Milwaukee Personal Injury Lawyer - Miscellaneous

Excessive Litigation A Myth According to Law School Study

David Lowe — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 08:40:23 GMT

A University of Wisconsin Law School study debunks excessive litigation myths about increasing litigation in Wisconsin. Professor Marc Galanter and former Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Steingass's study refutes the drumbeat from Wisconsin's business lobby, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, that there are too many lawyers filing too many lawsuits.

The authors began their study in response to a call from one state legislator to eliminate funding to University of Wisconsin Law School, one of two law schools in Wisconsin. The study documents that over the period from 1996 to 2007, Wisconsin has experienced a declining volume of lawsuits, and the State has fewer lawyers per capita than the majority of states.

The statistics from this study will provide important evidence as Wisconsin's legislature considers measures to roll back anti-consumer laws enacted by the Republican controlled legislature.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

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

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

Tainted Heparin Deaths: Investigators Are Closing In On The Explanations

David Lowe — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:22:34 GMT

Update on the tainted heparin investigation:

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel website has posted a report that gives an explanation for how the tainted heparin caused injury and deaths, and how it evaded detection:

Baxter International Inc.'s blood thinner heparin killed patients because a hard-to-detect contaminant produced toxins and triggered dangerously low blood pressure, researchers said. Two new reports show how the contaminant evaded detection with current screening approaches and caused a chemical cascade that ultimately led to the death of 81 patients. The contamination occurred within heparin's long and complex chains of sugars, a defect that wouldn't be found with tests that look for proteins, fats and genetic traces of outside substances. The raw ingredient for Baxter International's recalled heparin came from Waunakee-based Scientific Protein Laboratories, which in turn owns a Chinese factory - Changzhou SPL - and buys additional raw heparin from other Chinese suppliers.

United States health officials have identified oversulfated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS) as the likely chemical culprit. Two scientific papers offer theories on the mechanism of the toxic changes. The FDA head has offered his speculation that the contaminated heparin was produced by economic fraud.

Meanwhile, it has been reported that the tainted Heparin reached 11 countries.

Despite Heparin manufacturer Baxter's CEO's declaration that not many heparin lawsuits are expected, these product liability cases would appear to have great merit. This is not an instance of a drug acting as expected, with certain known risks. This is a case of flaws in the manufacturing process. A drug that is released on the public with hidden dangers like this is defective and unreasonably dangerous. We'll be following this story.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

Tree Stand Manufacturer Settles Suit By CPSC

David Lowe — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:47:38 GMT

Ardisam, Inc. of Cumberland, Wisconsin is paying $420,000 to settle a suit by the Consumer Product Safety Commission alleging that it failed to report personal injuries suffered by hunters using its tree stands when the stands unexpectedly detached from trees.

Even though the company allegedly became aware of at least nine injury incident reports as early as 2000, the company did not report the matter to the CSPC until July, 2004 when it recalled the tree stands, which were marketed under the names "Big Foot" and "Lite Foot". Under federal law, manufacturers, distributors and retailers are required to immediately report to the CPSC information about products that could create a substantial risk of injury or that create an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. In making the settlement, the company did not admit that it violated the law in this case.

Certainly, a $420,000 payment to the government is no small matter. But it is a modest hit for a company that manufactured 78,000 of these products at prices ranging beween $60 and $120. When a manufacturer learns that people are becoming injured from use of its product and knowingly fails to take action to remove the product from the market, punitive damages would serve as a far more convincing deterrent. There is no substitute for a civil justice system that can deliver powerful sanctions against corporate wrongdoing.

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

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

Problems Persist For Brain Injury Victim

David Lowe — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 07:07:45 GMT

Brain injury can result in physical limitations, such as quadraplegia or paraplegia, as well as mental limitations, such as loss of memory and other cognitive functions. An interesting and tragic account of one man's traumatic brain injury appears in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Elliot Lubar, a well known executive of a social services agency that provides counseling services to children and their families, was injured while attending a Green Bay Packers game in November, 2004 when bowled over by a man running after another who had stolen his hat. Lubar was thrown to the ground, striking his head. While a lawsuit brought him some compensation, he suffered the loss of his job, the end of his 40 year marriage, and a long and continuing struggle to adjust to the permanent loss of some of his mental functions. His story is well worth reading for brain injury victims and their families.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Head and Brain Injury.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

Liability Insurance Hard to Find After Dog Attack

David Lowe — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 06:55:39 GMT

A column in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel by Jim Stingl describes a dog owner's problem obtaining liability insurance following an incident in which her dog ran out of the yard and bit a neighbor. Because Wisconsin has a statute (174.02, Wis.Stats) that awards double damages to a victim of a dog that has bitten before, most liability insurers will refuse to insure a homeowner who does not get rid of the dog, and apparently some require evidence that the dog has been put down before accepting the business.

Dog attack settlements can be large, especially for children who sustain facial scars and emotional trauma. With the prospect of double damages for victims of dog attacks where the dog has bitten before, it is not surprising that the insurers would refuse the risk. Dogs are often unpredictable and when unleashed they are usually uncontrollable--exactly the kind of risks insurers avoid.

One can sympathize with pet owners faced with this predicament, but it does promote safe practices by dog owners, from leashing their dogs to selecting less violent breeds. Owners are also more likely to carry higher insurance limits, which operates to protect victims from going uncompensated. And where the dog has demonstrated vicious behavior, the prospect of losing liability coverage will encourage owners to consider euthanizing the animal.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

Insurance Companies Accused of Fraud in Katrina Claims

Paul Jacquart — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:57:17 GMT

The Associated Press has reported that the U.S. Department of Justice is contemplating intervening in a New Orleans lawsuit accusing several major insurance companies of fraud for paying off engineers in order to falsify claims. The "whistleblower" suit filed in the name of two sisters who worked for a company that contracted with State Farm, names State Farm, Nationwide Insurance Co., Allstate Insurance Co., USAA Insurance Co., and several engineering firms that contracted with the companies as defendants.

The suit accuses insurance companies of pressuring engineers to falsify reports so storm damage could be blamed on floodwater instead of wind, which would shift the financial burden to the National Flood Insurance Program. The companies say their homeowner policies cover damage from wind but not rising water.

In other words, the suit alleges that the insurance companies paid engineers to say that the property damage that was done was not covered by their policies, passing the buck to the already strapped federal government and U.S. taxpayers. The Justice Department's interest lends credibility to the suit's claims. This seems to me to be a situation warranting punitive damages for insurance bad faith and fraud. If proven, this sort of conduct needs to be appropriately punished and the only way to punish a large corporation, such as the insurance carriers involved, is to hit them in their bottom lines.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Jacquart

Collapsed I-35W Bridge Had History of Problems

Paul Jacquart — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:14:30 GMT

While various government spokespersons have taken to the airwaves to calm the nerves of American drivers after the tragic collapse of the I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis, the media are already examining bridge inspection and maintenance records bearing upon whether officials knew or should have known that the bridge was in poor condition, with one early report making some rather unsettling observations:

The I-35W bridge was given a low "sufficiency rating," which varies from the best score of 100 down to 0. Its score was only 50. A score below 80 indicates that some rehabilitation may be needed, while a score of 50 or less shows that replacement may be in order. This measure includes safety elements (such as structural integrity), but also factors in elements such as the bridge's size for its current traffic. Nationwide, few high-traffic bridges rated below below the Minneapolis bridge. Out of 104,348 heavily used structures, only 4,227, or 4 percent, scored below 50, or worse than the I-35W bridge.

It is unclear at this time whether the collapse of the bridge was forseeable, but the warning signs certainly seem to have been in place to alert officials of the potential for disaster. I am not familiar with the law in Minnesota, but in most states, like Wisconsin, accountability of the government to victims of such tragedies is often limited by discretionary immunity, damage caps, and notice deadlines. These legal protections are a trade off - they protect the taxpayer from footing the bill for government errors - but they leave the victims emptyhanded or nearly so. In a case like this though, one wonders whether the trade-off is an acceptable one.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Jacquart

That's Not My Mortgage!

Paul Jacquart — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:33:57 GMT

The Washington Post reports that a man in Arlington County Virginia was surprised to receive notice that he had overpaid his second mortgage http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20044213/ because . . . he did not have a second mortgage. It turns out that a thief had stolen his wallet a year earlier and had used his identity to buy a $419,000 house with no money down! Fortunately, this identity thief had something of a conscience and had been making regular payments on the loan so the identity theft victim did not have irreperable damage done to his credit; little consolation in light of the circumstances.

While identity theft is routinely linked to empty bank accounts and maxed out credit cards, this is the first I've heard of it resulting in a home purchase. The thief in question will surely serve time for the crime committed, but the theft itself was so audacious that it should have been caught by the lender. While perhaps there are facts that have yet to be revealed about how this could have happened, Its occurence is symptomatic of the overeager "predatory" lending environment that currently exists. Had the lender taken the simplest of steps to verify the identity of the applicant, this situation could have been averted before the damage was done and the identity thief moved into her new home.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Jacquart