Published on:

by

A 27 year old man from Delaware county, who was injured from an electric shock he sufferred after a cherrry picker struck power lines, was awarded $1.25 Million by a Jury. Although plaintiffs are generally prohibited from suing their employer, the injured man was argued not to be a regular employee, but instead was argued to be a temporary worker, who could recover for his injuries. The plaintiff’s attorney insisted that the injured man was only a temporary worker (Independant Contractor) because he worked for the company just 5 days over a three period of time. Therefore, he should not be covered by the general prohibition concerning suing his employer. Because there was no clear law on this issue in Pennsylvania, all parties agreed to a binding high-low agreement, which will result in the plaintiff actually being compensated $900,000.

The cherrry picker was actually being operated by the company’s owner at the time of the accident. Apparently, the owner/operator was maneuvering the cherry picker when his head came into contact with the live electrical wires. The plaintiff in the case was also exposed to the live current causing him to pass out. When the plaintiff awoke, he proceeded to pull the owner/operator off the live wires. Unfortunately, the owner/operator died from his injures. The co-worker (plaintiff) then sued the company for his own injuries, which included speech problems, inability to work in construction and post-traumatic stress disorder. An investigation of the incident by OSHA resulted in the company being cited for two violations, which were not contested.

This case involved complex and novel legal issues in Pennsylvania concerning when a worker is covered under a worker’s compensation insurance policy and when a worker is actually functioning as an independant contractor. Such issues are central to determining a plaintiff’s rights to recover for their injuries. These issues were never finally resolved in this case, but because the case did go through trial and verdict, an important precedent was set. This case demonstrates how only an experienced and qualified trial attorney, who is willing to fight for your rights, can ensure that your potential case is properly evaluated and litigated to a successful conclusion.

Published on:

by

A July 2006 verdict awarding the parents of a one-year who allegedly died from liver failure caused by an overdose of Infant Tylenol was upheld by a Philadelphia appeals Court this month. At trial, the parents alleged that their son died after an overdose of acetaminophen resulted in liver failure. The parents argued that the warnings on the medicine were defective in not stating that liver damage or death could result from the medicine. In response, the manufacturer had argued that the child’s death was not due to an overdose of the medicine; that the parents had not followed the instructions and warnings on the medicine; and that if the child did suffer from an overdose of acetaminophen, it was because the parents combined the Infant Tylenol with other cold medicines that contianed acetaminophen. In upholding the verdict, the appeal’s judge held that the manufacturer’s appeal of 29 different legal rulings was excessive and not consistent with a litigant’s obligation to act in good faith and fair dealing with the court.

The verdict and unsuccessful appeal in the Philadephia case may be a sign of things to come as more of these cases are filed around the Nation, not only against the manufacturers, but also against the drug stores that sell the medicines. In mid-November, a Chicago mother filed suit against the manufacturer of Tylenol and also Walgreens, alleging that the death of her 4 month-old son was caused by the combination of Infant Tylenol Cold Decongestant Plus Cough and Walgreen’s Pediatric Drops-Cough Plus Cold. She argues that the defendants should have known the dangers of the key ingredient of the drugs and warned purchasers of the dangers. In response to allegations that she misused the medications, the mother asserts that she gave her son the two medications back-to-back and in the indicated doses over the course of 4 days and denied that she gave the child both drugs at the same time. An autopsy showed that the infant died of an overdose of dextromethorphan, which built up in his body over the 4 days of use. The mother argues that the defendants were aware of the dangers of dextromethorphan for years, but had not warned purchasers prior to the October, 2007 FDA hearings that resulted in manufacturers removing the products from stores.

Claims against pharmaceutical companies (drug manufacturers) are becoming more common. Also in the news recently, drug manufacturuer Merck has agreed to settle over 30,000 claims concerning the durg Vioxx for $4.85 billion. There have been similar claims concerning many other types and brands of defective medications. If you believe that you have been seriously injured as a result of a defective drug, you should immediately consult with a skilled trial lawyer concerning your rights.

Published on:

by

A Pennyslvania appeals court recently confirmed that the time limit for filing a legal malpractice claim (a claim alleging that a laywer mishandled a case) is strictly 2 years from the date the plaintiff should have reasonably learned about the malpractice. In Wachovia v. Ferretti, the Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that it should be able to file a legal malpractice claim for 2 years from the date it learned of the amount of damages it suffered as a result of the malpractice. In rejecting this argument, the Court acknowledged that forcing a plaintiff to file a legal malpractice case while also dealing with the original law suit may result in one party making inconsistent arguments at times; however, the Court concluded that to allow a party to wait until it knows the full amount of damages caused by a lawyer’s malpractice (in other words, waiting until the original law suit is over) would result in stale claims.

In general, stale (“old”) claims are disfavored by the courts because witnesses’ memories begin to fade and evidence is lost or difficult to find. The problems inherent in prosecuting old claims is the reason that virtually all claims in the law (with the most notable exception of murder) have “statutes of limitations” or dates by which a claim must be filed or it is forever lost. In Pennsylvania medical negligence claims, the statute of limitations requires careful analysis by an experienced lawyer because although it is simply stated as “2 years,” it is actually highly dependent upon the facts of the case. In some instances, the 2 years begins to run on the date the doctor committed the negligence, in other cases it begins to run on the date the patient discovered that he/she was the victim of malpractice, and in the case of minors it does not expire until the minor’s 20th birthday. Although these “rules” sound simple, in practice each case must be carefully evaluated and legal claims (“complaints”) thoughtfully and artfully crafted to protect a patient’s legal rights. As with many areas of the law, the statute of limitations for similar types of cases varies widely state to state, which means that it is crucial to consult with an attorney who not only handles a particular type of case, but also one who is familiar with the laws of the state in which the case can be filed.

The state (jurisdiction) and county (venue) in which a case can be brought is another area of the law that seems simple at first blush (“my surgery was in Buck’s County, so my lawsuit will be in Buck’s County”). While this is generally true in medical malpractice cases, in other types of cases, such as motor vehicle accidents, the decision of where to file a lawsuit also often requires thorough legal analysis so that the appropriate place for the lawsuit is chosen to best protect the legal rights of the injured victim. For instance, even if an injured victim’s car accident was in Buck’s County, he/she may be better off filing a lawsuit in Philadelphia if the owner of the other vehicle lives in Philadelphia. As you can see, almost without exception a person’s choice of a lawyer in a medical negligence or other serious injury case can have a significant impact on the outcome of the case. At the Law Office of Leon Aussprung M.D., the facts of your case will be carefully evaluated to determine both the date by which your claims must be filed and the location in which your lawsuit should be filed, as well as all other crucial details such as the identity of appropriate witnesses and experts and the types of evidence that should be used at trial to explain your case to the jury.

Published on:

by

Two Bucks County prison inmates were awarded a total of $1.2 million by a federal jury in Philadelphia for contracting flesh-eating bacteria (MRSA or methicillin-resistant staphlococcus aureus, also known as “staph”). After a six day trial, the jury found that both prisoners’ civil rights were violated by being jailed in unsanitary conditions causing them to become becoming infected with dangerous bacteria of MRSA. The jury awarded $800,000 to one inmate and $400,000 to the second inmate, who developed serious staph infections on their skin and muscles, including their scrotum, and developed abscesses. MRSA is frequently a very destructive bacteria that can eat away at the skin and other tissues causing devastating injuries. This bacteria is resistant to most commonly used antibiotics and can be a very agressive infecttion resulting in permanent disability and death.

In 2002, 31 inmates tested poitive for MRSA infection at the Bucks County prison in Doylestown, Pennsylvania when a federal magistrate judge ordered over 1,000 prisoners to be tested for the infection. Problems surrounding MRSA infections have become numerous in institutions, including prisons, around the country. In Bucks County, their are still 17 additional court cases concerning prisoner MRSA infection that are pending with the Court. In the State of Delawarem there have also been complaints in the prisons surrounding MRSA infections and proper health care for prisoners.

This case was brought as a civil rights lawsuit, under section 1983, in federal court, because of the involvement of the state in running an unsanitary condition. There can also be cases involving MRSA infections for delay of diagnosis of this condition and not instituting approrpiate and timely medical care for the life-threatening infection. Such cases are usually brought in state court under medical malpractice theories.

Published on:

by

A Philadelphia couple was awarded $10 Million by a jury for a brain injury (closed head injury) caused when the husband was struck in the head by a piece of a falling door. During 10 days of trial, the jury learned that the 36 year old man was leaving a halloween costume store with his wife and daughter when the metal piece hit him in the head. As a result of the accident, the man suffered from headaches, an inability to sleep, dizziness, decreased concentration skills, trouble with processing words, depression and emotional instability. He became a loner who experienced emotional outbursts and a short temper with his family and employers. He lost his job developing computer software and was fired from the next three jobs he tried to hold, ultimately resulting in unemployment. His entire family was suffering from his injuries and a vocational expert testified that he was unemployable.

Before trial, the couple was offered $25,000 to settle his case, although this offer was increased to $500,000 during trial. The couple had demanded $5 Million, in part because expert testimony in the case demonstrated that the man would lose between $2.6 Million and almost $4 Million in future earnings because of the injury. Although the settlement offers were low, the defendants admitted responsiblity for the accident, but argued that the man was not seriously injured and could have continued in the job he had at the time of the accident. The jury’s verdict was $8 Million for the man and $2 Million for his wife.

This case demonstrates the importance of hiring a skilled trial attorney who will not simply settle your case at the first chance. Experienced trial counsel will prepare a case for trial, hire competent experts, and be willing and able to go through a lengthy trial to get an excellent result. At the Law Office of Leon Aussprung MD, LLC, you will get an experienced trial attorney who stands ready to try cases when a fair and reasonable settlement cannot be reached.

Published on:

by

Delaware’s overall cancer death rate ranks 11th in the Nation and there are lung cancer clusters around the Indian River power plant. Six zip codes near the Indian River power plant have shown an abnormally high rate of lung cancer that has caused state officials to create a “total exposure assessment monitoring” program. This program, which is still in the planning phase, will have individuals undergoing batteries of hair, blood and urine tests and have them wearing devices to measure air pollutants. The monitoring program is planned to last five years and cost $5 million. It will be funded by a combination of local, state and federal funds.

Delaware has been the home for chemical companies (it was known as the “Chemical Capital of the World”) and other industrial plants that may be the sources for toxic exposures. Delaware’s age-adjutsed cancer rate was also 6 percent above the national average and its death rate is 17 percent higher than the national average. Additionally, Delaware has some of the dirtiest air in the country. Additionally, in the Delaware medical community there have long been anecdotal stories of specific communities with unsually high rates of particluar cancers.

While exposure to toxins and pullatants can have an impact on cancer rates, it is also clear that various other factors can play a significant role. Smoking rates have a significant impact on cancer rates, as can excessive sun exposure. Stopping (or preferably never starting) smoking and wearing sun screen can go a long way to preventing the development of cancer.

by
Posted in: Cancer
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

A full term preganancy was not properly monitored by an obstretrics resident during an induction of labor causing the infant to suffer a hypoxic brain injury resulting in cerebral palsy and spastic quadriplegia. The case against a resident physician and Evanston Hospital resulted in a $15 million settlement for the plaintiffs before the trial began. The child, now eight (8) years old, has severe disabilities as a result of oxygen deprivation during the labor and delivery. The child has seizures, impaired vision and severe global developmental delays.

This case is a classic example of obstetrical malpractice. An uneventful pregnancy and a routine induction of labor ended in catastrophe for the child. Abnormalities were noted on routine fetal monitoring during the night and the mother developed a fever. However, the resident failed to inform any attending obstetrician of these changes. The resident noted maternal fever, hyperstimulation of the fetus and an increase in the fetal heart rate. The fetal heart rate pattern progressed into one of variable decelerations with late recovery, which soon further progressed into a late deceleration pattern. This pattern of fetal heart monitoring is typical of significant fetal distress and an infant suffering hypoxia. Although some of these abnormalities were noted, the resident was inexperienced and failed to notify an attending obstretrician of these findings.

Shortly after birth, the child developed seizure activity, which is also a sign of a hypoxic brain injury. A CT scan demonstrated difuse bilateral brain injury. The child will undoubtedly suffer from severe and devastating disabilities for the remainer of his life.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a warning concerning the use of Codeine, Morphine and related pain and cough medications in nursing woman because of concerns of injury to their infants. This new warning was prompted by the death of an infant in 2006 from an overdose of narcotic (from maternal Codeine) that the infant received through the mother’s breast milk. It is now well-described that some mothers have a genetic mutation that affects the way their bodies metabolize codeine and related narcotics. These mother’s will change Codeine and related drugs into Morphine at an abnormally rapid rate and then the Morphine is secreted into their breast milk. The infant’s then swallow the Morphine filled breast milk resulting in an overdose to the infant that can cause death.

The symptoms of a narcotic (Morphine) overdose in infants and children can include: difficulty breathing, excessive sleepiness, difficulty feeding, constipation and limpness. Mothers with this genetic variation causing the abnormally high levels of Morphine may experience: confusion, constipation, sleepiness and shallow breathing. The risk of having the genetic mutation that affects narcotic metabolism varies based on the race of the mother. It is thought that 16% to 28% of North Africans, Saudis and Ethiopians have the defect, whereas 3% of African Americans are affected, 1% to 10% of Causcasians have the mutation, but only about 1% of Hispanics, Chinese and Japanese are affected.

Although this genetic variation is not common, it does involve a significant number of nursing mothers. This concern has been most commonly raised with the use of Codeine, because this drug is the most commonly prescribed narcotic pain medicine after child birth. Codeine is also commonly used for severe cough. It must be noted that this genetic variation will also change the way these mother’s metabolize any narcotic medication, which places their nursing infants at significant risk. If you have ever had any troubles with anesthesia or pain medication use, you should speak to your physician before taking such medications and nursing your child.

Published on:

by

A 5 year old boy drowned at a Maryland counrtry club because safety rules were not followed. Recently, a jury awarded the parents of the child $4 million after they successfully sued DRD Pool Service Inc, which was the country club’s pool management company. The pool management company was found to have not adequately trained its lifeguards and to have not adequately staffed the pool area. This is a typical example of the obligation of property owners to provide proper safety precautions for individuals using its services.

In this case, a 16 year old was on lifeguard duty when the child’s body was found floating in the outdoor pool. The child had been playing in the pool with two other children and an adult friend. The lifeguard had only been working at this job for three weeks prior to the incident. In Maryland, only one lifeguard id required for ever 50 swimmers. The family is advocating more stringent rules requiring a lifeguard for every 25 swimmers. The family has set up a foundation in memory of their son and they are working with Maryland lawmakers to improve state safety rules for all pools.

This type of tragic case happens far too frequently every summer. Even when lifegaurds are present and all safety rules are followed, tragedy can occur. Unfortunately, pools are often staffed by young and experienced lifeguards, who are not adequately trained and do not always follow the necessary safety rules. These mistakes are rarely admitted to by the institutions owning the pools. Frequently, the true reason why such deaths occur are not uncovered unless there is litigation and in-depth discovery conducted by a qualified attorney, as this case demonstrates.

Published on:

by

A Boston jury recently awarded $26.5 million to a 10 year old child who was injured at birth because of two doctors’ failure to recognize fetal distress during labor and their delay in carrying out an emergency ceasarean section. Jose Bejarano, Jr. is a severly handicapped child with devastating cerebral palsy and mental retardation. He requires a feeding tube and around-the-clock nursing care for the remainder of his life. Although the child cannot talk, the family insists that he is able to express pain and happiness through his eyes. The award will assist the family in providing all the medical and nursing care that this unfortunate child will require. This verdict is thought to be one of the largest in Massachusetts history and is the biggest verdict in 2007.

The verdict for the Bejarano family was against two obstetrical physicians (OB/GYN) who provided care at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, which is affiliated with Harvard Medical School. Although the negligent care was provided over 10 years ago, because Jose Bejarano was a minor, his statute of limitations (the length of time during which he is permitted to file a lawsuit) extends until his 20th birthday. This is identical to the law in Pennsylvania, which permits minors to bring a lawsuit for their injuries until they reach their 20th birthday (until they become an adult at age 18 and then 2 additional years).

Verdicts of this size are unusual even in medical negligence cases involving horribly injured individuals. Two factors are the predominant determinents of a verdict’s size. First, the amount of money that will be needed to provide proper medical and nursing care to the injured person for the remainder of their life is the single most imprtant factor to the size of a verdict. Children who have long life-spans left ahead of them and have high yearly costs for feeding tubes and nursing care, such as in this case, have very large economic damages. These damages are quantifiable and are presented to the jury. I have been involved in cases where the future medical expenses for a child have been estimated in excess of $40 million dollars. The second factor having the greatest impact on a verdict is the length and amount of pain and suffering that an injured person endures. When there is horrible suffering for long periods of time, juries are more likely to award very significant non-economic damages. This case demonstrates how economic and non-economic damages can combine to sometimes create extremely large jury awards. However, the overwhelming majority of awards and settlements are considerably smaller then in this case. Additionally, this family will likely get only a very small portion of the $26.6 million award because there is likely not enough insurance coverage to pay this large verdict. Getting the verdict is only one issue in the battle to actually get paid the money.

Contact Information
Philadelphia
1800 John F Kennedy Blvd #1500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Toll Free: 855.770.0902Office: 267.809.8250Fax: 888.800.5731 Email:LA@AussprungLaw.com
New Jersey
1874 NJ-70 #4
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
Office: 856.751.9702

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Leon Aussprung
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design