Sacramento Personal Injury Lawyer - Miscellaneous

Owner of Improperly Maintained Carnival Ride Blamed for Injuries to Children

Amber Wheat — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:13:32 GMT

A while ago, I wrote about the recall of the Yo-Yo carnival ride. Last May twenty-one children were hurt when the ride collapsed at the Calaveras County Fair. Now the owner is being put at fault for a failure to properly maintain the ride.

The manufacturer of the ride issued a recall last October to address some of the issues with these rides. When a product is recalled, more often then not, it is a simple fix and it's on the manufacturers dime. In this instance, all an owner needed to do was request an inspection and repair kit from Chance Rides Manufacturing.

Because the May accident happened before the October recall it was unclear whether the owners of the carnival ride could be blamed. But further investigation found that the ride was not regularly inspected and didn't have the required certifications and documents regarding safety.

California has a very active agency in charge of inspecting carnival rides and making sure that people are safe. Brass Ring Amusements Midway of Fun did not comply with their strict standards and can be placed at fault for this terrible accident.

Coming into spring, there will start to be some fairs and carnivals taking place. The last thing anybody wants to do while having a fun day at the fair is end up in the hospital. If you want to know if specific rides have been known to cause injuries, check out www.rideaccidents.com. The percentage of dangerous rides is actually quite low.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Risks of Radiological Studies

Amber Wheat — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:53:36 GMT

Yesterday, MSNBC reported on a study by the National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurement. The report stated that Americans are exposed to seven times the radiation that they were in 1980. It goes on to accuse doctors of requesting radiological scans because it pads their pocket books instead of for the benefit of the patient.

After reading the recent post on the risks and benefits of radiological studies by my boss, Barbara, I was concerned that reports like this would confuse people and ultimately cause them to make dangerous choices.

We all understand that radiological scans emit radiation right? But when doctor thinks it’s necessary to diagnose a problem, I am not about to tell her “No, thank you.” This morning MSNBC staff writer Clara Moskowitz posted a great piece in response to the report from yesterday. She explained the flaws in the data and logically rationalized the increase in exposure to radiation. I was glad to have both sides of the argument represented and I respect MSNBC for that.

Yet another article was featured today regarding a new use for PET scans. Doctors who work with cancer patients may be able to tell if the treatment is working in as little as one day eventually. The NCRPM is probably cringing at the suggested regular use of these scans which are very similar to CT scans, but doctors are looking forward to reducing costs of expensive treatments that may not be working. And patients are looking forward to not having to wait six weeks to know if treatment is working.

We are left with a dilemma here. Are Americans being overexposed to radiation? The technology is here now and it can’t be undiscovered. CT scans, X-rays, and PET scans increase the quality of care we receive. Let’s look at the pros and cons.

Pros
Quicker Diagnosis of Problems
Quicker Assessment of Treatment
Discovery of Unconnected Issues
New, Less Invasive Cancer Treatment

Cons
Expense
Risk of Overexposure to Radiation (more likely that you’ll die from drowning)

Are there any other benefits? Are there any other risks? As for me, I would rather risk the exposure to radiation and know what is going on in my body. What would you choose?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

PulseNet: The Futuristic Technology Held Back by Yesterday’s Procedures

John Demas — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:42:17 GMT

The salmonella outbreak in peanut butter products has grabbed the attention of the world. But it is the system that alerted U.S. health officials that should be studied. PulseNet is a national network of public health laboratories. Labs in every state and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention work together to track cases of food poisoning in an effort to detect and prevent widespread sickness.

It was launched in 1996 because of an 1993 outbreak of E. coli in the western U.S. By 2002, every state was participating. This great system is very simple. When somebody goes to a doctor with food poisoning, if the doctor runs a test to determine which infection the patient has, that data is added to the PulseNet listserv WebBoard. Officials now have a “fingerprint” of the infection and can track where it goes based on multiple listings on WebBoard.

There are, of course, a few problems with the system. For one, many people don’t go to the doctor for food poisoning. Another one, many doctors do not take the medical tests that will identify the infection. Even if both of those things occur, investigators will not know what caused the illness until interviews are taken with the patients.

It is a successful program that prevents contamination and saves lives, but it is only as good as the people who use it, or don’t use it, as the case may be. A collaborative system of communication in cases such as these are the wave of the future, but they are being implemented while many clinics still operate under nineteenth century procedures. Florida, for example, does not require doctors to send salmonella samples to state labs for analysis.

This system costs the CDC and the individual states money to run, but in the end it is worth the price. I look forward to this and other systems being used to their full potential to protect consumers from disease and death.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Demas

Maximizing Your Fun on the Ski Slopes

John Demas — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:26:58 GMT

When you have been working too hard during the gray winter months or just need a change of scenery, a quick weekend trip to the nearest ski slopes can seem like the perfect antidote for your blues. Unfortunately, far too many of us pack our bags and head out before first stopping to recall how long it’s been since we last skied or how well we did that last time around. Some of us even acquire temporary amnesia so we won’t have to confront the arthritis and other ills that might stop a saner or more conservative adult from even making the trip. If you still decide to go, ask the resort’s ski instructor to recommend the best exercises to prepare you for your upcoming trip.

Regardless of whether you’re an outright daredevil or a skilled skier aching to take a run down a powdery white slope between the most majestic green trees, it would be wise to review the following checklist before even heading out on another ski trip.

Purchase or Rent the Best Equipment If your boots and skis won’t part company after a sudden fall, you’d better think twice about even leaving the ski lodge. Check ahead of time to see if your resort offers special packages including top-grade ski rentals, as well as lodging and food. Also, be sure the resort you’re heading for keeps well-maintained ski lifts.

Lose the Daredevil Within. We’ve all seen young teenagers head out on the ski lifts after a brief or cursory skiing lesson. All too often, they just wind up landing on their derrieres, much to their embarrassment. Speeding down the steepest or most advanced slopes won’t make you any younger – and it could permanently prevent you from ever growing a day older.

Avoid Skiing at Daybreak or Dusk. If you can’t see at least several miles into the distance, go grab another cup of coffee since many of the worst skiing accidents occur when people just can’t see very well.

Dress Warmly and Apply Sunscreen. While there will always be those who think wearing a thick coat, warm hat and sunscreen makes them look childish, make your own decisions. Avoiding frostbite and an unwanted sunburn really is the adult thing to do.

Plan Each Trip Down the Mountain Wisely. Most of us wouldn’t accept a ride in a car with a known drunk driver. Try to avoid making a similar mistake by heading for the slopes with those known for taking major skiing risks. Otherwise, you may wind up being the victim of their carelessness

Make Sure Adequate Safety Patrols and Paramedics Are Readily Available It’s also wise to only ski at a resort or lodge located near a fully-equipped local hospital. If you have to be airlifted to a better facility, the lost time could make or break your chances for a full recovery.

Get Adequate Rest. Far too many injured skiers try to get in “one more run” down the slopes before they leave. Only head out for the slopes when you know your reaction time and eye-hand coordination is at its best.

It’s our hope that all of your ski vacations wind up being both restful and happy events.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Demas

Transparency in Health Insurance is On the Way

Amber Wheat — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:40:57 GMT

The investigation by the New York Attorney General’s Office has revealed a serious flaw in the way “usual and customary fees” for out-of-network providers are determined. It turns out that there is a database (I love databases, they make everything so easy). It includes charges from all kinds of procedures and separates them into localities (because everyone knows an MRI in San Francisco will cost you more than an MRI in Bakersfield). It seems like a fair system, right, based on where you live and what you get done, your insurance will pay the average of what all the medical groups charge? There’s just one problem. The lovely database is populated with charges that they get from... insurance companies. So they don’t call up the doctor’s office and say “What do you charge?” they call up their friends the other insurance companies and say “What do you say they charge?”

It is unfairness to an nth degree. The investigation by the New York Attorney General’s office found that the numbers were lowered on purpose so that they would get out of paying their true share of the costs. Remember from my last post that balance billing was the problem that started this investigation, but this effects everyone who has health insurance. Many times, the patients themselves are responsible for the difference between what the doctor charges and what the insurance pays (I am most of the time). The health insurance companies are cheating EVERYONE. And every insurance company does it.

There is one fact that people need to understand, and it’s true for auto insurance companies as well. Insurance companies exist for one purpose and one purpose only... to make money. That is the beginning and the end of it. They want to turn a profit just like every other red-blooded American. Their profit is what they collect minus what they payout. And as good business men (and women) they are taking every opportunity to pay out as little as possible. They deny claims, they cook the numbers, and they make great use of the “fine print.”

But things will change. It is the beginning of the end for the corrupt insurance companies. UnitedHealth Group and Aetna are providing money to fund a new database. One that will be run by a nonprofit group with no interest in the outcomes. I don’t have much hope for that program either. Is the work going to be done on a volunteer basis? Are they going to make just enough money to only pay expenses and not turn a profit? If so, who is paying this group? Will this group be anonymous, or will they come home to “gifts” from insurance companies? I don’t trust nonprofit groups to be an uninterested third party. If you are not interested, if you don’t care about the cause, then why would you devote time, energy, and money into it, with nothing to gain. But at least we are trying something new, the old system certainly doesn’t work. Transparency could be a very good thing in this country.

We will see how this new system works out. Only time will tell, right? In the mean time, the New York Attorney General’s office is continuing their investigation into other insurance companies and UnitedHealth has agreed to pay $350 million to settle a lawsuit over out-of-network medical claims. I wonder who gets that money? Patients? Doctors?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Medical Marijuana, ID Cards, and Sacramento County

Amber Wheat — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:19:17 GMT

Since 1996, medicinal use of marijuana for certain medical cases has been legal in California. In 2003, the state decided that ID cards should be issued on the county level to identify patients who are allowed to posses and use marijuana. Like a Drivers License, only a Users License.

Many people comment on articles like this and if they take the time to do that, they obviously feel very strongly about the subject. On one hand I understand that it is California law that allows this use, but on the other hand, it is still illegal under Federal law.

This issue confused me when California was voting on whether or not to give illegal aliens Drivers Licenses. I asked my grandfather, “If we know they are illegal, aren’t we supposed to deport them?” He then explained to me that the INS is a federal agency and the DMV is run by the state. Bureaucracy at it’s best. The state is not required to deport illegal aliens, nor or they required to talk to the federal government and tell them who they are. Fair enough.

But what if those illegal aliens got in a collision and injured somebody, are they required to carry insurance as well? Well what if a person legally using marijuana for medicinal purposes gets in a collision and injures somebody? Should they be required to carry extra insurance? The fact is, smoking marijuana impairs your senses. Are these people going to be given leniency because they were driver under the influence legally? I think not. Will they be punished more harshly because they were under the influence of drugs and not alcohol? Probably. Is that fair? Heck, no!

Where does the liability end? If the state takes control of medicinal marijuana and requires pharmacies to hand it out, does the pharmacy take on liabilty? Does the state? If the worst should happen, what happens to these patients? If we issue these ID cards, does it give these people free reign to grow, distribute, and smoke marijuana?

It is a very controversial issue and I would like your opinion on it. At this point I really feel that if Sacramento County issued this ID cards, they are giving permission for these patients to be more open with their treatment and the county could be held responsible. It is known that marijuana impairs judgement, it is foreseeable that a patient may drive after receiving a treatment, it is probable that the impaired patient will cause a collision. And it could be argued that it was done with the county’s permission.

What do you think? Am I way off base here? Has anyone else thought about possible repercussions?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Tips for Buying Toys from Someone Who Used to Sell Them

Amber Wheat — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:37:36 GMT

Up on the housetop, reindeer pause. Out jumps good ole Santa Clause. Down through the chimney with lots of toys, all for the little ones, Christmas joys! Ho ho ho! Who wouldn't go? Up on the housetop, click, click, click, down through the chimney with good St. Nick!

Gosh I love Christmas! I worked at a Toy Store for five years before I was hired as a legal assistant. Christmas is the best time of year. The Christmas spirit creates an energy and it's just so much fun.

But, it's also hectic. Parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents get frazzled and often make strange decisions when buying toys for the kids in their lives. So here are some guidelines for purchasing toys that I picked up while working at the toy store.

1) Check out the Consumer Product Safety Commission's website. It lists recalls, reviews, and dangerous toys. It is a good resource on what NOT to buy.

2) Pay attention to age suggestions. They are there to guide you. You should not buy a toy that says 8+ for a 5-year-old. Types of toys require different skill levels. When buying for toddlers keep in mind that many toys say 3+ because it is much much easier to get them approved for three year olds than for two year olds. It might not necessarily be bad for a two year old. Look for small parts and use your best judgement.

3) Ask for help. I know that in big box stores like ToysRUs it is hard to get knowledgable input from the people who work there, but at smaller stores (like the one I worked at) associates have to know the entire stock. They will often have favorites for each age group. Tell them in advance what price range you're looking for and they could lead you to the perfect gift.

4) Do your research. If you are not the parent, ask the parent what the kid would like. If you are the parent ask the teacher what your kid plays with at school. It's seems pretty easy, but many people don't think of it. Many parents are very concerned about BPA in plastic toys, as well as lead paint. Make sure that you know what kind of toys the parents will accept (you don't want to spend money on toys that will end up in the trash bin).

5) Safety is important. With all the recent scares this year and last year, toy companies have been testing their little hearts out. You may be concerned with newly banned substances still on the shelves in big boxes, but most small businesses will not have that problem. Companies that have had recalls in the past have cleaned up their acts. If you're not sure about a product, ask someone.

Most of all, remember this, shopping for toys is supposed to be fun!

Okay, that's all I can think of for now. If I think of anything else, I'll update the post. If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to comment!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Man’s Best Friend and Worst Enemy

Amber Wheat — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:13:41 GMT

The SPCA is warning people not to go out and buy chihuahuas to emulate the new movie “Beverly Hills Chihuahua.” They say that these dogs will attach to one person and be hostile to everyone else, so it’s not really a family dog.

They advise doing research into different breeds and thinking about what you want out of your pet before going out and buying a dog. Dogs are very different from breed to breed. Some are the sweetest little puff balls you’ll ever know and some are used strictly to attack trespassers.

When you decide to own any pet, there are always legal issues involved as well. If the dog has a history of violent tendencies and attacks a person, you can be liable for the damages. If you own certain animals, like, oh say... tigers, then you have something called strict liability for any damages or injuries caused by your tiger because tigers are inherently dangerous and the court believes that you took the responsibility upon yourself when you chose to own the... tiger.

Because animals are living breathing things that you can’t always control, most of the time, a first offense will not bring about litigation. But when the owner has knowledge of dangerous behavior and chooses to keep the animal anyway the owner takes on the liability for the animal.

Let’s face it some dogs are just more dangerous to own than others. Poodles, for instance, are mean (at least the two that I met were). Bishons are cutie wittle wuv muffins. When people hear about breeds like pit bulls, presa canarios, and rottweilers, they think of dangerous dogs that have been known to attack people and suddenly fear for their children. But really, every dog is different, and I know a pit bull who is just a big puppy inside and would never hurt anybody. A great deal of violence is due to how they are raised.

But be forewarned! Dogs are animals, they can turn on you in an instant, yes, even the Bishon Frise. And when a dog attacks a human, the owner may be liable. If a dog kills a human, the owners may face criminal charges. I think everyone in California remembers the Whipple case. It is still ongoing, but in September, Ms. Knoller was sentenced to fifteen years to life in prison.

All animals, even domesticated ones, have the potential to be dangerous. Remember what they were as a species before becoming “pets”. Choose your pets carefully because you will be held accountable for their actions.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Governor Vetos “Lap-Dog” Bill

Amber Wheat — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:35:59 GMT

The governor is finally working through the 766 bills that crossed his desk during the budget crisis. Among these was AB2233. Brought by Assemblyman Bill Maze, the bill was meant to outlaw the practice of carrying a pet on your lap while driving.

Question: Why do we need a law that says it’s not okay to have a pet in your lap while you’re driving?

I would think that common sense would keep people from doing this (then again, I also thought common sense would keep people from texting while driving). I guess the point is that “common sense” is not so common. In fact, it is different for every individual person. Think about it, common sense tells me not to jump out of a plane, but many people enjoy the hobby of skydiving.

A couple of years ago, a kid died at a waterhole in the Folsom Lake area. About a week later, another kid died. Then I heard on the radio that an average of two people per year die at this location! My question then was why wasn’t the waterhole fenced off or something to protect the stupid people who would still go to it despite the danger.

The Answer: The government is not responsible for protecting us from our own stupidity. It would be an impossible task if it was.

In court and in life we are expected to act “reasonably,” when we don’t, accidents happen and that’s when we end up in lawsuits. Actions are held to the “reasonable man” standard and judged based on what a reasonable person would have done in the same situation.

So where is the balance? Does the government need to tell us what to do and what not to do in every aspect of our lives? Or can we be responsible citizens and do what we know is sensible? Aren’t the consequences of injury, death, and lawsuits enough of an incentive to be careful out there on the road?

Maybe not. Maybe I am an idealist. I might be giving the general public more credit than they deserve, but I really don't think so. We have brains! We are smarter than this! I may be naive, but I must believe that.

What do you think? Should the governor have signed the bill into law? What is the government’s role in our lives?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

The Roundabout

Amber Wheat — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:44:26 GMT

I was in France the first time I saw a roundabout. It is a feature of the road and it is very cool. It is a circle instead of a four-way stop. It is very neat to watch and kind of scary to drive in. When you come to the roundabout there are cars already circling. You must watch the traffic and merge in with them turning right into the roundabout and then following counter clockwise around. You go around the circle until you see the street you want and then exit (if you miss your exit, just circle around and catch it the next time). It is fun. I really quite enjoyed it, but I also was thirteen and not driving.

There is one roundabout in my town and I love any excuse to drive through it. There is also one up in El Dorado Hills that I know of. I like the idea of roundabouts solely because they are foreign and therefore intriguing. Roundabouts are different than how we normally drive. They are very fluid with constant motion.

Researchers are now saying that this type of driving is beneficial in many ways. Of course, if you are not stopping and starting time and again, you will save gas. And apparently it makes a difference in the amount of pollutants that are released as well.

One of the most important aspects of any feature of the road is safety. Are roundabouts safe? Traffic engineers are saying that roundabouts are much safer than normal four-way stops. They have this opinion for a number of reasons including elimination of the “dangerous” left turn motion (in a roundabout, it’s really a slight veer to the left). They say that because the American people are unused to the navigation of a roundabout they will drive safer and not allow themselves to be distracted. I am unconvinced that unfamiliarity will make much of a difference in the way people drive, but I do love roundabouts for their aesthetic and practical aspects and I can’t wait to see more.

What do you think?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat