Philadelphia Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Two Philadelphia police officers were seriously injured Wednesday night in a crash between their cruiser and a Jeep at Broad Street and Hunting Park Avenue, police said.

Shortly before 9 p.m., Highway Patrol officers stopped a vehicle containing at least one person at 15th and Wingohocking Streets and requested backup, police said.

Two officers in a 25th District patrol car responded to the call for assistance and headed north. "Both were going northbound," said Lt. Raymond Evers, a police spokesman. "There was some kind of contact, and they ricocheted." Passengers who had been heading north on Broad Street in McCarty's Jeep Wrangler, said the cruiser smashed into the Jeep's left rear bumper as the light at Hunting Park turned green.

The cruiser struck a fence and a pole, Evers said. The female officer's neck and head were injured, and the male officer was injured in the hip area, Evers said.

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer. Thu, Jun. 30, 2011.

We all have witnessed a police cruiser speeding down the highway with its lights and sirens blaring. If you've ever wondered what responsibility emergency vehicles have to others on the roadway, read on!

Emergency vehicles have a duty to drive with regard to the safety of all persons on the road; however, Pennsylvania Law affords responding emergency vehicles a different standard of care than normal negligence. Pennsylvania Courts have found that negligence is lack of due care under the circumstances. The standard of care for a driver of an emergency vehicle is negligence under emergency circumstances. Thus, what may be negligence in driving a vehicle down a street under normal circumstances may not be negligence under the extreme circumstances presented by an emergency situation.

Continue reading "Automobile Crash on Broad St. hurts 2 Philadelphia police officers" »

Five people remain unaccounted for in an Amtrak train crash in the Nevada desert, authorities have reported.

However, despite those still unaccounted for, the death toll from the crash between a big rig and an Amtrak train remains at six, and investigators have said they have yet to find more bodies in the wreckage.

Source:  The Christian Post.  Jun. 27 2011

The big-rig driver who slammed into a Bay Area-bound Amtrak train in Nevada, killing himself and at least six people on the train, was identified Monday as a 43-year-old man who was blamed for a freeway crash in 2007 and racked up numerous traffic citations after getting work as a school bus driver in California.

Source:   San Francisco Chronicle.  June 23, 2011

One out of every eight traffic-related deaths and four percent of all injuries in auto accidents involve large commercial trucks -- also known as tractor-trailers, 18-wheelers, semi-trucks and big rigs.  In this case, the unthinkable happened when one of these big rigs wasn't able to stop before crashing into a train.

It is reported that the tractor trailer skid 320 feet before hitting the train.   Because big rigs are much longer and heavier than passenger vehicles, they are much harder to steer in evasive actions or to bring to a complete stop.  At 65 mph, it takes a car about 160 feet to stop.  A tractor-trailer going 65 mph needs approximately 420 feet to come to a complete stop (that's almost 1 ½ football fields!).   Unfortunately for all, the truck did not have enough room to stop and its momentum carried it directly into the train's path.

This tragic accident shows just how deadly and devastating these behemoth machines can be if not operated with extreme caution.  Usually, the biggest vehicles on the road, semi-trucks operating at high speeds are the cause of many disastrous accidents.  However, in this accident, the collision between the train and a semi-truck is comparable to the collision of a car and a water balloon - the size and weight of a train moving even at what might seem to be slower speed created a devastating physical impact that ignited an intense fire and demolished the truck.

Continue reading "5 still unaccounted for in Amtrak train hit by tractor trailer" »

Legislation that would require dentists to carry malpractice insurance was approved Wednesday by the state Senate.

Senate Bill 388 would require dentists to have liability insurance of at least $1 million per claim and $3 million annually, according to Sen. Pat Vance, R-Cumberland/York, who sponsored the bill.

A dentist would lose his or her license for failure to insure.

Source.  HARRISBURG, Pa. (WHTM).  June 22, 2011.

Dental malpractice injuries are often serious and cause long term suffering.  Errors in dental procedures can cause painful and permanent injuries including nerve damage in the jaw, tongue and lips.   Injuries may also occur when dental assistants fail to monitor the patient and/or administer the proper dosage of anesthesia.  Sedation errors frequently result in extreme consequences such as fatality and brain damage.    Some other common injuries that occur in the dental office include:

•             Medication errors

•             Infections in the mouth, tongue and brain

•             Injury to bone in the jaw, teeth and/or gums

•             Improper diagnosis

•             Failure to detect oral problems

•             Use of faulty materials or products

•             Injury to bone or surrounding tissue

Because dental injures can be permanent, or even lethal, it is important that dental healthcare providers have proper insurance.  Serious injuries can be financially devastating to the victim and his/her family since they usually result in large amounts of damages in the form of medical bills, out-of-pocket expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages, disfigurement, future medical bills, and a diminished quality of life.  

This bill is a step in the right direction towards ensuring that dentists are financially responsible and can compensate victims in the event that malpractice causes a serious injury. 

If you own a registered automobile in Pennsylvania and fail to keep it insured you may be risking serious penalties.  Pennsylvania law is clear that owners of registered motor vehicles must carry minimum levels of insurance - even if the vehicle is inoperable.  The only way a vehicle owner can be absolved of the responsibility to insure a vehicle is to have the registration of the vehicle properly terminated or transferred. 

Failure to insure you automobile may result in fines and the loss of insurance benefits. 

Drivers in Pennsylvania are required to purchase first party "no fault" medical benefits in the amount of $5000 to cover medical expenses in the event of an accident.  These benefits are made available to protect the driver and passengers in a motor vehicle, regardless of which vehicle is at fault in causing the accident. 

If you are a driver of an uninsured vehicle, you will not be eligible for first party benefits.  Moreover, if you are a driver or a passenger of an insured vehicle, and you own an uninsured vehicle, you will be ineligible for first party medical benefits.   In order to be eligible to receive first party benefits a person must have the required insurance on any and every vehicle currently registered in that person's name in Pennsylvania at the time of the accident.

As a further penalty, an owner of a currently registered motor vehicle who does not have financial responsibility will be deemed to have chosen the "limited tort" alternative.  Under the "limited tort" alternative, you give up the right to receive compensation for pain and suffering if you are injured in a car accident in Pennsylvania.  This holds true whether or not the accident in question involves the uninsured vehicle.  

Continue reading "The risks of owning an uninsured registered motor vehicle in Pennsylvania" »

Shoulder dystocia is one of the most feared complications in obstetrics.   Translated from Greek, Dystocia means "difficult childbirth."   Shoulder dystocia injuries are caused when a baby's shoulders are unable to quickly and easily follow the delivery of the baby's head.   Thus, the baby literally becomes stuck during birth and additional maneuvers are required to deliver the fetus after normal gentle downward traction has failed.  

Complications resulting from shoulder dystocia during delivery can affect both the mother and infant.  Postpartum hemorrhage and fourth-degree lacerations are the most common maternal complications.  The most common fetal complication is nerve damage to the spine and shoulder (known as brachial plexus palsies) which may result in permanent injury and disfigurement to the baby.  

Shoulder dystocia injuries can be devastating both physically and emotionally for all parties involved.  The injuries may result in sizeable and unexpected medical expenses that may continue for years after the birth.

Sometimes shoulder dystocia occurs without warning.  However, there are red flags that should signal a doctor to recommend a C-section instead of natural child birth.

One of the most common risk factors for shoulder dystocia is suspected macrosomia in the fetus.  The term macrosomia is used to describe a newborn with an excessive birth weight.   Other risk factors that may be present in the mother are abnormal pelvic anatomy, gestational diabetes, post-dates pregnancy, previous shoulder dystocia and short stature.  

Continue reading "Shoulder dystocia: the frightening case of a stuck baby" »

Levaquin, a type of fluoroquinolone, is a broad spectrum antibiotic that is available only by prescription.  Levaquin is used to treat infections such as pneumonia, chronic bronchitis, and sinus/urinary tract infections.  In general, fluoroquinolones such as Levaquin are well tolerated, with most side effects being mild to moderate. However, one serious side effect that is more common with fluoroquinolones, such as Levaquin, than with other antibiotic drug classes is tendon toxicity that may result in tendon ruptures.

The risk of tendon ruptures has been known for over a decade; however, manufacturers of Levaquin have failed to provide adequate warnings to doctors and consumers.   As a result insufficient warnings, users have experienced tendon ruptures because they are not aware that they should be concerned about development of tendon pain or inflammation.

On July 8, 2008, the FDA ordered the manufacturer of Levaquin to upgrade its warning of tendon rupture to a Black Box warning.  A Black Box warning is the strongest warning available for prescription drugs.  The FDA also required that a guidebook be provided to patients warning about the possible side effects.

Tendon problems may occur within a few days of taking the antibiotic or several months after the course of therapy is finished.  What's more, these ruptures may occur while doing low impact daily activities such as walking. 

Tendon ruptures are a serious and painful injury which can require prolonged physical therapy, weeks of casting and reconstructive surgery.    Many people suffering from these ruptures are no longer able to work or do the activities that they love due to limited mobility.  

Continue reading "Levaquin causes painful tendon tears for many unsuspecting users" »

If you are injured in a car accident, one of the first questions your lawyer will ask you is whether you selected the full tort or limited tort option.  It is not uncommon for people to be unsure of what type of policy they have, even though they must sign a waiver to decline full tort coverage.  When I ask my clients if they have "full tort coverage" a frequent response I receive is that "my insurance agent told me I have full coverage."  In fact, the meaning of "full coverage" is uncertain at best, and to many insurance agents, "full coverage" merely means that you have the minimum coverage required to operate a vehicle Pennsylvania.  Too often, people who believe they have "full coverage" are in fact are limited in their right to sue.

In Pennsylvania, drivers are required to select whether they want to be limited or full tort.  Under a limited tort policy, with few exceptions, your rights to bring a claim for compensation following an accident are limited.  Individuals with limited tort policies are not able to sue for pain and suffering and other similar damages, even when they are not at fault.  Limited tort coverage permits a person injured in an automobile accident to only recover for his or her out of pocket medical bills, wage loss, automobile repair costs, and other actual monetary loss.  What's more, when you elect limited tort coverage, family members residing with you may also be bound by this limitation.

An exception to this general rule permits a person with limited tort coverage to pursue a claim for pain and suffering where the injuries they sustained in the accident were "serious."  However, even very painful injuries may not be considered "serious" under Pennsylvania law. 

An individual with full tort coverage, on the other hand, regardless of the severity of the injury, is able to assert a claim for pain and suffering, so long as the accident was not his or her fault.  

Continue reading "WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FULL TORT AND LIMITED TORT AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE IN PENNSYLVANIA?" »

As a trial attorney, I am always trying to improve my skills and expand my knowledge. That is why I am looking forward to the Pennsylvania Association for Justice (PAJ) 43rd Annual Summer Retreat, June 23-26, at the Westin Philadelphia. PAJ is my state trial lawyer association that's dedicated to promoting a fair and effective justice system.

At the Retreat, I will:

• Share information on legal and practice developments;
• Learn about changes to the law and how to be a better litigator at Continual Legal Educational programs; 
• Take part in our advocacy program that preserves the rights of injured workers and consumers.

A Philadelphia woman has brought a lawsuit against Dunkin' Donuts, claiming that a worker mistakenly put sugar in her coffee that caused her to go into diabetic shock.

Danielle Jordan's lawsuit claims she asked for artificial sweetener to be added to her coffee during a June 2009 visit. Jordan claims that after drinking the coffee she experienced dizziness, light-headedness and ended up making an emergency trip to the hospital.

A legal liaison for the Canton, Mass.-based doughnut chain told the Philadelphia Daily News she couldn't comment on the case. But she says employees only provide customers with the order they ask for.

Source: Posted on Fri, Jun. 3, 2011

Despite the unusual circumstances that may get this case featured in "weird news," Dunkin Donuts may be held responsible if it is found that the employee breached the standard of care. Dunkin Donuts and its employees have a duty to conform their conduct to that of a reasonable person. If a jury finds that the employee's conduct was unreasonable, Dunkin Donuts will be responsible for the injuries caused to Ms. Jordan. This is true notwithstanding the fact that a sugar mix-up would not have harmed a normal person.

The eggshell skull rule is a well established legal doctrine which holds that you take your victim as you find him. The term implies that if a person had a skull as delicate as the shell of an egg, and the negligent party who was unaware of the condition injured that person's head, causing the skull unexpectedly to break, the defendant would be held liable for all damages resulting from the wrongful contact, even if such damages were not reasonably foreseeable, or the wrongdoer did not intend to cause such a severe injury.

Here, if the employee mistakenly gave Ms. Jordan sugar instead of artificial sweetener, Dunkin Donuts may be found liable for damages caused by the mix-up, even though this mistake would not have harmed a normal person and the damages were not easily foreseeable.