Sacramento Personal Injury Lawyer - Automobile Accidents - Most Commented

Are You Really in Good Hands with Allstate?

David Rosenthal — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:35:33 GMT

Allstate Insurance is easily the most prolific advertiser of auto and casualty insurance lines. It runs a series of television commercials starring Dennis Haysbert (of Major League fame) that cleverly portray real life situations, such as rear end auto collisions, and some not so real life situations, like wayward college football fans running their car into a statue of renowned coach Bobby Bowden, to illustrate the need for insurance. The pithy theme of each ad is driven home with the statement "that's Allstate's stand", and with the suggestion that you are not in good hands unless your insurance is through Allstate.

However, experienced consumer attorneys know that Allstate's advertising claims are in stark contrast to its every day claims handling practices. Trial lawyers are in a unique position to judge the overall approach of insurance companies because they deal with a broad cross-section of insurance companies in a wide variety of factual scenarios. During the handling of thousands of claims, the true corporate color of an insurance company shines through. And after reviewing a high volume of claims documents recently, the American Association for Justice unequivocally rated Allstate as the worst insurance company for consumers.

Allstate policy holders might feel that the wrap on Allstate is the result of sour grapes on the part of attorneys who are resentful that their outrageous claims were not paid by the company. However, Allstate's rating was not solely the result of a "boxing glove" corporate policy of lowballing legitimate claims made against its policy holders, although that was certainly part of it. Allstate has also made clear it was willing to get into the ring and duke it out with its own policy holders in the name of increasing profits. In addition, its low rating was based on paying high executive salaries as a reward for successful lowball tactics and charging higher premiums, in part to pay for its expensive advertising.

One recent Allstate commercial illustrates another goal of the Allstate advertising campaign. The ad shows a court room scene where the judge imposes a judgment on a young man (the defendant) in the amount of $100,000 after an auto collision. The defendant's attorney turns to the injured person's (plaintiff) attorney to explain that the defendant has only $50,000 in insurance. The plaintiff's attorney replies that the defendant has a college fund that can be used to pay the balance of the judgment, and concerned parents ask their attorney - "can they do that?" The defendants attorney replies that they can.

The ad is designed to mislead the viewer into believing that the defendant is an innocent victim (it was just an "accident"), and that both the court system and a greedy plaintiff's attorney are the victimizers. This promotes the belief that trial lawyers and frivolous lawsuits are the cause of high insurance premiums.

In real life, such a scenario would likely be the result of an auto collision caused by a speeding driver who was distracted by his cell phone and ran a red light, sending the other driver to the hospital with serious, possibly permanent injuries. The other driver incurs medical expenses of $25,000, loses income from work of $10,000, and has ongoing pain and limitations. Although the value of the pain, suffering and inconvenience is well in excess of $15,000, the other driver is willing to settle out of court for the responsible driver's $50,000 policy limit to avoid going to trial, and probably out of a moral feeling that he does not want to collect against the responsible driver's personal assets.

Even though the other driver is without fault, the insurance company for the responsible driver puts on its boxing gloves and offers only $40,000, which is less than the policy limit of $50,000. The attorney for the injured person has no choice but to spend thousands of dollars to take the case to trial to seek the full value of the injured person's damages. A jury of reasonable people taken from the general population (rather than a judge as portrayed in the ad) determines that the total value of the injured person's loss is $100,000. Now, because of the insurance company's lowball at all cost mentality, there is a judgment against the responsible party for more than his insurance coverage.

Allstate Insurance has engaged in a successful marketing campaign. But this expensive advertising comes at a cost. The consumer warning caveat emptor is especially appropriate when you consider purchasing insurance from Allstate. Purchasers of insurance from Allstate may find that the "good hands" have boxing gloves on, and making a claim is like ringing the fight bell.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Rosenthal

Contributing Factors: The Good Samaritan v. The Jaywalker

Amber Wheat — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:26:19 GMT

A news story on MSNBC relates an incident involving a bus driver who pushed three people out of the path of an oncoming vehicle only to get hit by the truck himself. Jim Moffett risked his life and sustained great injury to save two little old ladies and another man.

What he did was a good thing, but The Colorado State Patrol says what he was doing before the collision was not okay. Mr. Moffett, the other man, and the little old ladies were jaywalking. Mr. Moffett was cited and will be fined.

When we hear stories like this, the public reacts with outrage. “How can they fine this man when he probably saved lives?” Well I know precisely how they can do it. His actions were a contributing factor to the collision. The driver of the pickup was cited for reckless driving, but it takes two to cause an accident. One person to not pay attention and another person to be there. If they hadn’t have been jaywalking there wouldn’t have been an accident at all. In the same vein, if the driver had been more attentive, there wouldn’t have been a collision, either. They are both jointly and severally liable.

It takes a very special kind of person to do what Mr. Moffett did and I have the utmost respect for him. I hope that he will be okay and I am sure that the citation will be paid for by admirers (if not dropped altogether).

I hope that others take this instance as a warning that jaywalking is never a good idea. Crosswalks are there for a reason. Helping little old ladies to cross the street is very nice, but making sure they get to the other side safely within a crosswalk is nice and smart.

Our firm regularly deals with pedestrians who have been injured by vehicles. The injuries are often severe because, while the driver has tons of steel protecting them, the people on the street don't even have a helmet to protect themselves. Be smart out there, we don't want you or anyone you love to need our services. If the worst should happen, you know where to find us.

Commenters on MSNBC responded with outrage, what are your thoughts? Do you agree with the officers?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Drunk Driver gets a Slap on the Wrist for Fatal Crash

Amber Wheat — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:25:43 GMT

I was shocked and very upset to read about Troy Hovey’s sentencing. Judge Robert Glusman handed down the weak sentence of 180 days in jail and three years probation for taking the life of Amit Tandon.

Mr. Tandon’s widow is pregnant and was unable to face the man who killed her husband in court, but she sent the judge a letter asking for the maximum of 10 years in prison. But friends and relatives of Hovey sent letters also, telling the judge about what a wonderful man Hovey was.

This case did not go in front of a jury. Hovey pleaded no contest to a felony charge of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and driving with more than .08 percent of alcohol in his system. In actuality, Hovey had a blood alcohol level nearly three times the legal limit He knew what he did.

I have always contended that drunk drivers make choices. These are not “accidents” (any good plaintiff attorney knows to call it “the collision”), but they are mistakes. Mistakes are made when people make wrong choices. Defense counsel cited addiction and alcoholism as excuses for him. The judge expects Hovey to “embrace recovery.” Hovey has tried twice before to get sober and was even participating in an outpatient program at the time of the accident.

What really irritates me is that Judge Glusman defends his ruling by saying that probation has not been prohibited in vehicular manslaughter cases and that means the Legislature wants judges to examine each case on its merits. Well fine! Look at the merits of this case! He knew he had a drinking problem (in tort law we call that forseeability), he went drinking, he got really drunk, he got back in his car, he raced down Highway 99 at 60-80 miles per hour, he crossed the median, and slammed head-on to a husband and soon-to-be father. He killed this man. Where is the justice for Tandon’s family?

The judge is confident that “this won’t happen again,” but his parting words are “If I find you’re drinking, I’ll be the last person you want to see.”

I am incredibly saddened by this outcome and it’s message to other drivers who drink and then take stupid risks. It’s not the drinking that’s the problem, it’s the driving after drinking. Get drunk to your hearts content, but STAY HOME. As citizens of America we have every right in the world to drink alcohol, but nobody has the right to put the lives of others at risk.

Am I being too harsh? I know I am coming down hard, but I firmly believe that there is no excuse for drunk driving in today’s day-and-age. With cell phones, taxi companies, public transit, volunteer drivers, and so many other options, drinking and driving should be a thing of the past.

What do you think?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Our Firm Obtains $4.5 Million Jury Verdict

Amber Wheat — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:00:47 GMT

A case study:

The verdict came down on July 2, 2008, just eight days after the trial began.

The case arose from a rear-end motor vehicle collision on November 16, 2005 involving an off-duty County of Sacramento Sherriff driving a County vehicle. Liability was not disputed. Plaintiff, 48 (now), was an estimator for Lund Construction (underground construction co.) at the time of the collision and had been working there for nearly 20 years. Before the collision he had 4 prior back surgeries (2 from comp injuries; 1 from another mvc and 1 redo surgery) with the most recent being in 1992. All the evidence established he had 13 good years with no limitations besides lifting. He had been to the doctor 2-3 times for back pain during this time. No other treatment for his back during this time. Following the collision, he had another discectomy surgery -this time at L3-4 (different level than the prior surgeries). The surgery relieved his radicular symptoms but not his back pain. He missed 5 months of work and then went back to work and worked until October 2007 when he could no longer work. A few months after his post-mvc surgery the topic of a 2 level fusion was discussed with his surgeon. He refused and wanted to try to work. Defense did not contest the surgery/treatment post MVC. Their whole defense was he : 1) should have mitigated by having the fusion earlier; and 2) he should have a 3 level fusion now and if he does he will be able to return to his desk job working full time (mitigation of future earnings). At trial, the evidence established that plaintiff did not want to have the fusion surgery and that he was not able to work given his current condition. Big dispute was over the fusion surgery, likelihood of success and whether he could return to work if he had it.

The defense and the plaintiff called expert witnesses to support their point of view:

John: Gary Nibbelink: Rehabilitation Counselor & Consultant, Sacramento, CA
John: Charles R. Mahla of Econ One Research Incorporated, Economist, Sacramento, CA
John: Tushar Goradia, M.D., Neurological Surgeon, Goradia Medical Corporation, Carmichael, CA
John: Ardvan Aslie, M.D., treating medical expert, Sacramento, CA
Defense: George Picetti, M.D., Sutter Medical Group, Orthopedic Surgeon, Sacramento, CA
Defense: Carol Hyland, Carol Hyland Rehabilitation Consultant, Vocational Rehabilitation, Lafayette, CA
Defense: Kirk Blackerby, Economist, Morgan Hill, CA

The defense attorney asked the jury to award $600,000.00 with no future wage loss. John asked for $5.5 million. The jury consisted of eight people, six women and two men. One woman was a state employee and another one was a county employee. Here is the breakdown of the award:

Medical Expenses: $75,007.40
Lost Earnings: $130,000.00
Future Medical Expenses: $325,000.00
Future Lost Earnings: $1,900,000.00
General Damages: $1,000,000.00
Future General Damages: $1,000,000.00
Joann’s Loss of Consortium: $70,000.00

Total comes to $4,500,007.40.

Following this collision and surgery, Mr. Friese missed approximately ten months, went back to work part-time for 6 weeks and then worked full-time from October 2006 until he went off completely on October 2007. He did everything he could to keep working but the pain in his low back continued to worsen to the point he could no longer work. John strongly believes the jury found him more credible because he tried to work instead of not working at all and trying to use this collision as his meal ticket.

The best part about this case was the fact that John offered the defendants a §998 offer of $1.9 million in December of 2007 that the defense passed over.

We got an article in the SacBee and were published in Verdict Search.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Teen Driving Safety Week

Barbara Burks — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:01:53 GMT

Californians are celebrating by introducing this year’s Impact Teen Drivers educational program. Every year Impact Teen Drivers hands out material to public schools and encourages them to spend time with students who are learning to drive or just received their licenses. This year is exciting because everyone is getting in on the action.

The program is sponsored by the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, the California Highway Patrol, the California Teachers Association, California State Firefighters Association, the Peace Officers Research Association of California, California Casualty Insurance, and the Association of California Schools Administrators.

Many people are doing there part, but sometimes it is hard to get motivated. In this economy nothing motivates people more than money. This year “Create Real Impact” will be giving grants to California high schools where the Impact Teen Drivers material is used in new, interesting, and more effective ways.

New drivers are the most at risk for fatal collisions. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 6,982 young drivers, between the ages of 15 and 20, were involved in fatal collisions in the United States in 2007. In California, 238 young drivers died and 199 young passengers died while in the vehicle of a young driver. In Texas, more drivers died, but fewer passengers died. California had the highest number of fatalities.

This year the Impact Teen Drivers program is coming into the twenty-first century. They have not only created a new website, but they have set up a myspace and a facebook page as well. They really know their customers. We all hope that some good will come of these programs and that next year we’ll see an even bigger drop in teen fatalitites.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Barbara Burks

Agencies Unite to Put an End to Drunk Driving in Sacramento County

Amber Wheat — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:05:11 GMT

Drunk driving is a real problem in Sacramento. We hear about DUI collisions, injuries, and fatalities, but when it doesn’t effect us personally, it is easy to forget that many real people and real families are suffering from the irresponsible actions of a few. Well, Sacramento is finally taking a stand. With recent articles about lost loved ones and new plans to combat reckless driving, maybe the county can get people to start caring.

This year a public awareness campaign by the Teachable Moment Foundation is focusing on educating the masses on drunk driving. They hope that Every37.com can make the consequences of choosing to drink and drive a reality for some people. They will utilize TV, radio, the internet, and guerilla marketing. The Sacramento Police Department is embracing the campaign as well.

Thanks to the efforts of the founder of the Teachable Moment Foundation, Dr. Leon Owens of Mercy San Juan Medical Center, drunk driving has steeper consequences in Sacramento County. If it is not a first offense, the vehicle can be impounded (we all know what a headache that is). And more interventions are taking place in custody. Counselors are brought in to ask questions and explain things in way that may make it more personal to the offender. They also offer referrals to treatment programs.

Another new law makes it illegal for prior convicted DUI offenders to have any alcohol at all in their systems. No legal limit for them, they just aren’t allowed to have any amount. It seems like a harsh rule and one that doesn’t necessarily make sense. People over the age of 21 have a right to drink alcohol. If someone makes a mistake in their youth, are they forced to worry about having a glass of wine with dinner? Are they tested even if they are in an accident that wasn’t their fault?

There are on average 600 DUI offenders on formal probation in Sacramento County. The worst of the worst require intense supervision to keep them off the road. In most cases they have suspended licenses, so they shouldn’t be driving at all. They are picked up for driving, but they seldom get caught with a fresh DUI offense. Again, the punishment doesn’t seem to fit the crime. People need to be able to drive to work, or their kids to school and soccer practice and whatnot.

The California Highway Patrol supports a new bill that may be the solution to many problems. Assemblyman Mike Feuer introduces a bill to install ignition-interlock devices in the vehicles of DUI offenders. Basically, it’s a breathalyser and the engine won’t start unless the driver is under the legal limit. Now I can already think of a few ways to get around it, but Feuer believes it will at least be a deterrent since the offender has to pay for installation and maintenance. He states that it has worked for other states and that 983 people died in California last year because of collisions involving drunk drivers. He hopes to start a four-county pilot run beginning July 1, 2010. I hope that Sacramento County will be one of the four.

The CHP is also focusing on young drivers this year. They are offering a two-hour course every month at the Massie Court office titled “Start Smart”. It will focus on understanding the responsibilities of driving and the consequences of poor choices. Comments on the SacBee website range from outrage at the CHP budget to gratitude from parents and grandparents. It is said that people who are upset with budget problems are taking this opportunity to lambast the CHP when they are trying to do some real good. One comment states “If this class save the life of one driver, because a ten attended this class, then it is well worth it.” Another asks if she can require her kids to take it.

Start Smart is a good name for the training. Intelligence really is a factor here. If anyone, not just teens, stopped and thought about their actions before choosing to get into the vehicle, how many lives would that save?

As always, I hope you are one of the lucky few who have never been victims of drunk or reckless drivers. If not, you know where to find us. Be careful out there. I know it’s hard, but let’s hope for the best with these new programs and maybe next year the fatalities on the roads will have gone down.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Is the Spree of Hit and Runs a Product of a Bad Economy?

John Demas — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:23:37 GMT

Insurance is one of those monthly bills that people believe they can cut back on or do without during hard economic times. There are times when I really wish I didn’t have to shell out hundreds of dollars for something I hope I never use, but it is the law. Minimum policies are usually $15K/$30K in California. This type doesn’t cost much, but when it is necessary to pinch every penny to stay in your home, keep business open, or fill the gas tank, it becomes a burden.

I know better than to get rid of my car insurance, but I work in the industry and I know what can happen if you don’t carry it, but many people don’t understand that one crash without insurance could ruin them. If you hurt someone and you don’t have insurance you are liable for all their damages and will have to pay out-of-pocket. Even if you do have insurance, a collision will probably make your insurance go up and that is the last thing anybody needs. That may be the reason behind all the recent hit-and-runs lately.

I was appalled to see not two, not three... but six stories of hit-and-runs in the area. Shockingly, a couple of them involved very young children. In the beginning of October, we saw that an 8-year-old boy was critically injured in Stockton. The driver fled the scene but was eventually caught and is in custody.

A few days later, in Modesto, a driver fled the scene after running a red-light and broadsiding a family’s minivan leaving the 3-year-old girl in critical condition. The child took the brunt of the impact. As of November 7, 2008, the suspect, Gabriel Garcia Martinez, is still at large. Thankfully, the little girl is expected to survive her head injuries.

But it doesn’t end there, the very next day, there were reports about Anhelia Crisol, age 21, who was struck by a vehicle while changing her car’s tire on the shoulder of eastbound I-80. The California Highway Patrol immediately began looking for the 90's Buick LaSabre. There would be damage on the right front and side of the vehicle. If you have any information please contact Gabe Potter at the CHP (916) 338-6710.

Then there is the story of the hit-and-run fatality that occurred the day before Ms. Crisol was struck. Aman Kumar Khanna was broadsided in Sacramento. There wasn’t much information at first, but the picture slowly came into view. It turns out that a 16-year-old boy was drunk and had run a red light at 80 mph. He fled on foot, but was caught and will face five charges, including gross vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol causing great bodily injury or death and felony hit-and-run.

Apparently the spree continues when a seventeen-year-old and a nineteen-year-old were hit while crossing the street. The driver left and the two girls were left to fend for themselves. The seventeen-year-old is on life support and her friend was seriously injured. The police began a search immediately and eventually the driver turned herself in. She was arrested.

There are reports that a bicyclist in the area may have also been hit by a car whose driver did not stop.

The punishment for hit-and-run just isn’t worth taking the chance. To quote my legal assistant’s blog:

“California Vehicle Code section 20001, et seq. states quite clearly that if you are involved in a collision, YOU MUST STOP. There is certain information that must be given to the other involved parties if requested, including a driver’s license, vehicle registration, current residence address of the driver and of the registered owner, and other valid identification.

Penalties for leaving the scene are quite severe and can range from a maximum of six months in prison to a minimum addition of five years to a vehicular manslaughter sentence. Fines range from $1,000.00 to $10,000.00.”

Everybody gets scared when they have been in an accident and panicking can be understood, but whatever you do, don’t leave the scene. It will only make the situation worse. Think about the people that you learned about today; you now know who they are, what they look like, and what they drive. These people will be caught if they haven’t been already.

Technology today makes it very hard to get away with a hit-and-run and in the end, you’re not saving any money. It’s hard right now and tough times are ahead of us as well, but insurance is a necessary evil.

If you have any additional information about these or other collisions, please contact the appropriate authorities. And if you or someone you love has been in a collision (hit-and-run or otherwise) please give us a call.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Demas

How Good is Your Hospital?

Rhiannon Safford — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:48:21 GMT

The Colorado-based, healthcare quality measurement firm, Healthgrades, has just published its latest ratings of hospitals across the country. The Healthgrades website has developed a user-friendly approach to allow people to view hospital rankings, which are categorized based on location and on various procedures performed.

The rankings are based on the number of complications and deaths following each type of procedure, with the information being compiled from tens of millions of Medicare claims spanning a three-year period.

Healthgrades provides rankings of one star, three stars, or five stars for each hospital for each category of procedures. Five-star ratings represent the best performers, while the one-star ratings represent the poorest performers in each category.

For example, in the Sacramento area, if you were to undergo a knee replacement surgery, it may be helpful to know that Healthgrades gave five stars each to Sutter General, Sutter Davis, and Methodist hospitals. Or if you were having a spinal fusion surgery, you may want to know that Healthgrades gave five stars to both Sutter Davis and Sutter Roseville hospitals.

With this type of information easily accessible to the public, patients can now make more informed decisions regarding where to obtain their health care. In addition, hospitals with lower rankings have an incentive to improve performance in their weaker areas.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rhiannon Safford

CHP Declares Fourth of July an Operation CARE Holiday

Amber Wheat — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:33:42 GMT

Operation Combined Accident Reduction Effort is a program that facilitates communication and cooperation between different state law enforcement agencies. The states are working together to prevent collisions and deaths. Operation CARE started in 1977 by Sgt. Gary Ernest of the Michigan State Police and First Sergeant Gene Neff of the Indiana State Police. These two men realized that by working together, they could keep the interstate roads much safer than by going about it on their own.

Today most states are a part of Operation CARE. In California, Interstate Highways 5, 15, 40, and 80 are protected by the CARE program. On major holidays these roads are subject to Maximum Enforcement Periods. California Highway Patrol officers will be out in force and will be looking for people who speed , those who aren’t wearing seat belts, and those under the influence.

These three factors cause the most fatalities on the road. To be safe, put away the cell phones, if you’re on a motorcycle, put on the helmet, and above all be patient in the holiday traffic. It is better to arrive late than not at all.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Avoidable Tragedy- 2 Die in Sacramento Construction Zone

Barbara Burks — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:14:30 GMT

Our roads and highways are an unmatched path across our country. The most common mode of transportation in America is via our personal vehicles. In order to get where we want to go the roads have to be maintained. Because our population is always growing, the roads also have to be expanded. Construction zones are just another part of life and knowing how to navigate them safely is just another part of driving.

Cone zones can sneak up on a person. Just this morning, a crew was repairing a street lamp on a curve and drivers in that lane had to slow considerably and merge into the left lane. It happened really quickly and luckily there was enough room so that nobody got hurt (and thankfully I was in the left left lane and only had to watch them). It could have been worse. It would have been nice if there had been a sign or something warning about the impending merge, but c’est la vie.

Unfortunately, not everyone reacts well to a cone zone. Some people don’t notice at all when they enter a construction zone. They do not take actions that protect themselves and others from being hurt. Others like Arnoldo Placensia, a Sacramento construction worker who died early Thursday morning. He and his crew were repairing potholes in the Arden Arcade area at the corner of Marconi and Howe. At about 1:20am, Nancy Richards sped through the area at a high rate of speed and struck Placensia. She continued on and then struck a large piece of equipment and died at the scene.

Two lives were lost. Night construction is especially dangerous, but very common in the summer season. The weather is good and Caltrans and other road construction companies want to get as much work done as possible. At the same time, they want to disrupt traffic as little as possible. This leads to night construction, but even that can be safe if everyone pays attention. This tragedy could have been avoided. Officials say Richards smelled like alcohol and a toxicology report is pending. If Richards had followed some simple rules she and Placensia would still be alive today.

1. Slow Down- construction zones will often have large machinery and people moving about to and fro, ya know, working. By slowing down you give yourself more time to assess the situation and you give them more time to see you and get out of the way if necessary.

2. Follow Directions- sometimes there are workers with the sole purpose of directing traffic. I have run into times when people are telling me to do something that doesn’t seem safe or is illegal. I didn’t want to do it, but I did it anyway. Try to remember that you don’t know the whole layout of the project. The safest bet would be to listen to the people who do know what is going on.

3. Don’t Linger- don’t get me started on lookie-loos. I don’t like it when people pause to see what’s going on. It is an unexpected action and if you’re looking to the left or right that means you’re not looking in front of you.

4. Avoid Trouble Spots- if you know a certain bridge is going to be under construction for three weeks, try to find an alternate route to your destination. It will save you from having to sit in traffic and could keep you safer.

5. Be Patient- if all else fails and you find yourself stuck for a long period in time, turn on the radio, pull out the hands-free cell phone, and settle in. Try not to get frustrated and you’ll eventually make it through.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that there are people in the area that do not have the protection of one ton of steel surrounding them. Please look out for the brave men and women who risk their lives. When you think about their job and the fact that they stand in front of, beside, behind, and around these huge vehicles and trust those drivers to behave in a responsible fashion, it’s a pretty amazing thing.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Barbara Burks