Missouri Injury Lawyer Blog

Reportedly, many of the individuals who received a Zimmer knee implant device are now exploring their options for a personal injury lawsuit to recover damages resulting from an allegedly defective device. Zimmer, Inc. has recalled several of its products in recent years and it has been alleged that the company may have known about the implant’s structural problems but took no action until it was inevitable that the public would discover the issue.

The FDA’s November 10, 2010 Enforcement Report showed that Zimmer received complaints regarding dislocated and loose knee joints in its NexGen MIS Tibial Components and, thereafter, recalled 65,000 units of the product. An additional recall was issued by Zimmer in December 2010 for the NexGen Legacy Posterior Stabilized (LPS) Flex implants. In the fall of 2012, a class II recall was issued for the NexGen Stemmed Non-augmentable Tibial Component because of cleaning operation issues during the manufacturing process that could cause allergic reactions resulting from a residue and residual particulate that may have been left on the device.

The expectation when receiving a knee replacement is increased mobility for around 15 years. However, defective knee replacement systems can be very problematic, and symptoms include pain, infection, swelling, unstable knee joints, arthritis, stiffness, and implant dislocation. In many cases, patients have had to undergo a second surgery to correct problems allegedly stemming from these devices. Revision surgeries are usually more complex and require additional recovery time that can be very painful and costly to patients.

In one case, filed in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court, a woman alleged knee implant complications that required revision surgery from a defective Zimmer device. In another case, the plaintiff received a NexGen GSF LPS-Flex implant in 2009, but suffered complications and required revision surgery within only two years.

Defective knee implants and required revision surgeries can result in lost wages and pain and suffering. In many cases, individuals may be entitled to reimbursement for lost wages and damages through a personal injury or product liability lawsuit.

________________________________

As a southern Illinois personal injury attorney, I deal with insurance companies routinely. Insurance companies are the main source of payment of serious personal injury claims, because few individuals and many companies have the wealth to simply pay an expensive injury claim outright. But insurance companies often fight these claims, even when they don’t have a strong legal basis for doing so, because they lose money when they actually pay the claims they’ve contracted to pay. That’s why I was interested to see the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company v. Rybaltowski et al.. Robert Rybaltowski was injured at a job site at a time when it wasn’t clear whether he was a contractor yet; he later sued. The Seventh Circuit ultimately sent the case back to district court to determine whether the contract applied.

Rybaltowski worked for Raincoat Solutions, a waterproofing company bidding on a job caulking an apartment building being constructed in Downers Grove, Ill. Prince Contractors accepted Raincoat’s bid subject to investigating whether the caulker could do the work, so Raincoat took Rybaltowski to the site to caulk a few windows. It did not expect to get paid. Raincoat and Prince ultimately signed a contract, but that took place shortly after a beam supporting masonry equipment fell on Rybaltowski, causing the injuries that underlay his lawsuit against Prince, Paszko Masonry, Chicago Masonry Construction and the apartment building’s company. Atlantic, Paszko’s insurer, sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend any of the companies. The district court granted this, finding that the policy excludes “contractors” and that Rybaltowski was such a contractor.

The Seventh Circuit disagreed. The insurance policy excludes contractors and employees of contractors from coverage for bodily injury arising out of performing services for which the insured (Paszco) may be liable. “Contractor” includes subcontractors, so the question, the court said, was whether Raincoat was either a subcontractor or performing services to Prince, a contractor, when the accident took place. If so, Rybaltowski is a “contractor” for policy purposes and is not covered. Noting that the contract is poorly drafted, the Seventh decided that more information is required. The court ultimately found that Rybaltowski’s demonstration work, essentially an application for the job, did not qualify as “services of any kind” because no contract was signed. Thus, he is covered if the defendant companies are additional insureds, and it remanded the case for the district court to determine this.

I was interested, as a Missouri head injury attorney, to see that the Seventh Circuit cast doubt on the usefulness of the policy. As it noted, most liability policies issued to construction companies don’t exclude coverage for subcontractors’ employees like Rybaltowski. This kind of unusually narrow contract language can invalidate a contract entirely, if the court finds that the coverage is therefore “illusory.” While that didn’t happen here—because the insurance would still cover injuries to passers-by and visitors to the job site—it’s clearly not in the public’s interest for insurance companies to issue policies that don’t cover the most likely injuries, leaving the construction company to go bankrupt and the injured person without redress. As a St. Louis injury lawyer, I would be pleased to see a court invalidate or limit the use of such policies.

Continue reading "Seventh Circuit Finds Possible Duty to Cover Construction Worker’s Injury Lawsuit – Atlantic Casualty Ins. v. Rybaltowski" »

In some cases, the negligence of doctors in treating an illness can lead to serious brain injury that entitles the victim to damages and the recovery of financial losses. This is what was alleged in a $3.5 million lawsuit that was recently settled for an undisclosed amount.

The plaintiff in the case exhibited symptoms such as fevers, headaches, and lethargy that later developed into herpes encephalitis which caused diminished memory and cognitive change. Herpes encephalitis is a viral infection that severely affects the central nervous system. The plaintiff’s lawyers argued that if he hadn’t received negligent treatment, his physical and cognitive deficits would have been less serious or could have been avoided completely.

Allegedly, the doctors agreed to approach the patient’s symptoms conservatively but court documents stated: “In the presence of such rapid deterioration in 24 hours and headache and ongoing fever, urgent diagnosis of the cause of deterioration needed to be undertaken.” The defendant’s lawyers claimed no negligence had taken place. Furthermore, they argued that, as a real estate agent, the plaintiff was not entitled to an economic loss claim because of the damage to the real estate market at the time.

Many types of infections can lead to brain injury including:

• Toxoplasma infection
• Hepatitis B
• Syphilis
• Herpes zoster
• Herpes simplex
• Epstein-Barr
• Lime disease
• Tuberculosis
• Eastern Equine Encephalitis virus
• Rubella
• Cytomegalovirus or mononucleosis
• Herpes simplex II
• Septicemia
• Bacterial meningitis

In the case of bacterial meningitis, the illness can be diagnosed via throat culture, CT scan, polymerase chain reaction test, and spinal tap. If a doctor does not adequately treat meningitis in a timely manner, the patient is more likely to suffer permanent brain injury. Long term symptoms of meningitis include blindness, deafness, seizures, paralysis, neurological damage, and behavioral, learning, or speech problems.

Encephalitis is an inflammatory condition that swells or irritates the brain and can be caused by many of the viral infections and bacterial diseases above. Symptoms include confusion, drowsiness, clumsiness, irritability, fever, headache, vomiting, light sensitivity, weakness, paralysis, seizures, memory loss and impaired judgment.

If doctors are negligent in their treatment of an infection and a brain injury results, the victim may be entitled to damages or financial compensation including loss of wages and pain and suffering through a personal injury lawsuit.

As a Missouri auto accident attorney, I was interested to see a Missouri Supreme Court decision on insurance coverage for a child who was in the care of a daycare provider at the time he was injured. Charzetta Steele is the mother of the unnamed child, who was injured when the daycare van was rear-ended by an at-fault driver. In Steele v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co., Steele argued that the daycare’s auto insurance provider, Shelter, should count her son as an insured under the daycare’s uninsured motorist policy. But the trial court found that as a passenger, the boy was not an insured under the policy, and didn’t fall under the ambit of the state uninsured motorist statute, so it granted summary judgment to shelter. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed.

In 2009, an uninsured driver who was speeding hit the back of Bright Star Academy’s daycare van. The boy’s injuries were not noted except to say they were serious. Steele, his mother, eventually sued Shelter for coverage of those injuries, alleging that while he was not an insured under the policy, Missouri’s motor vehicle financial responsibility law and its uninsured motorist law required that uninsured motorist coverage be provided up to the statutory minimum of $25,000. Shelter moved for summary judgment, arguing that the boy was not covered because the policy defines an insured only as the vehicle’s owner, operator or “user,” defined as someone who exercises physical control or the right of control of the vehicle. The trial court granted summary judgment. After an opinion from the Court of Appeals, the Missouri Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

The high court first agreed with both parties that the insurance policy itself did not cover the boy because its definition of “insured” was limited to owners, operators or “users”—persons physically controlling the vehicle. But Steele argued that public policy should compel the court to expand the definition of “user” to include all vehicle passengers. She noted that it is against Missouri public policy to permit insurance policy provisions that dilute state-mandated insurance policies. But the court found that Missouri insurance statutes do not require insurance companies to count all passengers in vehicles as insureds. The liability insurance law requires policies to insure non-named parties against liability losses “for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use” of the insured vehicle. And caselaw says passengers are only liable when they have a realistic right to control the vehicle. Thus, the child passenger was clearly not covered, the high court concluded.

As a St. Louis car crash lawyer, I am disappointed by this decision. I agree with Steele that failure to extend UM coverage to passengers is bad public policy. Consider Steele’s situation: through no fault of hers, her son’s or the daycare provider’s, her son has sustained serious injuries. No insurance company is available because of the at-fault driver’s irresponsible choice to not carry insurance, and the uninsured motorist coverage—which people buy in case of this exact situation—is being denied. Even if this is legal under Missouri law, it’s clearly not a good idea for Missouri accident victims, or the taxpayers who will ultimately pay the medical bills that insurance won’t cover. As a southern Illinois motor vehicle accident attorney, I believe we can and should do better.

Continue reading "Missouri Supreme Court Finds Child Passenger Not Covered by Daycare’s Auto Insurance – Steele v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co." »

Construction workers face many dangers that can lead to personal injury every day. Some potential hazards include falling tools, dangerous scaffolding, and equipment malfunctions, just to name a few. In many cases, construction workers suffer serious injuries because of the dangerous nature of the job. While accidents do happen, many could be avoided simply through the diligence of other workers and the enforcement of rules and regulations by construction companies.

In an incident which occurred on May 23, 2013, one construction worker was seriously injured and another killed in a construction accident that took place at the Westfield Montgomery Mall in Maryland, when a concrete section of a parking garage collapsed. The concrete slab, which weighed 55,000 pounds and was part of the third floor parking deck, fell onto the second floor, trapping the two men. Furthermore, rescue efforts were hampered when the concrete section moved while the man was still pinned under it. The Montgomery Department of Permitting Services Director, Diane Schwartz Jones, declined to comment when asked if the contractor was in violation of orders or had been cited during the project.

Of the structural collapses from 1990-2008 that were investigated, construction errors were a contributing factor in 80% of incidents, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. These errors can include excessive loads, foundation failure, poor planning, faulty construction, defective construction materials, and bad design. Furthermore, these incidents are preventable in most cases. There are a number of parties that can be held liable in many construction injury cases, including the construction firm, architect, engineer, and building owner.

In order for a construction worker to protect his or her rights, there are certain steps that should be taken after an accident. First, the injured person should always receive adequate medical attention. Next, the injury should be reported to the construction site’s manager or employer. In addition, a record of the report should always be maintained, witness contact information should be obtained, and any evidence should be preserved including photographs of the work site, relevant equipment, and the actual injuries. Individuals who were injured or lost a loved one in a construction accident should contact an attorney immediately to explore their legal rights and options in filing a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit.

The parents of a young girl who suffered severe shocks as a result of a defective HiRes90K cochlear ear device sued the manufacturer, Advance Bionics, and were recently awarded $7.25 million in damages. Advance Bionics was found to have exhibited negligence in the design of an unreasonably dangerous and defective product.

Breanna Sadler, an eight year old girl, was born deaf and received a cochlear ear device implant in 2006. Four years later, moisture had seeped into the device, resulting in an electrical short which shocked her so severely that it threw her to the ground, convulsing and vomiting. Breanna was shocked twice more before the device was disconnected. It was later removed in an eight hour, open-head surgery, and replaced with a model from a competitor but in the six-weeks between the disconnection and the surgery, she had to wait in complete deafness.

Evidence presented at the trial indicated that executives for the company postponed disclosing the defect in an effort to sell more of the cochlear ear devices and make more money when selling the company. Advanced Bionics’ lawyers argued that Breanna suffered minimal injuries. Her parents, however, stated that one of the incidents was so severe that they had to call an ambulance when Breanna screamed, saying it felt like her face was melting.

According to Advanced Bionics, the device failure was caused by moisture which leaked through the “feed-through” component, which carries electronic signals to the inner ear. Though the company attempted to shift the blame to the part’s supplier, suppliers are immune, according to the Judge’s ruling.

Advanced Bionics paid a civil penalty of $1.1 million in 2008 to the federal Food and Drug Administration. The payment settled allegations that the company did not notify the FDA of the fact that a new supplier was being used for one of the components of the HiRes90K. According to the FDA, the new component posed “unnecessary health risks” to patients. A voluntary recall of the HiRes90K was announced in February, 2006.

Worldwide, around 4,000 of the Advanced Bionics devices have been implanted and around one quarter of those devices have already failed, resulting in personal injury and pain and suffering for many individuals. Of those 1,000 failed devices, 40 lawsuits are currently pending.

As a Missouri product defect attorney, I was pleased to see that a wrongful death case stemming from an allegedly defective forklift was kept alive after a trip to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Ainsworth v. Moffett Engineering Ltd. was filed by Mary P. Ainsworth, the widow and personal representative of James Ainsworth. Mary Ainsworth was widowed with three minor children after an allegedly defective forklift ran over her husband as he worked on a farm. The manufacturer of the forklift, Irish company Moffett Engineering, alleged that the Mississippi federal court had no personal jurisdiction over it, but the district court disagreed. After the U.S. Supreme Court decided J. McIntyre Machinery Ltd. v. Nicastro in 2011, Moffett asked the district court to reconsider, but it again declined to dismiss. The Fifth Circuit upheld that ruling.

Details of the accident were not part of the opinion, but Ainsworth filed her lawsuit in September of 2010 in the Southern District of Mississippi. She claimed that Moffett made a defective forklift that was designed expressly for poultry farms, and that Cargotec USA Inc. was liable for selling the forklift in the United States. Cargotec is a Delaware corporation with its principal offices in Ohio, and it has an exclusive sales and distribution agreement with Moffett. Moffett moved to dismiss the claims against it, arguing that the Mississippi court had no personal jurisdiction over an Irish company. The district court disagreed, but in 2011, the Supreme Court put out its McIntyre decision. That case said, in relevant part, that a single isolated sale in one state is not adequate to establish personal jurisdiction over a company in that state. The district court found this ruling too narrow to change its mind and again declined to dismiss the case.

On interlocutory appeal, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. The question is whether Moffett had enough minimum contacts with Mississippi to justify personal jurisdiction. The Fifth said it has always used a “stream of commerce” approach, meaning minimum contacts exist if the defendant sold products with the expectation that it would be purchased or used in the forum state. It agreed with the district court that Moffett could foresee its products being used in Mississippi, because its agreement with Cargotec permitted it to sell products throughout the United States. McIntyre didn’t change the analysis, the Fifth said, because that holding was narrow. From 2000 to September 2010, Cargotec sold 203 Moffett forklifts in Mississippi, far more than the isolated sale at issue in McIntyre. Mississippi is the fourth-largest producer of poultry in the United States, making it easy to anticipate that a poultry-specific forklift would be used there. And the Federal Circuit has come to a similar conclusion, the Fifth noted.

This decision allows the case to go forward against the defendant most directly connected to the case. As a St. Louis defective products lawyer who frequently represents people injured by product defects, I am glad. Moving jurisdiction to Ireland might technically be possible, but it would surely make the case difficult or impossible for Ainsworth, who—as a widow with three children to support—likely is suing because she needs to replace her husband’s income. That’s how fighting jurisdiction can sometimes help large companies, with their larger budgets for lawyers, simply out-spend plaintiffs until the plaintiffs are forced to drop the case. As a southern Illinois product liability attorney, I believe manufacturers of dangerous products should be held to answer for their unsafe actions.

Continue reading "Federal Appeals Court Denies Dismissal of Defective Forklift Wrongful Death Claim – Ainsworth v. Moffett Engineering Ltd. " »

The parents of children participating in high school sports rely on adequate safety equipment and satisfactory responses of coaches and emergency response professionals to keep their children safe. Sadly, sometimes one or both of these safeguards fails and children are left with personal injuries, including brain injury.

In 2008, Rhett Ridolfi a high school student, was participating in football practice when he was injured and suffered a serious brain injury. The boy did not receive prompt medical attention despite the fact that he had suffered a concussion. He complained of dizziness but was still asked to participate in tackle drills.

Now 22, Ridolfi is living with severe brain damage and left side paralysis. His family filed a lawsuit against Riddell, the helmet manufacturer, on the grounds of product liability for design defects and failure to adequately warn users about the dangers of concussions, even when using a helmet. Ridolfi’s family also sued the high school staff coaches for negligence. The Colorado jury awarded the family $11.5 million in damages, one quarter of which must be paid by Riddell. Despite the fact that the jury determined there were no design defects, Riddell was still found partially liable because of their failure to adequately warn their products users.

Riddell faces a similar lawsuit in Los Angeles and has been named as a defendant in connection with a lawsuit against the NFL filed by over 4,000 retired players and spouses. Though another state found the manufacturer not guilty in a similar case, it is important that individuals are not deterred from filing a personal injury claim against product manufacturers when negligence was a contributor to the injury. The outcome of any one case is determined by a number of factors, including the way in which the case is handled by the attorney.

Personal injury claims are not limited to safety equipment and can also apply to other equipment used in high school sporting events, such as practice equipment and conditioning equipment. If an equipment failure cause your child to receive serious personal injury, the manufacturer may be liable for damages that occurred as a result of the defect including medical costs, pain and suffering, and lost income.

Merck & Co., a major pharmaceutical company, is facing over 1,000 lawsuits over NuvaRing, a vaginal contraceptive. According to the allegations and numerous reports, NuvaRing has been linked to blood clotting, or venous thromboembolism, and other side effects. This fall, suits filed in Missouri are set to begin. These suits allege negligence on the part of Merck & Co. in failing to adequately warn consumers of risks associated with NuvaRing.

Released in 2001, NuvaRing was marketed as an alternative to oral contraception. It is a flexible plastic ring that releases hormones once inserted vaginally. Reportedly, the blood clotting is caused by the release of hormones which correlates to inconsistent hormone delivery.

A study was released in May, 2012 that apparently indicated NuvaRing was not linked to increased risk of blood clotting that posed a danger to patient health. However, Merck & Co. paid for the study, and other studies conducted do not agree with the one funded by Merck & Co. A study published by the British Medical Journal the very same week indicated a 90% increase in the risk of blood clotting with NuvaRing when compared to traditional oral contraceptives. In June, 2012, the New England Journal of Medicine released a study that found blood clotting was two-and-a-half to three times more likely to develop in women using the NuvaRing. Reportedly, this blood clotting can occur in the legs, lungs, or heart. Yet another study, this one conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggested that women using NuvaRing are 56% more likely to develop blood clots than women who use older, oral methods of contraception.

Other side effects associated with NuvaRing are pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, strokes, heart attack, and wrongful death. According to the FDA’s Adverse Events Database, 5,400 reports have been made naming NuvaRing as a suspect. Of these reports, over 1,200 involved pulmonary embolism, 800 involved deep vein thrombosis, 300 were considered life-threatening, and at least 160 involved death.

Merck & Co. should have conducted more extensive research before marketing their product to the public, and patients had a right to be made fully aware of the risks of NuvaRing. Women who believe they have suffered personal injury because of their use of NuvaRing should explore their legal rights and options immediately.

As a Missouri medical malpractice attorney, I was very pleased last year when the Missouri Supreme Court struck down our state’s cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases. Non-economic damages are payments for injuries that aren’t strictly financial. In a medical negligence claim, an economic injury might be the extra medical bills that a medical mistake made necessary; pain would be a non-economic injury. Thus, it’s easy to see that non-economic damages are important to the plaintiffs; in cases involving injuries to children, they may be the primary source of damages. In the case that struck down the damages cap, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the cap violated Missouri citizens’ right to a jury trial that determines their damages. Now, according to the Associated Press, it seems likely that no bill will pass the Missouri Legislature this year to change that.

The damages cap was struck down in a case involving severe brain injuries to a baby boy during his birth. The jury agreed that the boy and his mother had been injured, but their financial award to the family was limited because of the state-mandated cap on non-economic damages. The high court ruled that the family had a right to have a jury decide their damages, and also struck down a payment plan set by the court. In response, some members of the Missouri legislature started working on a bill that would reinstate the cap. To avoid violating the decision, the proposed bill would have eliminated the right to sue for medical malpractice under the common law and substituted a state law that created the same right, and then reinstate the cap. Supporters said the cap was a way to control the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors.

Not surprisingly, the law was opposed by advocates for patients. As a St. Louis medical malpractice lawyer, I dislike damages caps because they take away the courts’ ability to make sure the injured person is adequately compensated. Take the example of a man who has the wrong leg amputated, and ends up with both legs amputated because doctors had to repeat the procedure with the correct one. This man would instantly be disabled, a radical life change that would prevent him from doing many things he previously enjoyed. It might prevent him from earning money and it would certainly require more medical intervention than otherwise—both of which are economic damages. But it would also certainly trigger serious non-economic damages like loss of quality of life. A damages cap takes away a jury’s ability to decide how to value that loss, and in cases with few economic damages, may deny any meaningful payment to the victim at all.

At Carey, Danis & Lowe, we represent clients who have suffered serious injuries because of a medical professional’s or organization’s negligence. If a doctor or other professional makes a mistake so serious that it falls below the accepted standards of care for our community, that’s medical malpractice. And if you’re a victim of medical malpractice, you have a right to pursue fair compensation for the injuries that result. In a malpractice lawsuit, you can claim damages for your financial costs and—at least for now—for the full amount of your non-financial but very real injuries, such as a permanent disability. Our southern Illinois medical malpractice attorneys have substantial experience in the complicated world of medical litigation, and we work hard to get our clients the best possible recoveries.

Continue reading "Bill to Reinstate Cap on Noneconomic Damages in Missouri Malpractice Cases Dies" »

When someone is injured in a workplace involving more than one contractor, it can be difficult to sort out who is obligated to cover the resulting damages. As a Missouri workplace injury lawyer, I always start these cases by determining which company is obligated to provide worker’s compensation—and whether there might be a separate cause of action against one of the other companies. In Harleysville Insurance Co. v. PDSI, an injury to PDSI employee Jonathan Hughes took place at the premises of Miller Transporters Inc. PDSI is a staffing agency for transportation firms and Miller was a client; Harleysville is the general commercial liability insurance carrier for PDSI. The district court found that PDSI was contractually required to indemnify Miller for its settlement payment to Hughes, and Harleysville was required to pay PDSI for that cost.

In 2007, Hughes fell ten to eleven feet from a ladder while he was cleaning resin out of a chemical tanker truck’s tank, at Miller’s work site. He had been told to clean it by a PDSI supervisor, but the area was maintained by Miller; most importantly, Miller had failed to provide fall protection equipment or a stairway in this area, though they were available in another area of the facility. The manager of the Miller facility had brought this up to his supervisors, who, he testified, had said they cost too much money to install. Hughes’s fall left him with permanent chronic pain and changed his gait. He sued Miller in state court and eventually reached a $300,000 settlement. Under the 1989 contract between PDSI and Miller, PDSI agreed to indemnify Miller against actions “in any way relating to personnel assigned to Miller.” PDSI, in turn, asked Harleysville to cover the cost of the settlement.

Harleysville refused and sued for a declaratory judgment saying its policy didn’t cover the settlement, and that PDSI was not obligated to indemnify Miller. The district court ultimately granted summary judgment to Miller and PDSI.

On Harleysville’s appeal, the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. The contract between PDSI and Miller clearly says that PDSI will indemnify Miller against personal injury claims, and Harleysville cannot show otherwise by relying on a footnote in a case that is not on point, the Eighth said. On the insurance issue, Harleysville argued that its policy limits coverage to bodily injury caused by PDSI or people acting on PDSI’s behalf, and that this requires proximate causation. The district court found that it required only “but for” causation, a lower standard. The Eighth concluded that the undisputed facts show that PDSI and its employees at least partly caused the injury to Hughes; Chapman was the direct supervisor who asked Hughes to clean out the tank. This interpretation is consistent with the contract as a whole, the Eighth noted, and common sense backs it up. A dissent by Judge Colloton argued that PDSI should not be obligated to cover accidents caused by Miller’s own negligence.

As a St. Louis personal injury attorney, I’m always pleased to see an injured person get the recovery that he or she needs to make ends meet, treat an injury and recover. In some cases involving a dispute over who was obligated to cover an injury, the compensation is in real doubt because not every party necessarily has the money to cover the injury—for example, an individual driver without insurance. But in this case, the question was merely whether the insurance company was going to be forced to assume its contractual responsibilities. In my experience as a southern Illinois accident lawyer, insurance companies frequently attempt to avoid liability for large payments even when, as in this case, the court concludes that the contract is unambiguous about covering the injury. That’s why it’s absolutely vital to have an experienced attorney on your side, who can protect you from being cheated out of the money you need.

Continue reading "Insurer Must Cover, and Employer Must Indemnify Client Against, Workplace Injury Lawsuit – Harleysville Insurance Co. v. PDSI" »

A Missouri medical malpractice lawsuit was filed on April 26, 2013 against SSM and a surgeon for carelessness and negligence. According to the allegations, the patient was supposed to receive a “left-sided craniotomy bypass” on April 4 but received a “right sided craniotomy surgical procedure” instead. Realizing their error, the operating team performed the correct surgery six days after the incorrect surgery.

Regina Turner, the patient, received the procedure at St. Clare Health Center, located in Fenton, MO. Turner, 53, can no longer speak intelligibly. According to the allegations in the complaint, Turner was cognizant, mobile, and capable of caring for herself before the surgery, but following the surgery on the wrong side of her brain she needs care 24 hours a day to fulfill her basic needs and she suffers from anxiety, depression, emotional distress, and disfigurement.

Five years ago, Turner began suffering from a series of “mini-strokes” which affected her speech. Before the surgeries, however, she could be understood by members of her family. The goal of the surgery was the prevention of future strokes.

Though Turner is seeking compensation for the error, her attorney has stated, “I wasn’t trying to single out the doctor. He’s going to be held accountable for what he did. He didn’t try to hide what happened. I’m sure he feels terrible about it. That’s why I didn’t want to name him in the case.”

According to hospital safety experts, wrong-person surgeries and wrong-site surgeries are characterized as “never events,” or events that should never occur when proper vigilance is executed by surgeons and medical staff. The author of “Transforming Health Care,” Charles Kenny, stated that when never events occur, they are usually the result of poor quality control and safety protocols that are lacking. Turner’s lawsuit states that the operating room was set up incorrectly by SSM employees who then “stood by and watched [the neurosurgeon] operate on the wrong side of the plaintiff’s skull and brain when they could have prevented the error.”

Currently, there is no comprehensive cap in Missouri on medical malpractice awards. However, a bill is being considered by the Missouri State Senate that would place a cap in future medical malpractice cases for non-economic damages, such as awards for pain and suffering, mobility loss, and loss of sight, hearing, or consortium.