Shrager, Spivey & Sachs

There was another fatal truck accident in Pennsylvania on Wednesday, February 1, 2012.  This accident took the life of Rocco Antonelli of Philadelphia.  The wreck  happened on Interstate 78 in the Lehigh Valley just west of the Pennsylvania/New Jersey Border.  From news reports, it sounds as though this accident happened just before sunrise Wednesday morning.  It would have still been dark or just barely getting light when this accident happened.  The descriptions provided by the state police to the press indicate that the “box truck” (the typical way of referring to trucks that we often see as delivery trucks) had pulled over to the side of the highway and was then rear-ended by a tractor trailer operated by Schneider National.

The critical piece of information will be to determine whether the box truck which had pulled onto the shoulder had its flashers on and how long it had been pulled over.  The regulations which control truck drivers require that if a truck pulls over on the shoulder of the highway, the truck must immediately turn on its four way safety flashers.  Within ten minutes the driver should then position highly reflective safety triangles at specified distances behind his truck.  The obvious purpose for the flashers and for the triangles is to warn oncoming vehicles when they see the vehicle ahead of them that the box truck was not on the highway and that it was not moving.  The photos available in the press certainly suggest that the Schneider National truck drove into the back of the box truck and never appreciated that the truck was on the side of the road and not moving.

Truck wreck cases like this are always complex.  Only after a prompt and thorough investigation will anyone know all of the facts that led to this accident.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a collision involving a truck, please feel free to call the experienced truck accident lawyers at Shrager, Spivey & Sachs in Philadelphia for a free consultation regarding your rights. Because key facts must be preserved right away, it is always important to talk to a lawyer as soon as possible.

The report of a horribly tragic accident involving many tractor-trailers and cars which killed ten people near Gainesville, Florida, on I-75 early Sunday morning sadly reminds me of cases I have handled in the past. The senseless tragedy could have been avoided, and I’m certain that when the investigation is complete, there will be at least some indication that the trucks involved should have ceased operation immediately when they encountered these hazardous conditions.

When you drive a truck in interstate transit, there are very clear rules which control how you must drive the truck to operate safely. In particular, if you have encountered “hazardous conditions,” the law clearly says a truck driver must use “extreme caution.” The rules go on to say that hazardous conditions include a variety of things, including mist, fog, dust, or smoke. Clearly, the accident in Florida involved smoke from a brush fire and mist. If a truck driver can’t safely conduct his truck, he is obligated to slow down using “extreme caution.” If conditions become sufficiently dangerous, the commercial motor vehicle driver must stop right away. That means that upon encountering conditions like this, the trucks were obligated to stop operating and pull over.

From the reports, it sounds like a number of the trucks “overran” some of the passenger cars. That means they were going far too fast for the dangerous conditions they encountered. If you’re using “extreme caution,” a truck doesn’t “overrun” a passenger car.

Because I am a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, lawyer who handles a number of truck accident cases, and because I have the privilege of working with lawyers around the country on truck wrecks like this, this sort of tragedy reminds me that we must be very careful in the regulation of tractor-trailers on our interstate highways. At a time when the Department of Transportation has opened our borders to foreign truck drivers, it is all the more important to make sure that every truck on the road knows what he or she must do to drive safely.

With limited public notice and less debate, the Pennsylvania House is expected to vote Wednesday on a plan that would limit the rights of victims of nursing home and assisted living facility abuse and neglect.  The bill – H.R. 1907 – would restrict what’s known as “exemplary” damages against a person who has injured a resident of a nursing or assisted living facility and the facility in which it occurred.  Not only is the legislation unnecessary, it’s unconstitutional; but most importantly, it’s wrong because it would lessen an important protection for the vulnerable.  The sole reason for passing it is to bolster a nursing home’s profits at the expense of safety.

H.R. 1907 aims to fix a problem that simply doesn’t exist.  I regularly represent nursing home residents and their families across Pennsylvania, and I’m aware of only two cases in which punitive damages have been awarded for abuse or neglect.  Sponsors of the cap would have us believe that exemplary damages in such cases are a burgeoning problem, when in fact, the cap is a “solution” to a nonexistent problem.

So why, if there are just a few cases, is there a push to change the law?  Because the possibility of significant damages is helps to ensure proper safety measures are taken to protect our most vulnerable.  In our courts, judges instruct juries that punitive damages are “exemplary” damages, used to set an example to dissuade others from similar reckless conduct.  It is undeniable that more protections have a cost.  It is equally undeniable that some number of nursing homes and assisted living facilities will be emboldened to ignore safety regulations to increase their bottom-lines.  That’s what the “threat” of exemplary damages protects against.

Long ago, Pennsylvania realized that some would try to place profits above public safety – and specifically prohibited it.  In the mid 1800s, Pennsylvania’s constitutional convention limited the legislature’s ability to deprive citizens of the right to seek damages.  At the time, the limitation was needed to reign in big railroads whose unsafe work environments were injuring workers.  Those corporate giants – much like today’s corporate-run elder care facilities – had used their influence to lobby the legislature to limit the rights of their injured workers.  The need to protect Pennsylvania’s injury victims is just as pressing in the 21st century as it was then.

Our legislators would be wise to consider a similar challenge to Arkansas’ constitution.  Last month, the Arkansas Supreme Court struck down a nearly identical limitation on punitive damages against nursing homes.  Arkansas’ constitution contains language nearly identical to that of Pennsylvania’s: any law that caps punitive damages is unconstitutional.

I’ve met with hundreds of families whose loved ones have been injured by extraordinary negligence.  Their injuries are often the direct result of understaffing done to reduce costs and increase corporate profits at the expense of resident safety and dignity, the very definition of a reckless disregard for safety.  Our legislature shouldn’t pursue legislation that encourages such disregard and puts our most vulnerable citizens in danger.

A Bucks County jury recently awarded a 21-year-old accident victim $14 million in damages after she was repeatedly run over by a school bus. As a result of the accident, the then 14-year-old student had her leg amputated and will require extensive medical care and therapy for the rest of her life.

Despite her catastrophic injuries, the school district may only be held liable for $500,000 in damages. In Pennsylvania, plaintiffs in civil cases against local governments – including school districts – cannot be granted more than $500,000. In this case, the bus also hit another seven students, and the primary victim would be required to share the award with them.

Her attorney plans to fight the damage cap, and the case will next be heard in the appeals courts.

As a personal injury attorney who has seen the effects of catastrophic injuries firsthand, I applaud his efforts on behalf of his client. As I recently told WHYY in a story about the case, lawmakers sold the damage cap to the public in the guise of protecting taxpayers. However, in this case, the school district’s insurance company would be responsible for paying the award – not taxpayers. The only entity protected by the cap in this case is the insurance company – all to the exclusion of an innocent young girl.

The Bucks County case will most likely serve as a test case against capping damage awards. Regardless of the outcome, I hope this case shows the public that damage caps serve to benefit powerful interests, not the general public. In this instance, a teenage girl was harmed by the school district her parents’ entrusted to protect her, and she’ll be harmed again if she doesn’t receive a settlement sufficient to cover her injuries.

To learn more about the case, click here to read the WHYY article.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration finally took a much-needed step toward protecting our highways – restricting commercial drivers’ cell phone use while driving.

The FMCSA’s new regulation restricts drivers from using hand-held cell phones while behind the wheel. Hands-free devices, however, are still permitted.

The FMCSA cited the dangers of hand-held cell phone usage to justify its new regulation: “Using a hand-held mobile telephone while driving may pose a higher safety risk than other activities (e.g., eating or adjusting an instrument) because it involves all four types of driver distraction,” visual, manual, cognitive, and auditory. The FMCSA consulted research by the Department of Transportation that found reaching for and dialing a cell phone “increase the odds of a driver’s involvement in a safety-critical event, such as a crash, near crash, or unintended lane departure.” Data also showed that the odds of being involved in a safety-critical event are three times greater when the driver is reaching for an object than when when the driver isn’t, and six times greater when the driver is dialing a cell phone than when the driver isn’t.

While I’m grateful the FMCSA has finally restricted cell phone usage among commercial drivers, I wish they would have gone a step further and enacted a ban on all cell phone usage. As a trucking litigation attorney, I’ve seen firsthand the devastating effect a truck accident can have. Every accident has the potential for fatal consequences, but nothing can match the scale of a truck accident, which is why we should hold our commercial drivers to a higher safety standard than other drivers.

I applaud this first step, which will undoubtedly increase the safety of our nation’s highways, and I encourage the FMCSA to continue its push for commonsense safety regulations to better protect drivers and passengers.

Yesterday, there was some great news – Pennsylvania has now joined 30 other states in banning texting while driving and now drivers and pedestrians can venture out onto Pennsylvania’s roadways more confidently. The ban makes texting behind the wheel a primary offense, allowing police to pull motorists over for texting alone.

I’ve been advocating for tougher distracted driving laws for years, and I’m thrilled that Pennsylvania has finally enacted a commonsense ban on texting while driving.

The dangers of texting-while-driving have been studied thoroughly, and the results are undeniable. Statistics show that for every 6 seconds of driving, drivers who text have their eyes off the road for 4.6 of those seconds. National averages estimate nearly 500,000 people are injured and 6,000 are killed in accidents caused by distracted drivers every year. At least 35 percent of drivers admit to driving and texting despite knowing these risks, a number researchers claim is much lower than other statistics indicate.

While I would have liked legislators to have outlawed all cell phone usage while driving, Pennsylvania’s new texting ban is a step in the right direction. Countless lives will be saved, and a new generation of drivers will get behind the wheel with the knowledge that texting while driving isn’t an option.

To learn more about the new ban, I’ve included links to articles below:

Corbett signs law banning texting while driving
Allentown Morning Call, November 9, 2011

Corbett signs texting ban
York Daily Record, November 10, 2011

Corbett signs bill to ban texting while driving
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 9, 2011

A September 29, 2011 article from the New England Journal of Medicine discussed the importance of reducing the unnecessary hospitalizations of nursing home residents. More than 1.6 million Americans live in nursing homes, and hospitalizations are common in this population of people. Several studies have suggested that many of these hospitalizations are inappropriate, avoidable or related to conditions that could be treated outside the hospital setting. The article states that one of the possible reasons for unnecessary hospitalizations is that nursing homes have a financial incentive to hospitalize residents who have Medicaid coverage because after a three-day inpatient stay at the hospital, the resident may qualify for Medicare Part A payment for post-acute care in a nursing home at three to four times the daily rate paid by Medicaid. This means that the facility will increase its profit, if a resident is hospitalized for three days, and returns to the nursing home for care.

The Philadelphia, Pennsylvania nursing home abuse lawyers at Shrager, Spivey & Sachs have handle many nursing home cases. We often see evidence of “for-profit” nursing home chains under-staffing their facilities. Under-staffing results in the nursing home not having the necessary number of nurses and aides to protect the elderly residents, and/or a failure to provide the necessary treatments to maintain the residents health and well-being. The reason the nursing home under-staffs the facility is to increase their profit. The “for-profit” nursing home can actually financially benefit from under-staffing their nursing homes in two ways. First, the nursing home increases its profit by under-staffing the facility. Second, because the facility is under-staffed, the residents do not get properly assessed and evaluated and instead get sent to the hospital which can result in increased profits when the resident returns because the facility can obtain better billing rates from Medicare post-acute hospitalization. These issues are difficult and complicated for a family, who is mostly likely having their first experience with a loved one in a nursing home. However, families should be aware that numerous hospitalizations can be a good sign of under-staffing, neglect and abuse and the motive is often financial gain.  Or in other words, the “for profit” nursing home is increasing its profitability at the expense of your loved one’s safety.

The authors of a 2011 article published in the Archives of Internal Medicine Journal found that hip fractures are associated with an increased risk of death for woman ages 65 years to 79 years, and healthy woman who are 80 years of age or older. The article’s findings suggest that research should focus on hip fracture prevention and interventions in these age groups in order to decrease mortality for this high-risk age group. Essentially, prevention of hip fractures should be a high priority.

The Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, nursing home abuse and neglect lawyers at Shrager, Spivey & Sachs have handled many cases against nursing homes that involve falls and fractures that were preventable, but the necessary level of care and the necessary fall risk preventions were not provided to the resident to prevent the fall. It is important for family members of elderly nursing home residents to attend Care Plan Meetings with the nursing home staff. At these meetings, family members should try to become aware of the fall risk interventions being put into place to prevent falls, and to make sure that the fall risk interventions are actually being implemented after the meeting takes place. When visiting, make sure to discuss with the nursing staff why a particular fall risk prevention has not been implemented as was discussed at the Care Plan Meeting. All too often, the fall risk interventions are discussed and “written down,” but not actually implemented. As another point of caution, fall risk interventions do not always get implemented properly if your loved one’s room is changed for some unforeseen reason. Nursing homes often move residents, but the nursing staff on the new wing/floor do not know the fall risk interventions that should follow your loved one, and the fall risk interventions end up not getting implemented, leaving your loved one in danger of suffering a  preventable fall. Many falls in nursing homes are preventable. Unfortunately, the research demonstrates that hip fractures in elderly woman increase their risk of death.

This weekend, a truck carrying materials for natural gas drilling tipped over onto a passenger vehicle, killing the driver and injuring a passenger. The accident occurred on State Route 29 in Susquehanna County, a popular route for trucks hauling heavy materials for the burgeoning gas drilling industry. Witness reports claim the truck made no attempt to stop before rolling over onto a Subaru sedan carrying two. One witness claimed the truck “was just coming down too fast and he wasn’t paying attention,” referring to the driver, who was unharmed.

The truck was owned by Southeast Directional Drilling, LLC, an Arizona-based company that has 37 trucks and 22 drivers. In the past year, the company has logged over 500,000 miles and five accidents.

Many at the scene weren’t surprised, saying trucking accidents have increased as businesses take advantage of drilling in the Marcellus Shale. Local residents say it was “bound to happen” and worry about their safety with the increased traffic.

The attorneys of Shrager, Spivey & Sachs have seen the damage fracking-related trucking can cause. Rob Sachs recently settled a $5.4 million case for a man who was rendered a paraplegic in a collision with an overweight water tank truck that was hauling water used in fracking. The drilling method is being used throughout northern Pennsylvania, including Susquehanna County, where the most recent accident took place.

Unfortunately, with the drilling boom in full swing, more of these tragic accidents are likely to occur. If you or a loved one have been injured in a trucking accident, contact our attorneys today for a free consultation.

A recent FDA alert warns of serious complications associated with transvaginal mesh patches. When implanted to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence (SUI), significant complications can result. The FDA has received more than 3,800 reports of adverse effects, which include:

• Erosion of vaginal tissue
• Infection
• Bleeding
• Pain
• Urinary problems such as incontinence
• Pain during sexual intercourse
• Organ perforation from surgical tools during mesh implantation

The FDA stresses that these complications are not rare, and the agency has found the risky surgical mesh treatment of POP to be no more effective than traditional treatment.

The New England Journal of Medicine recently published research that showed an increased risk of complications associated with transvaginal mesh implants. Compared to the traditional treatment of POP, surgical mesh has a higher risk of defect, including:

• 7 times the risk of bladder perforation;
• Nearly twice the risk of urinary incontinence; and
• 3.2 percent of women required follow-up surgery to correct problems.

In 2010, Obstetrics & Gynecology had to terminate a study due to the extent of injuries to participants who received the transvaginal mesh patch. Of the women treated in the study before its end, 15 percent experienced erosions. Other complications participants experienced included two bladder incisions and one blood transfusion.

Meanwhile, more than 200 women across the United States have filed lawsuits against three transvaginal mesh patch manufacturers – C.R. Bard, Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon, and American Medical Systems. Complications have been reported for several other manufacturers of surgical mesh, including:

• Boston Scientific Scimmed;
• Sofradim;
• Caldera; and
• Mentor Corporation

If you or a loved one have suffered complications due to the implantation of a transvaginal mesh patch to treat POP, you may be entitled to compensation for medical costs, financial burdens, or the pain and suffering associated with this defective device.

Contact the attorneys of Shrager, Spivey & Sachs today to send a clear message to transvaginal mesh patch makers that it is unacceptable to sell medical devices that harm innocent people.