended for the procedure puts patients at unreasonable risk of infection and worse. This is a clear breach of a dentist’s duty of care.

]]> In Maryland, the State Board of Dental Examiners regulates the practice of dentistry. This includes overseeing licenses and handling complaints. People injured when a dentist provides substandard care may also be entitled to recover damages in the civil court system under a medical malpractice claim.

The Maryland injury lawyers at Lebowitz & Mzhen represent the rights of people who have suffered injury from malpractice by medical professionals. To schedule a free and confidential consultation, contact us online or at (800) 654-1949.

More Blog Posts:

Washington DC Dentist Warns of Dangers of Sports Injuries, Washington DC Injury Lawyer Blog, December 14, 2011

Medical Malpractice Survivors and Families Travel to Washington DC to Stand for Personal Injury Victims' Rights, Washington DC Injury Lawyer Blog, October 26, 2009

19-Year-Old Student Sues Howard University Hospital, GW Hospital, and Washington D.C. for Medical Malpractice and Negligence, Maryland Accident Law Blog, October 23, 2007

Photo credit: dentist by piotr on stock.xchng.

Maryland Traffic Cameras Seek to Deter Speeding, Promote Safe Driving

2012-01-23T20:39:27Z

To combat decreases in revenue from the state and county, the town of Takoma Park, Maryland has turned to traffic cameras as a source of city funding. City officials maintain that their main purpose is to promote driving safety. The city has installed at least six cameras at major intersections. Locations were chosen, the city says, based on the prevalence of past speeding offenses. Between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2011, the city reportedly collected almost $1.74 million in traffic fines from tickets issued through camera evidence. After administrative costs paid to the vendor that manages the system, the city’s net revenue was $898,018. Maryland law requires that money obtained from traffic camera citations go solely towards public safety projects.

The city issued 6,530 tickets for violations captured by the cameras between October 1 and November 22, 2011. Not all tickets are paid, of course, but the system has apparently given the city a much-needed boost in revenue.

Despite any possible concerns over enforcement of criminal issues, the effect of the cameras on public safety, according to city officials, has been profound. Takoma Park Police Chief Ronald Ricucci told Gazette.net that the city’s two main “target areas,” New Hampshire Avenue and University Boulevard, have seen reductions in auto and pedestrian accidents since the city began using the cameras. It is not entirely clear how the cameras could improve driving safety while also increasing revenue from speeding tickets, unless a reduction in auto accidents is not directly related to the amount of speeding in those locations.

The cameras may prove to be useful when traffic accidents do occur, as a source of evidence. Traffic cameras typically take a photograph of an intersection or stretch of road with a wide enough angle to capture a vehicle and its surroundings, but also with enough detail to see features like license plates numbers. Images from the cameras could assist in resolving disputes over whether a driver ran a red light, which driver had the right of way, whether a driver made an improper merge, and so forth. This is still a new technology, especially in our legal system, which is slow to adapt to many new technologies. As such, evidence rules and court procedures are still adapting to this new type of evidence.

]]> Critics of the system point out that alleged violators have little means of challenging a citation. They receive notice of the ticket in the mail, based on camera evidence they did not know existed up to that moment. The cameras may not provide a reliable means for authorities to determine who was actually driving a vehicle at the time of an alleged offense. This could raise a constitutional question, since tickets are issued to the registered owner of the vehicle based on the license plate. Prosecution could be difficult without a positive identification of the driver. Defendants also have less ability to challenge their accuser, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, since their most immediate “accuser” is a piece of machinery.

The Maryland accident injury lawyers at Lebowitz & Mzhen are skilled at pursuing justice for people injured in automobile accidents on Maryland roads. Contact us today online or at (800) 654-1949 for a free and confidential consultation.

More Blog Posts:

Elderly Man Sued by Passengers of the Thief Who Stole His Car, Maryland Accident Law Blog, January 9, 2012

Alleged DUI Driver Hits Maryland School Bus, Maryland Accident Law Blog, December 20, 2011

Two Senior Citizens Killed in Benedict, Maryland, Car Accident, Maryland Accident Law Blog, September 20, 2011

Photo credit: don't speed 9 by TALUDA on stock.xchng.

Elderly Man Sued by Passengers of the Thief Who Stole His Car

2012-01-09T23:05:21Z

George Hinnenkamp was probably not having a very good day. The 89 year-old left his house to travel to nearby Lorane Valley, Oregon one day in June 2009. When he returned home later the same day, he found that his 1991 Thunderbird was not where he left it. He reported it stolen to the police and, at 10:30 p.m., learned from them that the person who took his car had crashed it while under the influence of alcohol. The car thief, 35 year-old Joseph Dinwiddie, had done occasional odd jobs for Hinnenkamp in the past. As attorneys, people often ask us if they can be sued for one thing or another. As this case demonstrates, people can file lawsuits against almost anybody, but the case must have merit to survive.

Prosecutors charged Dinwiddie with unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, driving while intoxicated, reckless driving, reckless endangerment, and two counts of third-degree assault for injuries sustained by two passengers, Nicole Annette Cunningham and Delano Oscar. Dinwiddie’s defense largely relied on the fact that the elderly man had given him permission to drive the Thunderbird in the past when he was working for Hinnenkamp. He argued that he had Hinnenkamp’s permission to use the vehicle the night of the accident. He told police at the time of the accident, however, that he did not have permission from Hinnenkamp, and evidence indicated that the two passengers knew he was intoxicated, even drinking while driving. Dinwiddie was convicted and is now serving a 25-month prison sentence.

The saga did not end there for either Hinnenkamp or Dinwiddie. Two years later, in the summer of 2011, both of them were sued by the two passengers, Cunningham and Oscar, for the injuries they claim to have sustained in the crash. Cunningham is seeking $145,000 and Oscar is asking for $75,000 in damages. Oscar alleges that he suffered various “sprains or strains” in his neck, back, and elsewhere. Cunningham alleges similar injuries, plus pelvic fractures, headaches, dizziness, and more. Their arguments appear to rely on the claim that, since Dinwiddie had driven Hinnenkamp’s car with Hinnenkamp’s permission while working for him in the past, Hinnenkamp could be held liable for Dinwiddie’s actions while driving the car. Hinnenkamp’s insurer stepped in on his behalf and asked the court to declare that he has no liability for the injuries claimed by the plaintiffs.

]]> Generally speaking, a person is not liable for damage caused by their property when someone else has stolen it. This may not apply in the case of inherently dangerous products, but the law tends not to consider a car that dangerous. Hinnenkamp may appear as a more attractive defendant for the plaintiffs, since he is not currently incarcerated and might have the ability to pay a settlement or judgment. His liability for the accident is very far from clear, especially since a verdict from a criminal court has held that Dinwiddie criminally lacked permission to use the car. Even the fact that Dinwiddie worked for Hinnenkamp in the past is of questionable relevance, since he would have to be driving while on a job for Hinnenkamp before any liability would attach.

More Blog Posts:

Up to 25% of US Car Crashes Caused by Distracted Driving and Gadget Use, Washington DC Injury Lawyer Blog, July 12, 2011

Looking for Ways to Decrease the Number of Maryland Car Crashes Caused by Drunk Drivers, Maryland Accident Law Blog, January 31, 2011

Owing Mills, Maryland Car Accidents Can Cause Hard to Detect Soft Tissue Injuries, Maryland Accident Law Blog, January 25, 2011

Photo credit: ouchie :( by rick, on Flickr.

Legislator Awarded $50,000 in Suit for Damages Caused by Tight Handcuffs

2012-01-02T19:06:34Z

A Pennsylvania state legislator from Philadelphia, Jewell Williams, has received an award of $50,000 from a jury in a lawsuit over injuries he sustained in 2009 when police unlawfully detained him. He claimed that “excessively tight handcuffs” caused nerve damage to his wrist and thumb. He further claimed that police violated his constitutional rights by detaining him after he questioned police officers about stopping two elderly men. A spokesperson for Williams said the jury agreed with Williams’ constitutional claim. An attorney for the City of Philadelphia told the media, however, that Williams had previously rejected a settlement offer of $65,000. Williams, for his part, may prefer the vindication in court to any specific dollar amount.

Williams has served as the Democratic representative for District 197 in Philadelphia since 2001. He previously worked as a Temple University police officer. He was elected sheriff of the city of Philadelphia in November 2011 and will take office shortly. The lawsuit arose from an incident in March 2009, when Williams says he tried to assist two “elderly constituents” during a traffic stop. Williams alleged that he saw police pull over a gray Volvo that police said resembled a car used in a drug buy several blocks away. Williams witnessed the stop from several car lengths back while driving home, and eventually got out of his vehicle to intervene.

Williams says he watched one police officer order the driver, whom Williams described as elderly and frail, out of the vehicle. The officer placed the man’s money on the hood of the car. When the man tried to grab at the money as it blew away, the officer alleged shoved him against the car and cuffed him. The man then complained that the cuffs were too tight, and the officer allegedly threatened something to the effect of taking the man to the hospital. A passenger in the Volvo, also described as elderly, was detained by the other officer. This is when Williams got out of his car and approached the officers.

Two more officers had arrived at the scene at this point. Williams says he identified himself as a state legislator, but that the officers yelled profanity at him when telling him to return to his vehicle. Police cuffed him and pushed him into the back of one of the cruisers, telling him he was under arrest for disorderly conduct. Police did not find any drugs in the Volvo or on either person from the Volvo. Police released Williams and the other two men shortly thereafter.

]]> Williams suffers from diabetes and said he still had not regained full use of his left thumb when he filed his lawsuit in October 2010. Both of the men in the Volvo joined him as plaintiffs. They named the city of Philadelphia and all four officers involved in the incident as defendants. Williams claimed damages for his injuries as well as violations of his constitutional rights. Media reports do not indicate what damages the other two men claimed, or what amount of money, if any, the jury awarded them.

The Maryland accident injury lawyers at Lebowitz & Mzhen are experienced at pursuing justice for people injured due to the unlawful or negligent actions of others. Contact us today online or at (800) 654-1949 for a free and confidential consultation.

More Blog Posts:

Federal Lawsuit Against ICE Accuses Anne Arundel County Police of Police Brutality During 2008 Immigration Raid in Maryland, Maryland Accident Law Blog, August 11, 2011

$10M Montgomery County Wrongful Death Lawsuit Accuses Police of Excessive Use of Force, Maryland Accident Law Blog, March 29, 2011

Columbia Man Files Third Lawsuit Against Police Alleging Howard County Police Brutality, Maryland Accident Law Blog, February 19, 2011

Photo credit: foxumon on stock.xchng.

Woman Dies in Elevator Malfunction in New York Office Building

2011-12-28T22:41:10Z

A tragic malfunction in an elevator in Midtown Manhattan has left one woman dead and a city in shock. On the morning of December 14, 2011, 41 year-old Suzanne Hart was entering the elevator on the way to her job at an advertising firm at 285 Madison Avenue. While she had one foot in the elevator, it suddenly lurched upward, dragging her with it. The elevator stopped between the first and second floors, with her trapped between the elevator and the wall. Two other passengers in the elevator were unhurt but trapped there for an hour. Rescuers pronounced Hart dead at the scene, but could not remove her body for several more hours.

No definitive explanation for what happened has appeared yet. Some sort of electrical malfunction may be the most likely culprit, but the incident has had a profound impact on a city dependent on elevators. According to the New York Times, New York City has over 60,000 elevators. There were fifty-three accidents involving elevators last year, but only three were fatal. Hart’s death turned a mundane, everyday activity into something terrifying. Other daily activities, such as driving a car, have known risks and well-publicized dangers, but an elevator ride seems to hold a particular resonance for many people.

The city’s Department of Buildings is conducting an investigation of the incident. The building has remained closed since the day of the accident, but is expected to reopen in January 2012. A spokesperson for the Department said that the accident had raised “structural concerns” for the entire building, an indicator of the force of the elevator’s movement. Transel Elevator, Inc., which services elevators all over the city and acknowledges doing electrical maintenance work on that particular elevator several hours before the accident, is a focus of the investigation. The biggest mystery for investigators, according to CBS News, is why all of the elevator’s safeguards seem to have failed at once. Elevators have safety mechanisms that should prevent them from moving while the doors are open. These mechanisms have several backups, but none of them worked that morning.

]]> According to the New York Times, a Transel employee died in September, the last fatal elevator accident in New York City, when he fell down an elevator shaft in the Garment District. Elevator fatalities are rare, but they have a way of capturing people’s fears. A famous case that has become the stuff of urban legends involved a doctor in Houston in 2003. The elevators doors closed as he was entering the car, trapping him. When the car lurched upward, he was partially decapitated. An investigation found that a wiring error by an employee of the elevator maintenance company caused the accident. The doctor’s family reached a settlement for wrongful death with the elevator company in 2004.

A person injured because of dangerous conditions on a piece of property may be entitled to compensation from the owner or manager of that property. If you or a loved one has been injured in such an incident, contact the Maryland personal injury lawyers at Lebowitz & Mzhen online or at (800) 654-1949 to discuss your case today.

More Blog Posts:

Washington DC Escalator Accident Injures 52-Year-Old Metro Rider, Washington DC Injury Lawyer Blog, April 28, 2011

Maryland Personal Injury Lawsuit filed Over Ocean City Escalator Accident, Maryland Accident Law Blog, June 18, 2009

Three People Injured in Baltimore County When Elevator Falls, Maryland Accident Law Blog, July 30, 2008

Photo credit: zoka on stock.xchng.

Alleged DUI Driver Hits Maryland School Bus

2011-12-20T23:24:12Z

A pickup truck, whose driver was allegedly driving under the influence, caused an accident with a school bus on the evening of November 22, 2011. Twenty people, including fifteen students from Great Mills High School, were treated at a nearby hospital for injuries. Fortunately, no fatalities or serious injuries were reported. The bus driver sustained back injuries.

At about 9:23 p.m. that night, 45 year-old John Patrick Kravats allegedly ran a stop sign while another car, a Ford Fusion, was in the intersection. Kravats’ truck hit the Fusion, sending it into the school bus’ lane. The school bus, carrying members and coaches of the Great Hills High School Girls’ Basketball team, struck either the pickup truck or the Fusion and went off the road and into the woods. Local news coverage showed the bus wedged between trees in a wooded area just off the road.

Witnesses credited the school bus driver with heroic driving maneuvers that prevented the bus from tipping over and prevented serious injuries. The bus driver, another adult, and fifteen students were taken to the hospital. The driver of the Fusion and a 13 year-old passenger were also taken to the hospital.

Police at the scene arrested Kravats for driving under the influence. Local news discovered that Kravats is listed on the Maryland sex offender registry because of a conviction for sexual abuse of a minor. While this is of little to no relevance in determining Kravats’ liability for the accident, it will not help him in the criminal case for DUI.

Based on news reports of the accident scene, it appears that Kravats’ truck did not directly strike the school bus. The school bus may have hit the truck, and it was the efforts of the school bus driver to avoid tipping over that took the bus off the road and into the woods. A personal injury attorney would therefore need to examine causation, to see if Kravats would be legally liable for injuries to school bus passengers. It seems that he should be liable for injuries in both the Fusion and the school bus.

]]> In determining liability for negligence, the question is whether the defendant’s negligent actions caused the plaintiffs’ injuries from a legal standpoint. This is known as “proximate cause,” and the question is twofold: (1) could the accident have occurred but for the defendant’s negligence? and (2) were the injuries a reasonably foreseeable result? Here, the driver of the pickup truck was allegedly driving while intoxicated, which goes a long way towards establishing a breach of duty for the purpose of proving negligence. He also allegedly ran a stop sign, and but for that action he likely would not have collided with the Fusion. From that point, it does not seem unreasonable to conclude that other vehicles on the road would be in danger. Even if the truck had not made contact with the school bus at all, liability would not be difficult to establish.

More Blog Posts:

Two Maryland School Bus Accidents Lead to Possible Injuries and One Death, Maryland Accident Law Blog, March 27, 2009

$3 Million Maryland Bus Accident Lawsuit Filed Against Cecil County Board of Education, Maryland Accident Law Blog, January 15, 2009

Maryland Family Settles WMATA Wrongful Death Lawsuit Over Tragic Valentine’s Day Pedestrian-Bus Accident, Maryland Accident Law Blog, June 30, 2008

Photo credit: manuere from morguefile.com

Maryland Court Strikes Down State Lead Paint Law

2011-12-12T14:47:36Z

Maryland’s Court of Appeals issued a ruling in late October that strikes down a state law shielding rental property owners from liability to their tenants for lead paint exposure if those owners could show they took precautions to protect children from such exposure. The unanimous ruling held that the statute violated the Maryland Constitution by denying victims of lead paint poisoning their day in court. The court left the regulatory portions of the law in place.

Maryland enacted the law in question, the Reduction of Lead Risk in Housing Act, in 1994 as a compromise after lengthy negotiations between public health advocates and property owners. Lead paint poisoning had once been a huge problem for children in Maryland, particularly in Baltimore, but advocates of the law claim the rate of lead poisoning has decreased by 98 percent since the law passed. The law requires owners of rental properties built prior to 1950 to register with the Maryland Department of the Environment and to take steps to remediate lead content in their properties, such as by removing known lead-painted surfaces and removing lead dust. The Department of the Environment states that around 73,000 rental units are registered, nearly all built before 1950. Baltimore banned lead inside homes in 1950, and the rest of the state followed in 1978.

The troublesome portion of the law involves the liability of rental property owners to their tenants when exposure does occur. If a property owner has complied with the regulatory provisions of the law, their liability is limited to $17,000, which might cover the costs of relocating to a lead-free residence but does not compensate for injuries that can last a lifetime. Exposure to lead-based paint can cause severe injuries, including brain damage.

The lawsuit, Jackson v. Dackman Co., et al, sought damages for brain damage allegedly suffered by ZiTashia Jackson when she ingested lead-based paint while residing at two different addresses in Baltimore, both owned by the Dackman Company. According to the complaint, the lease did not note chipping or flaking paint or other similar hazards, but both were rampant in both apartments. The tenants allegedly complained to the landlord, but no repairs occurred. Since the property owners had registered with the state and undertaken remediation efforts, its liability was limited by the statute, cutting off the plaintiffs’ claims for negligence and deceptive trade practices. The defendants obtained summary judgment, the plaintiffs appealed, and the case made its way to the Court of Appeals.

]]> The plaintiffs argued to the Court of Appeals that the portions of the law shielding landlords from liability for injuries violated Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, which provides that everyone should have “remedy by the course of the Law of the land” for injuries to their “person or property.” In short, everyone should get their day in court. The Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiffs on this issue and ruled in their favor. This frees people injured due to lead paint exposure to seek full compensation for their injuries in court.

The Maryland injury lawyers at Lebowitz & Mzhen represent people who have been injured by exposure to toxic substances like lead paint in homes. For a free and confidential consultation, contact us today online or at (800) 654-1949.

Web Resources:

Opinion by J. Eldridge (PDF), Zi'Tashia Jackson v. The Dackman Company, et al, In the Court of Appeals of Maryland, October 24, 2011

More Blog Posts:

Lawsuit Alleges Deliberate Exposure of Baltimore Children to Lead Poisoning, Maryland Accident Law Blog, October 6, 2011

Baltimore's Public Housing Authority Says It is “Not Possible” To Pay Judgments in Maryland Lead Poisoning Cases, Maryland Accident Law Blog, April 11, 2011

Maryland Jury Awards $2.5 Million Baltimore Lead Paint Verdict to Siblings, Maryland Accident Law Blog, November 5, 2009

Photo credit: nasirkhan from morguefile.com

When a "Never Event" Occurs at a Hospital, It Frequently Goes Unreported

2011-12-05T21:55:06Z

Hospitals often refer to tragedies that should not happen in a medical setting as “never events.” These may include patients dying during routine procedures or major medication errors. Saying that they should not happen does not mean that they do not, unfortunately, and few resources are available to track just how frequently “never events” occur.

Any effort to track this type of event is dependent upon reporting by hospitals and other medical providers, who often have both legal and business reasons to prefer not reporting. Hospitals may wish to keep such information private for fear that it could be used against them in litigation. While this may not be an unreasonable worry, it does nothing to alleviate concerns about public safety. Furthermore, any such information that directly pertains to a claim for medical malpractice should be relevant information available through discovery. It turns out that the discovery process may remain the main method for medical malpractice attorneys to obtain information on specific errors.

Hospitals may also cite fear of losing business as a reason to keep “never event” information private, as people would take their business elsewhere, or they might avoid care entirely. The argument that a patient might forgo care rather than risk seems reasonable to an extent, but the interest in having accurate information seems greater.

Finally, patient privacy laws may prevent reporting of specific information on errors. Privacy protections are available, through which hospitals can submit reports with redacted patient information.

Congress passed the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (PSQIA) in order to address some of these concerns, but the law does not directly address the issue of public availability of information. The law encourages hospitals to report dangerous conditions, adverse events, and near misses to a system of patient safety organizations (PSO), also created by this law. It also provides for confidentiality of what it defines as “Patient Safety Work Product.” The definition of Patient Safety Work Product is quite broad, encompassing almost all features of an error report, and disclosure is only permitted in strictly-defined circumstances. These circumstances do not seem to include litigation, except after an extensive process of “nonidentification.” The PSQIA also created a national database that allows information to be shared among the PSO’s, obviously subject to the strict disclosure requirements. However, the PSQIA does not require hospitals to report adverse events to the nearest PSO. All reporting under this law is strictly voluntary

]]> Maryland created its own organization to review such data, the Maryland Patient Safety Center (MPSC), in 2004. It has been listed as a federally-approved PSO since 2008. While the MPSC touts its efforts to bring medical providers together to review the causes of dangerous practices and develop and implement solutions, it does not appear to offer readily available information to the public either. It offers a voluntary “regional patient safety adverse event and near miss reporting system” for Maryland healthcare providers.

Web Resources:

The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Maryland Patient Safety Center home page

More Blog Posts:

"Good Catch" Program Hopes to Encourage the Reporting of Pharmacy Errors Before They Occur, Pharmacy Error Injury Lawyer Blog, September 20, 2011

Hospital Patients are Subject to an Average of One Medication Error per Day, Pharmacy Error Injury Lawyer Blog, September 14, 2011

$2.5M Maryland Medical Malpractice Verdict to Family of Man Who Died After Suffering Hemorrhagic Shock Following Doctor's Failure to Diagnose, Maryland Accident Law Blog, August 23, 2011

Photo credit: taliesin from morguefile.com

Workers Severely Burned in Worksite Accidents

2011-11-30T14:08:22Z

Two recent worksite accidents on November 2, 2011 resulted in serious burn injuries to a welder in one instance and a laundry worker in the other. At a granite quarry operated by Vulcan Materials in Kennesaw, Georgia, a welder was shocked by a high-voltage power line, receiving critical, but not life-threatening, burns. He was using a bucket truck to lift materials when the truck boom made contact with a 4,160-volt power line. Another man was apparently trapped on the crane during the incident, but was not injured. The burn victim was taken to an Augusta hospital’s burn center for treatment. The company that operates the power lines, along with the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration, is reportedly investigating the incident.

A laundry worker at a commercial laundry plant near Rome in northwest Georgia was severely burned in a steam pipe explosion. A pipe allegedly ruptured in the early evening, with sufficient force to blow out a wall nearby. Only two employees and one contractor were present in the plant at the time, according to news reports, and only one injury was reported. The Rome Fire Department and Floyd County EMS responded to the incident, and the Rome Fire Marshal is reportedly conducting an investigation.

Fortunately, no one was killed in either incident. Cases such as these demonstrate the risks present at construction and industrial worksites and the difficulty in determining liability for individual injuries. The workers’ compensation system provides a mechanism for workers injured on the job to recover damages from their employers. The system has many legal restrictions, and the process of making and recovering on a claim can be cumbersome and time-consuming. Workers’ compensation is also generally only available in situations where a worker can make a claim directly against an employer. Worksites often involve multiple contractors ands employers with a tangled web of relationships.

]]> In some cases, a third party, meaning a person or company with whom an injured person has no direct employment or other contractual relationship, may have liability to an injured person. This could involve a subcontractor on a construction site who, through some form of negligence, causes injury to another subcontractor or employee of a subcontractor. It could include the manufacturer of a defective part or product that causes injury to a person on the worksite. Any personal injury attorney will tell you that analyzing the many parties at a worksite to assess liability for an injury is a critical and difficult part of any claim.

In the incidents described above, issues to investigate include the condition of the power lines in one case and the steam pipes in the other. Questions of their safety, their condition the day of the accidents, and who bears responsibility for maintaining them are of paramount importance. The condition and quality of the bucket truck or the commercial laundry equipment may also bear examining. The exact relationships of the injured parties to the site operators and any other onsite service providers or subcontractors is also an important issue to review.

Workers injured on the job may have rights to compensation for their injuries. The Maryland accident attorneys at Lebowitz & Mzhen can help assess your case and protect your interests. To schedule a free and confidential consultation, contact us today online or at (800) 654-1949.

More Blog Posts:

Two Dead from Havre De Grace Fire at Harford County, Maryland Apartment Building, Maryland Accident Law Blog, October 25, 2010

Maryland Man Dies from Burn Injuries Sustained in Frederick Gas Station Fire, Maryland Accident Law Blog, November 16, 2009

Maryland Attorney Sues Baltimore For Burn Injuries Caused By Fall Accident into Construction Hole, Maryland Accident Law Blog, October 10, 2008

Photo credit: taliesin from morguefile.com

Lawsuits Seek to Hold Maryland Company Liable for Death at West Virginia Festival

2011-11-17T17:38:15Z

After a summer music festival in West Virginia turned tragic, a South Carolina man filed a lawsuit in federal court against the festival’s organizer, Maryland-based Walther Productions, and others. The man’s daughter, 20 year-old Nicole Miller, was killed while sleeping in a tent at the festival when a pickup truck rolled down a steep hill and crashed into her tent. Two friends with her suffered serious injuries. The two survivors, Yon Ten and Elizabeth Doran, each filed very similar lawsuits.

The lawsuit filed by Miller’s father names twelve defendants, including Walther, Virginia-based security provider Event Staffing, Inc., the owners of the festival venue, and the driver of the pickup truck. The suits claim that the defendants were negligent in failing to take “reasonable care” to prevent the accident that caused Miller’s death and Ten’s and Doran’s injuries. Miller’s suit also requests punitive damages.

The accident happened at the All Good Music Festival in Masontown, West Virginia on July 17, 2011. The driver of the pickup truck had parked at the top of a hill and allegedly lost control of the vehicle, causing it to roll down the hill and into a campsite. Conditions at the festival were allegedly muddy, and the plaintiffs contend that festival organizers and vendors knew or should have known of the danger of parking vehicles uphill from concert attendees because of the lack of traction in the mud.

Walther filed a response last week denying liability, as well as a cross-claim against several co-defendants. Walther asks to be dismissed from the lawsuit and argues that Event Staffing should be held liable for the accident, as it had direct responsibility for controlling dangerous situations, including parking. Event Staffing also asks for dismissal, and argues that Walther should contribute to any damage awards the court may impose on it. Other defendants have not yet answered the suit.

]]> The lawsuits rely primarily on the theory of premises liability, which holds that a person or business that owns or manages property, including a store, office, home, or raw land, is liable for foreseeable injuries that occur to people on the property. The extent of responsibility to prevent injury and warn of dangers varies depending on how the injured person came to be on the property. A trespasser, for example, gets less consideration than someone who enters the property with permission. Since the plaintiffs came onto the property for a music festival, they are considered “invitees” and are entitled to the highest level of protection under the law, meaning that the festival organizers and property owners have a duty to prevent any and all reasonably foreseeable dangers. The questions that remain, therefore, are who bears the primary responsibility for preventing such dangers, and whether the danger that caused the accident was reasonably foreseeable.

A person injured because of dangerous conditions on a piece of property may be entitled to compensation from the owner or manager of that property. If you have been injured in such an incident, contact the Maryland personal injury lawyers at Lebowitz & Mzhen to discuss your case today.

More Blog Posts:

Maryland Injuries to Minors: Portable Pools are Just as Dangerous as Swimming Pools, Reports Pediatrics, Maryland Accident Law Blog, June 22, 2011

Baltimore County Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Incident Kills 2 People and Sickens At Least 10 Others, Maryland Accident Law Blog, December 14, 2010

Maryland Fire Deaths of Two Frostburg State University Students Caused by Overheated Pipe, Maryland Accident Law Blog, December 7, 2010

Photo credit: hamper from morguefile.com

Maryland Teen Burned by Paint Can Thrown into Campfire

2011-11-10T15:52:42Z

A can of spray paint allegedly thrown into a campfire has led to burn injuries for a Maryland teen and reckless endangerment charges for two minors accused of throwing the can. The Maryland State Fire Marshal’s office reports that, on the night of Tuesday, October 25, two male minors tossed the can into a campfire in a wooded area of Bel Air. This caused the can to explode. A 13 year-old female standing near the fire allegedly suffered first-degree burns to both of her hands and first- and second-degree burns to her face.

The victim’s mother took the girl to the hospital for treatment and reported the incident to police on Wednesday. The girl should recover fully, according to news reports. Police charged the two boys with reckless endangerment, defined in Maryland law as “conduct that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another.” This offense, a misdemeanor, normally carries a penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to $5,000, but in this case the defendants are minors. The criminal statute uses the mental state of “recklessness,” meaning that the prosecution would have to prove that the boys acted without regard to a known risk, in this case the risk of an exploding paint can.

From the point of view of a personal injury attorney, the question becomes one of negligence or intent. While reports of the incident give no indication of any civil claim relating to the injuries, the case offers a good thought experiment on how a claim for damages can develop. In this case, the injured girl could make a claim for negligence or for an intentional tort such as battery, depending on the circumstances. “Battery” as a civil claim is an intentional action that results in contact with another person without that person’s consent. It could be direct person-to-person contact, as in a punch, or contact through another object, such as a paint can. A claim for battery would require proof that the boys intended to throw the paint can into the fire and intended for it to affect the girl, although they do not necessarily need to have intended her specific injuries. To claim negligence, she would need to prove that the boys breached a duty of care, such as to not create explosions, and that this breach caused her injury. In either case, the extent of her injuries would determine the amount of damages she could claim.

]]> Of course, damage claims against children run into the problem that children generally have little ability to compensate a victim. In limited circumstances, an injured person can hold parents responsible for negligent or intentional acts of their children. The mere existence of a parent-child relationship does not support this sort of liability. A parent must have been negligent in supervising the child, leading to the actions that caused the injury.

An person injured by another’s intentional or negligent actions often has a claim for damages against that person. If you have been injured in such an incident, contact the Maryland personal injury lawyers at Lebowitz & Mzhen to safeguard your rights today.

More Blog Posts:

Maryland Injuries to Minors: Family Settles Personal Injury Lawsuit Over Acid Burn Injuries Sustained by Boy on Playground Slide, Maryland Accident Law Blog, May 28, 2009

Two Kids Suffer Burn Injuries in Washington DC Apartment Complex Playground, Maryland Accident Law Blog, September 3, 2008

Baltimore Children Injured In Burn Accidents To Be Treated At Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, Maryland Accident Law Blog, November 22, 2006

Photo credit: ronnieb from morguefile.com

Outsourcing of Radiology Raises Concerns About Quality of Care

2011-11-03T18:32:32Z

The word “x-ray” may still conjure images of doctors standing before backlit panels reviewing transparent x-ray scans and arguing over diagnoses. This bears little resemblance to the reality of modern x-rays. In a practice known as teleradiology, doctors and hospitals outsource x-rays and similar procedures to companies who may be located on the other side of town or the other side of the world. Doctors and technicians employed by these companies review the x-rays and issue a report. This practice, while perhaps increasing efficiency, also increases risks of misdiagnosis or even simple miscommunication, with potentially serious consequences.

A recent article published by MSNBC tells the story of a Pennsylvania woman who went to the hospital on a Friday night in 2005 complaining of a severe headache. The emergency room doctor thought it might be a cerebral hemorrhage, a potentially fatal condition, so he ordered a CT scan. The hospital electronically sent the CT scan data to a radiologist located across the state. The radiologist diagnosed a possible tumor rather than a hemorrhage. Since a tumor was not immediately life-threatening, the hospital sent her home with painkillers.

The woman returned to the hospital by ambulance about seven hours later, in even worse pain. The ER doctor ordered a more detailed CT scan, which was sent to a different radiologist. While the radiologist had a Pennsylvania medical license, his office was in Hong Kong. The radiologist identified an abscess around the mass in the woman’s brain, a condition that is very frequently fatal if not caught in time. The radiologist did not note the significance of his finding, i.e. its likelihood to be fatal, in his report to the hospital. Another radiologist at the Pennsylvania company also noted the abscess but did not report its significance.

The woman went home again, and later collapsed when the abscess ruptured. She spent eleven weeks in a coma while doctors tried to drain the fluids from her brain. She survived with permanent brain damage affecting memory and daily functions. The hospital settled a lawsuit with her family for a confidential amount.

]]> Several experts who reviewed the case concluded that the emergency room doctor could have averted disaster by speaking to any of the radiologists involved. At no time did the doctor have direct contact with any of them. They received CT scan data, reviewed it, and issued a written report. No one compared notes, shared diagnoses, or asked any questions.

Outsourcing testing, radiology, and other functions is an increasingly common practice in modern medicine, and it flies in the face of some common conceptions of a doctor-patient relationship. Patients often still expect that their doctor will have access to all of their relevant test results and data, that the doctor uses all available information in making diagnoses and recommending treatments, and that the doctor is involved in every step of the process. This is no longer the case in many hospitals. Although the decision to outsource certain functions may make sense in saving costs for the hospitals, the hospitals and doctors still bear the responsibility for the accuracy of their diagnoses and treatments. By shifting some of that responsibility to others, doctors do not shift the risk of error. With practices like teleradiology, patients may not always know who is reviewing their x-rays, but they know who is responsible, and liable, for the results.

The Maryland injury lawyers at Lebowitz & Mzhen represent the rights of people who have suffered injury due to malpractice by medical professionals. To schedule a free and confidential consultation, contact the firm today.

More Blog Posts:

$2.5M Maryland Medical Malpractice Verdict to Family of Man Who Died After Suffering Hemorrhagic Shock Following Doctor's Failure to Diagnose, Maryland Accident Law Blog, August 23, 2011

Are Some Children Undergoing Unnecessary CT Scans? Washington DC Injury Lawyer Blog, May 11, 2011

Montgomery County Jury Awards Silver Spring Woman $2.35M Maryland Medical Malpractice Verdict Over Wrong Diagnosis, Maryland Accident Law Blog, October 4, 2010

Photo credit: clarita from morguefile.com

Reliability of Federal Product Safety Database Questioned in Lawsuit

2011-10-28T01:01:26Z

A lawsuit filed by an anonymous “Company Doe” seeks to block “baseless allegations” on a new website that allows consumers to post information on hazardous products. The website, SaferProducts.gov, represents an effort to “crowdsource” reporting of dangerous and defective products in the marketplace. The Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) created the site and lunched it about six months ago. The lawsuit brings to light concerns raised by business groups that the website creates the potential for consumers to defame companies by posting false, misleading, or inaccurate information. One side of this dispute involves the right of manufacturers to do business without false disparagement. On the other side is the public’s interest in freely available information on hazardous products.

The CPSC is an independent agency of the federal government with a mandate to protect the public "against unreasonable risks of injuries associated with consumer products." It regulates over 15,000 different consumer products by investigating claims of faulty, defective, or hazardous products. It can then issue recalls of products already released into the market or ban products yet to be released. In addition to SaferProducts.gov, the agency operates the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) which collects data on injuries caused by dangerous products from emergency rooms. Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act in 2008, which authorized the creation of a public database to collect information on product concerns.

In its first four months, according to the Government Accountability Office, the website received 5,464 consumer complaints. Of those, the CPSC found 383 of them to be “materially inaccurate.” In 204 of those reports, consumers had incorrectly identified the manufacturers of the allegedly hazardous products. The total number of reports received, while possibly low because of lack of widespread knowledge of the system yet, may be considerably lower than the number of reports received by the CPSC through its other programs. Annually, it collects over 360,000 reports through NEISS, 23,000 reports directly from manufacturers, and around 15,000 reports through the agency’s website and hotline.

SaferProducts.gov is the first service that gives members of the public the opportunity to directly report problems, and to access information reported by others. The CPSC clearly disclaims that it “does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents” of the website’s database. This potentially presents a problem both for manufacturers who may find themselves unfairly maligned, and for a public needing accurate and up-to-date information on hazardous products.

]]> A database that functions essentially like a collaborative “wiki”-style website with questionably accurate information is not very helpful to anyone. At the same time, a system that allows manufacturers to object to submissions that they do not like, even if they may have some factual basis, potentially deprives the public of needed information. The court that must sort through these issues has a difficult job ahead of it.

The Maryland injury lawyers at Lebowitz & Mzhen represent people who have been injured by by faulty or defective products. For a free and confidential consultation, contact the firm today.

Web Resources:

SaferProducts.gov, a program of the Consumer Products Safety Commission

More Blog Posts:

New Crib Safety Standards Aim to Protect Infants and Toddlers from Injury and Death, Maryland Accident Law Blog, June 28, 2011

Recall of Over 1 Million Baby Slings by Infantino Following Three Infant Deaths, Maryland Accident Law Blog, March 24, 2010

Products Liability Lawsuits Cost Bausch & Lomb Over $250 Million, Maryland Accident Law Blog, June 1, 2009

Family Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against California School Over Death of 12 Year-Old

2011-10-19T15:22:04Z

The parents of a 12 year-old boy who died in September 2010 from acute cardiac arrest have filed suit against the school district where the child was enrolled, the child’s P.E. teacher, and two doctors who treated him. The lawsuit alleges negligence against the school district and teacher for failing to exercise reasonable care in the child’s physical education, and it alleges that the doctors were negligent in their prescribed restrictions on the child’s physical activities.

The child suffered from hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a condition that causes thickening of the heart muscle, according to court documents. This makes it more difficult for the heart to pump blood efficiently. The congenital condition can result in sudden cardiac arrest and death, and is a leading cause of heart-related death among young athletes. The lawsuit alleges that, while temperatures in Los Angeles were at a record high of 107 degrees in September 2010, the school and P.E. teacher required the child to participate in physical education classes. The school and teacher allegedly knew about the child’s heart condition. The child allegedly suffered cardiac arrest on the morning of September 28, 2010 during his physical education, while under the teacher’s supervision. He died shortly afterwards.

The primary claim of the lawsuit is negligence. To prevail on a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) the defendant owed a duty of care, (2) the defendant breached that duty, (3) the breach caused injury to the plaintiff, and (4) plaintiff has suffered damages as a direct result. The plaintiffs have also claimed negligence by medical professionals, which is a higher standard of negligence. Ordinarily, a negligence claim requires proof of a duty of care for a reasonable person. Medical malpractice imposes a higher standard of care on doctors and other medical professionals because of their specialized training. Since the school district and teacher named in the lawsuit care for children in the course of their daily professional duties, a court might apply a higher standard of care to them than it might to a person not accustomed to dealing with children. The lawsuit specifically alleges failure to follow the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which addresses protection of children with disabilities.

]]> The lawsuit claims that the school district and the teacher were negligent due to their failure to use reasonable care in the child’s physical education, given their knowledge of his condition. They defendants allegedly knew, or should have known, that his condition could result in serious injury or death during strenuous physical activity. The defendant had a duty to provide care for the child while taking his heart condition into account. They breached that duty, says the lawsuit, by making him participate in physical education class, leading to his death.

The lawsuit further claims that the two physicians named as defendants breached a duty of care by failing to provide the school and the child’s parents with sufficient guidance as to the child’s care, inappropriately removing restrictions on the child’s activities, and failing to provide the child with a needed pacemaker. The child apparently became a candidate for a pacemaker after a fainting episode at school in May 2010.

The Maryland injury lawyers at Lebowitz & Mzhen represent people who have been injured because of the negligent actions of others. For a free and confidential consultation, contact the firm today.

Web Resources:

Protecting Students With Disabilities, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education

More Blog Posts:

$2.5M Maryland Medical Malpractice Verdict to Family of Man Who Died After Suffering Hemorrhagic Shock Following Doctor's Failure to Diagnose, Maryland Accident Law Blog, August 23, 2011

$91.5M Nursing Home Neglect Verdict Awarded to Family of Woman for Her Wrongful Death, Maryland Accident Law Blog, August 9, 2011

$2.4M Maryland Wrongful Death Verdict Awarded to Family of Forklift Driver Who Had Asbestos-Related Cancer, Maryland Accident Law Blog, January 15, 2011

Fatal Bicycle Accident in Severna Park in Dark Lighting Conditions

2011-10-13T17:09:22Z

Police are investigating a fatal bicycle crash that happened the evening of Friday, October 7, 2011 in Severna Park, Maryland. A 40 year-old cyclist sustained fatal injuries after a car struck him from behind on northbound Veterans Highway. The collision drove the man into the car’s windshield. Police responded shortly after 7:30 p.m., and the cyclist was pronounced dead after arriving at the hospital by helicopter.

The initial investigation has not shown any evidence of speeding or alcohol use as a factor in the accident. Police named “bicyclist visibility” as the accident’s cause, noting that the cyclist was dressed in dark, non-reflective clothing and that the accident occurred in a dark area of the highway. The driver of the car apparently simply could not see the bicycle, according to the investigation.

The Maryland Department of Transportation reports that there were 686 reported bicycle crashes in 2009, the most recent year for which statistics are available. Of those, there were 10 fatalities and 578 injuries. The Department notes that 40% of all bicycle crashes and 57% of all fatal crashes occur between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. The cyclist was found to be at fault in 86% of all fatal Maryland crashes and 52% of the total crashes. “Fault” in bicycle accidents is determined the same way as in accidents involving only automobiles.

Maryland law treats bicycles the same as automobiles. Cyclists must take reasonable safety precautions, and car drivers must give the same consideration to a bicycle as they would to another car. For an automobile, reasonably safe driving in the evening or at night involves the use of head- and taillights and extra attention to surroundings that may be obscured by darkness. For cyclists, reasonably safe operation involves not only lights but some form of reflective clothing. Riding a bicycle at night is particularly dangerous, given the difficulty of seeing bicycles in the dark. Maryland law only requires helmets for people under the age of 16, but it applies all the same rules of the road to bicycles as to cars. Bicycles must obey traffic lights and signs, and cyclists may not wear headphones while riding.

]]> From the standpoint of liability for injuries, courts will look at how both the injured party and the allegedly negligent driver behaved. If a court or jury concludes that the injured person did not behave reasonably safely, any award of damages may be reduced to compensate for the injured party’s own negligence. This is known to lawyers as contributory or comparative negligence. Juries will often make a proportional determination of liability when determining damages. For example, if a jury finds that a cyclist struck by a car was not operating the bicycle in a safe manner, the jury may determine that the cyclist was 25% at fault, and they would reduce the damage award to 75% of the total. An injured party found to be greater than 50% at fault would receive nothing, but usually would not automatically end up owing money to the defendant. In the case of the accident in Severna Park, it is too early to say how liability might be assessed, but it raises issues of everyone’s responsibility to drive or ride safely, regardless of who ends up injured or worse.

Maryland injury lawyers Lebowitz & Mzhen represent people injured in accidents on the roads, and help to maximize the determination of the other party’s liability. For a free and confidential consultation, contact them today.

Web Resources:

Bicycle Safety Summary, Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration

Bicycle Safety, Choose Safety for Life Campaign

More Blog Posts:

The Fight Against Distracted Driving: Baltimore County Lawmaker Pushes for Tougher Cell Phone Driving Law, Maryland Accident Law Blog, February 16, 2011

Family of Baltimore Bicyclist Settles Maryland Tanker Truck Accident Lawsuit Over His Wrongful Death, Maryland Accident Law Blog, December 2, 2010

New Laws to Prevent Maryland Bicycle Accidents Take Effect, Maryland Accident Law Blog, October 11, 2010