Milwaukee Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Most Commented

Workers Injured In Coal Dust Explosion Accident May Have Rights Beyond Worker's Compensation Benefits

David Lowe — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 09:46:50 GMT

Yesterday's coal dust silo explosion at We Energies' Oak Creek power plant injured six employees preparing to perform repairs inside the structure. The injured employees work for ThyssenKrupp Safway, a company that provides scaffolding services. ThyrssenKrupp Safeway was reportedly hired as a subcontractor by United States Fire Protection, a New Berlin firm that provides fire protection services. One of the employees remains hospitalized in critical condition.

Employees of We Energies who work in a coal dust silo likely are familiar with the danger of working with coal dust, and the explosive properties of coal dust. It is less likely that employees of a company brought in to erect scaffolding for repairs in the silo are familiar with these dangers of working around coal dust. As the injured employees here worked for a subcontractor of a subcontractor, questions need to be asked about whether these employees were properly warned about the dangers. Presumably, OSHA and others will look into these questions.

Civil lawsuits are quite likely available to the injured workers. Injured workers usually are barred from suing over workplace injuries by the Workers Compensation Act. Thus, while the workers may be precluded from suing their own employer, they will not be barred from suing United States Fire Protection or We Energies if those firms failed to use reasonable care to warn of the risks of working around coal dust.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

FDA: Hydroxycut Recall - May Cause Liver Damage, Other Injuries

Paul Jacquart — Fri, 01 May 2009 18:02:56 GMT

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today issued a warning for consumers to stop using Hydroxycut products because they have been associated with liver damage, seizures, cardiovascular events, and other health problems. Hydroxycut dietary supplements are marketed as weight loss and fat-burning products. The link above contains a list of the recalled products. The recall notice further states that consumers of Hydroxycut products that have experienced jaundice (yellowing of the skin or whites of eyes) and brown urine, nausea, vomiting, light-colored stools, excessive fatigue, weakness, sotmach or abdominal pain, itching, and loss of appetite may have experienced liver or other injury and should consult with their physicians.

Consumers who have sustained liver damage or other serious injuries as a result of using Hydroxycut may have legal remedies under both product liability and consumer protection laws and should seek legal advice.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Jacquart

Fireworks Injure Bystanders, Not Just Users

David Lowe — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:56:01 GMT

Millions of Americans enjoyed fireworks displays yesterday. But I suspect that some families today are struggling with the aftermath of injuries from fireworks. It's not just those foolish enough to buy and use these products themselves. It's the danger of fireworks to bystanders that gives cause for concern. Bystanders are more often injured by fireworks than operators themselves. A serious fireworks accident in Virginia, with nine victims, has been reported.

The statistics tell the story of the dangers from fireworks. Almost 50 people died from fireworks-related injuries between 2000 and 2006, according to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, and 11 deaths were associated with fireworks last year.

What can we do to reduce the number of deaths and injuries from fireworks? The Medical College of Wisconsin has published the following tips and facts to enhance fireworks safety:

â€¢ Attend only professional fireworks displays. Donï¿½t ever let your children play with fireworks of any kind.
â€¢ All fireworks are dangerous. Firecrackers, bottle rockets, sparklers and Roman candles account for most firework injuries.
â€¢ Protect children. Don't entertain the family with fireworks. Forty percent of those injured last year were under the age of 14, and many of them were bystanders.
â€¢ 30% of the injuries that occurred last year involved burns to hands, wrists and arms, and 20% of injuries were to the eyes.
â€¢ 10% of children injured by fireworks suffer permanent damage, such as the loss of an eye, a finger or a hand.
â€¢ Sparklers burn as hot as 2,000 degrees, hot enough to melt gold. For children under the age of five, sparklers account for three-quarters of all fireworks injuries.
â€¢ Legal fireworks carry the name of the manufacturer, the words "Class C Common Fireworks," and a warning label. If these are missing, you should consider them illegal and extremely unsafe.
â€¢ If you find unexploded fireworks, don't touch them. Contact your local fire or police department immediately.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

Suit Challenges Illinois Caps on Damage Awards

David Lowe — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:31:09 GMT

My colleague Jeffrey M.Goldberg, a nationally-renowned trial attorney who is an expert in birth injury cases, has filed a medical malpractice suit in Illinois on behalf of a child born with cerebral palsy and severe brain damage as the result of a mismanaged labor and delivery. The suit seeks fair compensation for the child and his family, but argues that fair compensation can only be provided if the Illinois courts declare unconstitutional the law passed by the Illinois legislature in August 2005 limiting pain, suffering, and disability awards in medical malpractice cases to $500,000 per doctor and $1 million per hospital.

Jeff Goldberg is an energetic and extremely effective advocate for victims of medical malpractice, and is a former president of the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, a national law firm that specializes in precedent setting and socially significant litigation designed to secure a better society. I am sure that he will wage a strong fight in this important struggle to protect the rights of innocent victims to obtain fair compensation in the Illinois courts.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

Just Say No: Why Giving a Recorded Statement to Insurers May Be a Bad Idea

David Lowe — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:22:00 GMT

"You’re in good hands", because they’re "like a good neighbor", always "on your side". Even if you channel surf through commercial breaks, chances are you’ve seen at least one ad for an insurance company touting their folksy, people-first policies. While insurance companies are not villains, it is important to remember that they are businesses, and they act first and foremost in their own interest, not yours. So when you have been in an accident and receive a call from an insurance adjuster or claim representative requesting a statement, understand that the caller's purpose is to get you to make concessions that may result in the denial of your claim, or to minimize the amount they will have to pay to settle your claim. Therefore, you should be very careful about what statements you make, especially if they are going to be recorded.

You might wonder what’s so distinct about a “recorded statement” as opposed to a regular statement. After all, if you’re going to say the same thing in either case, can’t it still be used the same way? You may be surprised that it cannot. While you should give a statement containing the facts of the accident, a company cannot make your words a matter of record without your specific permission. Providing helpful information to the insurance companies is different than committing yourself to a standing record.

First of all, you need to know that it is your right to refuse to make a recorded statement if you are making a claim under someone else’s policy or if the statement is not for your own insurance company. If an insurance company for another driver is pressuring you to make a recorded statement, you should contact a personal injury attorney who specializes in auto accidents. An attorney can make sure that the necessary information reaches the insurance company, but that you do not make incorrect or imcomplete statements that can be used against you later.

Even though you should never agree to provide a recorded statement to the other insurer, it is not uncommon for your own insurer to request a recorded statementif your insurance policy provides uninsured or underinsured motorist benefits. You have a duty to cooperate with your own company by providing requested information but can provde the information without giving a recorded statement.

Once you give a recorded statement, it is impossible to change anything you have said. The record is created on the spot, with no time to prepare and often before you have seen your doctor and obtained an accurate diagnosis of your condition. If you give incomplete answers because you have forgotten some details, you will meet with skepticism or disbelief if you try to add to them later. If you describe an injury to one are of your body, your statement will be used against you when you devlop symptoms in another ara of the body, because you failed to mention it in your first statement. It is common experience that some injuries are not symptomatic until weeks or even months after an accident, or they were masked or less important because of a more prominent injury immediately following the accident. You may unknowingly make incorrect statements that prevent you from getting the compensation you deserve. Your spontaneous statements may not be as clear as you think they are, so if your own insurer says you are obligated to make a statement, you should submit one in writing so that you can be concise and accurate. If you are careful to only share objective facts about the accident and avoid speculation about fault, your own insurance provider can use the statement to help determine the settlement.

After an accident, avoid giving a recorded statement to a claims representative despite their you need to protect your interests, because even "good hands" and "good neighbors" have their own agendas. The process of seeking fair compensation for injuries sustained in an accident is full of pitfalls and complications. Rather than giving a recorded statement in response to interrogation from the claims representative, your interests are always better served by obtaining skilled representation from an attorney who handles personal injury cases. Giving a recorded statement without the assistance of an attorney may cause you to lose the compensation to which you are entitled.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

Teens Hurt While Texting And Driving Under the Influence

David Lowe — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:10:04 GMT

Wisconsin has an alcohol problem.

Today's news brings new proof: Two teenage girls driving in the Town of Rietbrock have been cited for simultaneously operating the same car while drunk and texting. Apparently, the 16 year old passenger steered the car while the 17 year old girl in the driver’s seat was using her hands to send a text message on her cell phone. Talk about an ambitious attempt at multitasking! You have to be drunk to do something this dumb. I wonder if the Marathon County Sheriff’s Department had a box to check off to classify this event. Is it DUI (driving under the influence); DWT (driving while text messaging); or TDTGT&D (two drunk teenage girls texting and driving)?

Though only one of the girls here was injured when the car rolled over, and the injury was minor, this could have been a tragedy. Parents need to talk to teens about drinking and driving.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

Sales of Durom Cup Hip Socket Suspended

David Lowe — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:24:11 GMT

Zimmer Holdings has suspended sales of its Durom cup hip socket, used in hip replacement surgery. Orthopedic surgeons have reportedly complained that the component fails at a high rate, while Zimmer contends that the problem stems from the surgeons’ need for specialized training to implant the component. The Durom cup hip socket has reportedly been implanted in more than 12,000 patients over the past two years. The early failure of the component has apparently resulted in hundreds of patients having to undergo another surgery to replace the component. It seems likely that many more failures will be recognized now that the device has been recalled. Patients who are forced to undergo revision surgery due to a defective device would be well advised to seek legal counsel to obtain compensation for the cost of the second surgery and the pain and suffering that the ordeal has caused.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

Boy Fleeing Rottweiller Suffers Head Injury

David Lowe — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:30:09 GMT

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel website is reporting that a 17-year-old boy fleeing a Rottweiller dog suffered a fractured skull Monday night after he ran into a tree.

Police are reporting that the boy was trying to escape from the dog when it broke free from its chain and the teen ran into a tree, fell to the ground and hit his head, fracturing his skull and suffered bleeding in his brain.

The dog did not bite the victim, but its owner was cited for failing to keep the dog was not kept behind a fence, police said.

Wisconsin's dog bite statute, 174.02, Wis.Stats., imposes liability on the owner of a dog "for the full amount of damages caused by the dog injuring or causing injury to a person." Thus, even though the dog did not bite or touch the victim, if the dog causes the injury, as the dog seems to have done here, the owner is liable. And if the dog has attacked before and its owner was notified of the prior attack, the dog bite statute provides for an award of double damages to the victim. The statute is designed to discourage owners from harboring dogs having dangerous propensities to attack or bite.

A victim such as the teen injured here would do well to consult a personal injury attorney to explore compensation for an incident like this.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

LASIK SURGERY WARNINGS INSUFFICIENT

Paul Jacquart — Fri, 02 May 2008 08:26:34 GMT

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has recommended bolstering the warnings of the dangers of Lasik eye surgery, reports the Associated Press. The article explains that although Lasik surgery is successful with minimal side effects for the vast majority of patients, as many as one in four people who seek the surgery are not good candidates because their pupils are too large, or due to other issues. Nevertheless, doctors do not always reject such candidates and the patients suffer the side effects, which can be severe: worse vision, severe dry eye, glare and inability to drive at night. The FDA panel heard testimony from patients who suffered from halos, double and blurred vision and eye pain.

The advisory panel has recommended the following changes to the current warnings:

· Add photographs that illustrate what people suffering certain side effects actually see, such as the glare that can make oncoming headlights a huge "starburst" of light.

· Clarify how often patients suffer different side effects, such as dry eye. Some eye surgeons say 31 percent of Lasik patients have some degree of dry eye before surgery, and it worsens for about 5 percent afterward. Other studies say 48 percent of Lasik recipients suffer some degree of dry eye months later.

· Make more understandable the conditions that should disqualify someone from Lasik, such as large pupils.

· And spell out that anyone whose nearsightedness is fixed by Lasik is guaranteed to need reading glasses in middle age, something that might not be needed if they skip Lasik.

Hopefully, the increased warnings will make for a more informed consumer and result in fewer Lasik surgeries performed on poor candidates and a lower incidence of severe side effects.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Jacquart

Motorcyclist Hit and Run Victim Struck By Two Vehicles

David Lowe — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:25:39 GMT

I have been following a sad story from last month in which Michael Kemper, a 56 year old man from Pewaukee Wisconsin, was killed in a hit and run accident while riding his motor scooter.

Yesterday, the authorities announced that their investigation revealed the likelihood that the victim was hit by two separate vehicles, a minivan and an Oldsmobile Delta 88.

It is hard to believe that anyone would flee and leave an injured person lying at the side of the road. But two separate drivers doing so, with perhaps other passengers in the vehicle? Makes you shake your head.

The survivors now may have more uninsured motorist coverage though, because the insurance limit from the victim's insurance policy will be doubled if it can be shown that the victim survived the first accident and suffered separate physical harm from the second striking. There may be proof problems establishing exactly what happened. However, there seems little doubt that uninsured motorist coverage will be available because of the unmistakable evidence that there was contact, not a near miss. Just a few weeks ago the Wisconsin Supreme Court reiterated the rule that the hit and run vehicle must have contact with the victim's vehicle in an uninsured motorist claim.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe