Milwaukee Personal Injury Lawyer

Imprelis Killing Trees - Full Extent of Harm Still Unclear

Paul Jacquart — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:39:05 GMT

The once highly-praised DuPont Herbicide Imprelis has proven to be nothing more than a nightmare for landscapers and homeowners. Instead of killing unwanted weeds and growth, the herbicide is being blamed for killing mature trees, particularly Norway spruces and white pines.

Last year, the EPA pulled Imprelis from the shelves due to the damage it was causing. But for thousands of business- and homeowners, it was too late. And now DuPont is embattled in multiple lawsuits. But the bad news seems to just keep coming. Many who didn’t see their carefully-tended trees affected last year and thought they may have escaped unscathed are learning that may not be true.

As an ABC news report out of Milwaukee indicates, some of the damage from Imprelis treatments last year are just now starting to show up. And the damage seems to be affecting not only evergreen plants, but also hardwood trees. In addition, many customers who did have to remove dead trees from their lawns last year now face the possibility that the replacement trees they planted will be affected as well. Imprelis seeps into the soil, so planting a new tree in the affected area can mean that new investment will soon die off as well.

The bottom line is that the full effects of Imprelis are still unknown. This means that homeowners, landscapers and others who provide lawn care or have lawns that may have been treated with Imprelis—such as golf courses, parks, and college and business campuses—need to be alert to the signs of Imprelis damage. Some of these indications include: yellowing, curling and browning of new growth; trees turning brown; trees dropping leaves or needles; and complete dieback. If you have sustained any such damage you may have a legal claim against DuPont.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Jacquart

Imprelis Herbicide Endangers Wisconsin Pines

Paul Jacquart — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:36:58 GMT

Plant herbicides are supposed to be effective at killing unwanted plant growth. But a relatively new herbicide produced and sold by DuPont is causing problems across the country for also killing mature conifer trees. That herbicide is Imprelis and it is believed to be responsible for the death of mature tree species such as Norway spruces and white pines. As a result, it is causing major problems for property owners, landscapers, golf courses, parks and university campuses to name just a few.

According to information provided by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Imprelis uses a new subclass of herbicide chemistry that interferes with the natural growth hormones present in plants. This means that damage from Imprelis takes on a distinctive form, characterized by the bending and twisting of stems and leaves.

Unfortunately, though, Imprelis performs a little too well at killing plants as there is a growing number of reports that mature plants are dying as a result of exposure to Imprelis. The trees most affected to date are Norway spruce and white pines. When affected, the trees begin to display that characteristic Imprelis mark: the twisting and curling of young tissue. For spruce trees, the browning of individual needles or the yellowing of the base of the needles and new growth are other markers of Imprelis’s ill effects.

As a result of its analysis of the situation, the UW-Madison Turfgrass Diagnositic Lab warns to stop using Imprelis on properties with or near Norway spruces and white pines. DuPont itself has in fact stopped selling Imprelis and has set up a claims process for individuals and businesses harmed by using the herbicide. Aside from the claims process, though, a number of lawsuits have been initiated against DuPont.

If you feel that you have been harmed by using Imprelis, then it is important to thoroughly document your potential legal claim. This means taking photograph evidence of the trees that you believe were harmed, collecting soil samples, and keeping track of any records that show your purchase or use of Imprelis. The law firm of Jacquart & Lowe may accept qualified Imprelis claims on a contingency fee basis, meaning that the claimant only pays attorneys fees if they actually recover.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Jacquart

New Wisconsin Auto Insurance Laws

Paul Jacquart — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:06:53 GMT

As of November 1 in Wisconsin, there are new state laws affecting auto insurance policies issued for the first time or being renewed. The Wisconsin Association for Justice has provided a good overview of what this law means for consumers and, especially, how it might affect you if you are in an accident with someone who doesn’t have enough (or any) insurance.

Here are some of the things the new standards do:

Drivers now only have to carry $25,000 in liability coverage; $10,000 for property damage; and $25,000 for uninsured motorist coverage. Underinsured motorist coverage is no longer required.
The term “underinsured motor vehicle” used to be defined by a statute. Now, auto insurance companies themselves get to define what that means and thus when your underinsured coverage will kick in.
If you are in an accident with an underinsured motorist and you opted to carry underinsured motorist coverage, the auto insurance company can reduce your amount of coverage by the amount you received from other sources—such as the other driver’s insurance, workers’ compensation or disability benefits. The auto insurance company can also do this with uninsured motorist coverage.
Consumers with multiple insured vehicles used to be able to combine the coverage under their policies when necessary. This was called “stacking” and insurance companies are not required to permit it under the new law.
In order to receive coverage for accidents caused by "phantom" vehicle that runs you off the road and gets away, the insured must comply with special reporting requirements including having an independent witness, providing a statement to the insurance carrier within 72 hours, and reporting the accident to law enforcement - failure to jump through any one of these hoops may result in denial of coverage

The net effect of all of these changes is that consumers are getting less coverage and the auto insurance companies are getting more control. Victims of car accidents involving uninsured/underinsured motorists already had enough obstacles to recovery and these legal changes create more.

As a result, it is more important than ever now to know your insurance company’s policies and how they affect you. And when you’re out shopping for insurance, there are even more questions to ask to make sure you are getting the coverage you think is necessary. The Wisconsin Association for Justice put together a brochure to help consumers navigate this new legal landscape. It is definitely worth paying attention to.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Jacquart

Driving While Texting Leads to Murder Charge

David Lowe — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:33:43 GMT

A Stevens Point man has been charged with homicide for causing a fatal car crash because he was checking for text messages while driving.

The criminal complaint reportedly states that the driver was distracted because he had been texting his girlfriend and was checking for text messages when he ran a stop sign, causing a collision with two other vehicles. The driver of one was pronounced dead at the scene according by the Wood County Coroner.

Distracted driving is a huge problem, whether it is due to texting, talking on the phone, using a GPS device, eating, drinking, applying makeup, and all manner of other activities that baffle me as I see these cases in our office. I still shake my head at the case of one of our clients who sustained permanent disability when his motorcycle was struck by a driver who had a bowl of cereal in her lap, and decided to make a slow left turn across the motorcyclist's path to avoid spilling the milk.

Statistics gathered by the Department of Transportation about 2009 document at least 16% of highway deaths due to distracted driving, and this may be vastly underreported, as investigation may not always reveal the truth about what drivers are up to.

Wisconsin has not gone far enough to protect the public. State law enacted in December 2010 banned texting while driving in Wisconsin, but does not prohibit using the phone or reading text messages. If we are going to get serious about reducing distracted drivers and highway death, a wider ban on distracting activities needs to be passed.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

Harley Recalls 250,000 Motorcycles for Defective Brake Lamps

Paul Jacquart — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:16:57 GMT

On October 19, Harley-Davidson issued a recall of over 250,000 bikes due to issues with the rear brake light. The recall included certain bikes from model years 2009-2012 including Touring, CVO Touring and Trike vehicles that were manufactured between June 2008 and September 2011.

According to the recall information provided to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the recall was issued after Harley-Davidson became aware that the rear brake light switch may be exposed to excessive heat from the exhaust system. As a result, the rear brake light may function erratically. The switch may not work to activate the brake lamp when a cyclist applies the brake or the brake light may activate even when no brake is applied. In addition, the excess heat could cause brake fluid to leak, which would affect not only the performance of the brake light, but the brake itself. Of course, any of these outcomes are of great concern as they could increase the risk of a crash.

The recall is scheduled to officially begin around October 31, but if you’re the owner of an affected bike, now is the time to take the necessary precautions for something as serious as faulty brakes.

Harley–Davidson has indicated that it will notify owners of the affected cycles and that dealers will install a rear brake light switch kit, free of charge. Owners of Harley-Davidson motorcycles can also access recall information through the Harley-Davidson website or by calling the company at (414) 343 4056.

Below is a list of the affected model numbers and years:

H-D / FLHP 2009-2012
H-D / FLHPE 2009-2011
H-D / FLHR 2009-2012
H-D / FLHRC 2009-2012
H-D / FLHT 2009-2010
H-D / FLHTC 2009-2012
H-D / FLHTCU 2009-2012
H-D / FLHTCUSE4 2009
H-D / FLHTCUSE5 2010
H-D / FLHTCUSE6 2011
H-D / FLHTCUSE7 2012
H-D / FLHTCUTG 2009-2012
H-D / FLHTK 2010-2012
H-D / FLHTP 2009-2012
H-D / FLHX 2009-2012
H-D / FLHXSE 2010
H-D / FLHXSE2 2011
H-D / FLHXSE3 2012
H-D / FLHXXX 2011
H-D / FLTR 2009
H-D / FLTRSE3 2009
H-D / FLTRU 2010-2012
H-D / FLTRUSE 2011
H-D / FLTRX 2010-2012
H-D / FLTRXSE 2012

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Jacquart

Anti-Consumer Bills Won't Create Jobs

Paul Jacquart — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 14:48:16 GMT

Under the guise of job creation, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is promoting some legislation that will, without a doubt, hurt consumers. The evidence that the bills will actually result in job creation is completely lacking.

One of the bills in question affects the amount of interest that plaintiffs receive on payments owed to them after a favorable judgment. For decades, those ordered to pay a court judgment have had to pay 12% in annual interest if they don’t pay up right away. That was the case regardless of whether the plaintiff was an individual or a bank, landlord or credit card company. This strongly encourages defendants to timely pay claims instead of delay.

But the proposed legislation seeks to create a difference between these two groups of plaintiffs. Under the proposed bill, individual plaintiffs who bring a personal injury case or sue under the state’s consumer credit law would only receive the prime interest rate plus 1%. Currently, that would amount to only 4.25% interest. Meanwhile, banks, landlords and credit card companies would continue earning 12% on judgments in their favor.

Proponents of the bill, including its author, Sen. Rich Zipperer (R-City of Pewaukee), claim that the changes would promote job growth and provide more stability to business. While there can be no dispute that the bill will further tip the scales of justice in favor of corporations, there has been no attempt to explain how this is going to create jobs for Wisconsin taxpayers.

In another attempt to limit consumer protections, Zipperer has also proposed a bill that would provide drug-makers and medical device manufacturers immunity from lawsuits if their products were approved by the FDA. There are many examples of drugs and medical products that have been approved by the FDA (which does no independent testing of its own) which were subsequently determined to be defective and unreasonably dangerous. This legislation would eliminate the ability of people injured by these products to seek compensation in the courts. Again, supporters of the bill do not explain how exactly the bill would create jobs here in Wisconsin.

A final bill seeks to establish a cap on attorney fees paid by an opponent to three times the amount of the compensatory award. The stated goal of this bill is to encourage settlements, but the proposed limitation will stop attorneys from taking certain types of cases entirely, such as those in which there are small economic damages. For example, an attorney that proves a consumer fraud case resulting in a $1,000 loss to a plaintiff can, under current law, receive reasonable attorneys fees from the defendant if he wins his case. Attorneys fees can easily exceed the value of the economic damages in such cases. An attorney would not be able to get paid more than $3,000 in this example, regardless of the amount of stonewalling from the defendant and work necessary to prove the case. The rule would nullify the consumer protection laws in such instances because no attorney is going to be able to economically justify pursuing claims like this and consumers will not pay an attorney more than they are likely to recover in the case, if they can afford an attorney at all. While this bill will certainly enable businesses in Wisconsin to get away with fraud in some cases, there has been no demonstration it will spur job growth in any way.

Taken together, these three pieces of proposed legislation constitute an assault on consumer rights in the state of Wisconsin. If passed, the right of individuals to fairly access the civil justice system and seek recovery for damage done to them will be severely hindered and in some cases eliminated altogether, and all under the pretense of job creation. These bills take away the rights of Wisconsin citizens and offer them nothing in return.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Jacquart

Suit Claims State Farm Covered Up $$ to Justice Who Threw Out $1B Verdict Against it

Paul Jacquart — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:05:29 GMT

In a petition filed last week, a group of lawyers including former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson are seeking to reinstate a $1 billion verdict against State Farm for covering up the full extent of its fundraising on behalf of an Illinois Supreme Court justice who overturned the award.

The petition is based on a six-month investigation conducted by former FBI agent Michael Reece, who now specializes in investigating cases of public corruption.

The insurance giant lied and deliberately misled the court contends the petition. State Farm raised at least $2.5 million up to as much as $4 million in contributions for Justice Lloyd Karmeier during the 2004 campaign.

The class action which dates back to 1997 - in which Karmeier refused to recuse himself - alleged State Farm breached its contract with customers by using non-original parts in vehicles damaged in car accidents. Some State Farm customers were awarded $465 million; while other customers were awarded $730 million.

The Appellate Court let stand a $1.05 billion judgment in 2001. Oral arguments were heard in May 2003. It was six months later that Karmeier ran. He was elected in 2004. State Farm later represented to the Supreme Court it provided $350,000 to Karmeier’s campaign.

An article by the Chicago Tribune says, a spokesman for State Farm, told them the case was resolved years ago, and the plaintiffs’ attempts to have the case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court were not successful.

“The bottom line of the investigation is that State Farm used the Illinois Civil Justice League to elect Judge Karmeier and he knew it,” Reece stated in his affidavit, which accompanied the petition.

Generally speaking, the decision to recuse from a case is up to the judge. But in a 2009 ruling, Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the recusal of a West Virginia Supreme Court justice who was elected with the help of more than $3 million contributions from a coal mining executive.

According to the court, the justice should not have participated in a decision overturning a verdict against the CEO’s company.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Jacquart

NEJM Study Says "Frivolous" Malpractice Claims Not Common

Paul Jacquart — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:53:21 GMT

The debate over so-called “frivolous” medical malpractice litigation is a heated one. Proponents on both sides of the issue are quick to offer their commentary and examples of how our civil justice system is spiraling out of control, on the one hand, or serving the interests of justice on the other. But, it isn’t very often that you come across a comprehensive and methodical approach to really analyzing this problem. That’s why a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine a few years ago is so interesting: because it actually offers data to examine what has become, over the last few years, a hotly contested issue.

While other research has attempted to document the number of patients who actually bring a medical malpractice suit, this study attempts to answer a very different—and much more pointed—question: of the patients who do bring a lawsuit, how many of them are actually frivolous? The researchers sought the participation of 5 malpractice insurance companies spread throughout the United States and examined 1,452 different malpractice claims filed at these different companies. The claims dealt with a range of alleged medical injuries in the areas of obstetrics, surgery, missed or delayed diagnosis, and medication—the areas that account for approximately 80% of all medical malpractice claims in the U.S.

After rigorous review of each individual claim by a team of physicians, fellows and final-year residents, the researchers conducted a statistical analysis of the claims reviewed. Here’s a glance at what that statistical analysis revealed:

Only a small fraction of the claims lacked documented injuries
Approximately 1/3 of the claims did not actually involve medical error; but only 1 in 4 of these claims actually resulted in a payment on the claim.
Claims without evidence of injury or effort accounted for only 13% of total litigation costs
Analysis of the claims not involving error did not square with the notion of opportunistic trial lawyers pursuing questionable lawsuits; rather, the findings underscore how difficult it often is for plaintiffs and attorneys to discern what actually happened before a claim has been filed. That is—the process of filing a claim and litigation brings to light whether an error actually occurred or not.

Ultimately, the researchers came to two general conclusions based on their exhaustive review of the claims:

First, is that the notion that the malpractice system is full of frivolous claims is exaggerated. Of the total amount of money spent on defending malpractice claims, only 13% of that is due to claims where no medical error occurred. That means that the “lion’s share of malpractice costs” are actually spent disputing and paying for errors that did occur.

Second, is that the malpractice system does a reasonably good job of sorting out the meritless claims from the ones that do have merit. In fact, the research found that if the system is flawed, it is flawed against the plaintiffs. One in 6 claims involved errors and yet received no payment, meaning that those patients are shouldering the burden of paying for preventable medical injuries.

While medical malpractice is without a doubt a costly and time-consuming area of litigation, blaming “frivolous” lawsuits is not the answer. The vast majority of the costs involve legitimate claims; figuring out how to make the resolution of those claims more efficient will take us a lot further to reigning in costs than fighting about whether the whole system is flawed.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Jacquart

August Most Deadly Month To Drive

Paul Jacquart — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 08:49:08 GMT

If you plan to head out on vacation this month, taking advantage of some of the last few weeks of summer before kids head back to school and temperatures start to cool down, beware: according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), August is the deadliest month on the road.

In records dating all the way back to 1994, August has consistently been the worst month for fatal car crashes in the United States. In 2009, the number of fatalities reached 2,864. These numbers are backed up by data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which shows that between 2005 and 2009, seven of the 25 deadliest days overall occurred in August. In explaining the numbers, experts point to the fact that there are simply more cars on the road in August than in any other month. People are on vacation and taking trips, visiting family or sightseeing. It is for this same reason—simply more cars on the road—that more accidents occur on weekends than mid-week, with Saturday being the most dangerous travel day and Tuesday the safest.

Statistics collected over the last several decades even allow organizations like NHTSA and the Insurance Institute to pin down the most dangerous hours of the day. According to NHTSA, the riskiest hours are between 6 and 9 pm when more than four people die each hour nationwide.

These statistics are a strong reminder for vacationers in Wisconsin this month to buckle up and stay alert on the roads. As much as possible, plan your travel to avoid those peak times on highways—late afternoon and weekends. And use extra caution when driving on our roadways.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Jacquart

Three Injured in Explosion at NewPage Mill in Biron

Paul Jacquart — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:52:16 GMT

The Wisconsin Rapids Tribune has reported that a coal dust flash fire or explosion occurred at the NewPage paper mill in Biron, Wisconsin. Three workers, one from NewPage, and two from an industrial cleaning company, Hydroblasters, were injured when maintenance work was being performed on a machine used to filter coal dust. The article indicates two of the workers have been released from the hospital, while the third has been flown by helicopter to receive medical care in Madison. We wish them all a speedy recovery. The cause of the fire is under investigation.

Combustible dust, such as coal particles, can be extremely volatile, particularly when airborne. However, precautions can often be taken to minimize the risk of such an event. Safety consultants Chilworth Global have helped us to determine the cause of a flash fire/explosion in a case we are currently handling for an injured client. They specialize in preventing accidents of this kind. Hopefully safety measures can be implemented to ensure that an incident like this never happens again.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Jacquart