Phoenix Personal Injury Attorney Blog | Arizona Car Accidents Lawyer | Scottsdale Brain Injury Law Firm

Arizona ruling makes suits more difficult for malpractice victims

2012-02-07T17:03:06Z

An Arizona woman went through many trials in her fight against cancer. After a cancerous kidney was removed from her body, she began to develop blood clots. After doctor's failed to control the clots, the woman suffered a massive brain hemorrhage and passed away. Since her death, her husband has sued his wife's doctors for medical malpractice. However, a recent Arizona court decision ruled against his claim and made it more difficult for future malpractice plaintiffs to prove their claims.

The ruling from an appeals court judge stated that those accused with medical malpractice only have to prove that something else could have conceivably caused the injury. On the other hand, those bringing charges of malpractice against doctors have greater restrictions on what kind of information can be used to build their case. The defendant, according to the decision, does not have to "prove anything." They just have to combat evidence presented by the plaintiffs.

]]> Thankfully, attorneys representing those bringing claims of malpractice to court still have the ability to weaken the defense's testimony through cross-examination.

Hopefully this ruling does not unnecessarily hinder a person's ability to bring suits against their medical providers in cases of negligence. Medical errors can prove to be life-altering, even deadly. Victims of medical malpractice and their families endure a lot of pain and hardship as a result of mistakes. Patients place a lot of trust in their doctor's abilities, and that trust should never be broken.

The long-term implications of this ruling are, of course, indefinite, but this ruling certainly marks a big victory for doctors and medical providers. When in court for medical malpractice charges, lawyers for Arizona doctors will now be able to make their case more easily. This ruling highlights the importance of having solid legal representation when you're bringing claims of malpractice to court.

Source: Arizona Business Gazette, "Ruling aids defendants in malpractice suits," Howard Fischer, Feb. 2, 2012

Real estate broker dies in I-10 truck accident

2012-02-04T17:07:27Z

A 59-year-old real estate broker was killed in a serious truck accident on Interstate 10 recently. The accident happened near Picaho Peak when a semi-truck crossed the highway and hit the broker's vehicle. The broker's wife was also in the car at the time of this horrifying accident. She was hospitalized in Tucson at the University of Arizona Medical Center. The severity of her personal injuries is unknown and it is unclear whether she will suffer permanent disabilities or scarring from her injuries.

Truck accidents are a serious issue in Arizona and frequently result in the wrongful death of a car driver or pedestrian. Trucks weigh significantly more than passenger vehicles and often contain dangerous cargo which can heighten the severity of an accident.

]]> In this case, the truck accident injured several individuals. The real estate broker was killed, his wife was injured, and the truck driver was injured as well. A fourth injury was caused when the truck hit a second car. The severity of that individual's injuries is unclear. It is unknown why the truck driver lost control of his truck, but weather is not believed to have been a contributing factor in this crash. There are also no reports as to whether the truck driver has a history of similar crashes.

The family and colleagues of the deceased real estate broker are still mourning his loss.

"He was easy to get along with and a great guy," said the president of a real estate brokers' association. "He was always willing to help. He will be missed."

The broker was based in Rapid City but was in Arizona for a training conference.

Source: Rapid City Journal, "Local Realtor killed in Arizona crash," Andrea Cook, Jan. 24, 2012

Hit-and-run offender attempts to get out of accident consequences

2012-02-02T23:13:26Z

An Arizona man was victorious in his effort to get a state appellate court judge to overturn part of his 2010 consequences from a fatal motorcycle accident, as his $10,000 restitution order was vacated. He failed, however, to get his felony conviction and four-year prison sentence overturned. The 76-year-old man had executed a left turn directly in front of a motorcyclist in December of 2009.

Criminal defense attorneys for the defendant argued several points of law, including possible violations during the police witness cross-examination and limitations of expert defense witness testimony. At the time of the incident the man left the motorcycle accident scene, did not have liability insurance, and police later found him in the midst of trying to dismantle the blue truck he had been driving.

]]> Defense lawyers claimed violation of his Fourth Amendment rights during the search of the man's property by detectives during the first bench trial. In the appeal, his attorneys argued restriction of cross-examination of police witnesses, limiting defense expert witness testimony, and a denial of a motion to change judges.

This unfortunate accident left one man dead. Motorcycle accidents are all too common, sometimes due to lack of attention by drivers or failure to see the motorcyclists. Personal injury attorneys handle many such cases in the state of Arizona, where good weather encourages enjoyment of the highways by motorcycling enthusiasts.

If you have been involved in an accident caused by another's negligent driving, be sure to contact an experienced personal injury attorney immediately to protect your rights and promote safety on the roads.

Source

Mohave Daily News: "Court upholds conviction in fatal motorcycle crash," Jim Seckler, Feb. 2, 2012

Should anti-texting law spread statewide in Arizona?

2012-02-01T16:17:34Z

Currently, there are laws against distracted driving in Arizona, but they are specific to certain cities. For example, Phoenix banned texting while driving a few years ago. And now, safe driving advocates are pushing for the safety effort to spread through all of Arizona.

The likelihood that a car accident will occur when someone is distracted by their cellphone is significantly high, high enough that the danger is often compared to the dangers of drunk driving. That is why many other states have already set laws against texting while driving. Arizona could be number 36.

]]> According to reports, the House Transportation Committee will support a bill that looks to enact a statewide ban against texting while driving. Supporters of the measure argue that the law would simply but importantly be putting the community's safety first rather than prioritizing some people's fear that anti-texting laws are "nanny state" laws.

If passed, HB 2512 would allow law enforcement to fine a driver $50 for texting while driving. If a texting driver caused a distracted driving accident, then he would be fined $200. The bill's backers are hoping that the threat of financial repercussions will move drivers to act more responsibly behind the wheel and put their phones down.

Challengers of anti-texting bans suggest that the laws are too difficult to enforce. How can an officer always prove that a person was texting versus simply dialing a number or turning his phone off? There are gray areas that could make for misunderstandings and fines that people might not deserve.

What do you think about Arizona adopting a complete anti-texting ban? Would it make you feel safer?

Source

KTAR: "Texting while driving ban: Arizona steps closer to law already in 35 states," Sara Smith, Jan. 27, 2012

Crash trends at Tempe intersections raise red light camera debate

2012-01-25T20:14:23Z

We have discussed red light cameras on this personal injury blog in the past. They stir up controversy not only among Arizona drivers but among drivers throughout the country. The questions persist. Do red light cameras actually reduce accidents and make the roads safer? Are red light cameras more so a way for law enforcement to make money off of the driving public?

A further controversy surrounding the cameras occurred in Tempe, when the camera company alleged that the city failed to live up to its end of the contract with them. That business dispute helped inspire Tempe to cancel its use of the cameras at its intersections. A recent Arizona Republic report has studied the rate of Tempe car accidents at the intersections to try to verify whether the cameras helped the public.

]]> The cameras had previously been in use at seven intersections throughout Tempe. Researchers looked at the number of crashes that occurred during four months while the cameras were in use at the intersections. Those numbers were then compared to the number of accidents that occurred within four months while the cameras were turned off.

Based on reader reviews of the article, it looks like the public is having a hard time deciding whether the data suggests that cameras are helpful to traffic safety or not. The research shows that at five of the intersections, the number of accidents decreased while the cameras were turned off. But those decreases were reportedly outweighed by crash increases at two other intersections.

The two intersections where more car accidents took place are located near Arizona State University. That point has some critics of the red light cameras arguing that of course accident rates would increase there, especially if the school year were in progress. Overall, the public needs more information to either trust in the use of cameras or fight against the use.

What do you think about red light cameras? Do you even know where they are and if they are working? At the intersections in Tempe, for example, the cameras are not yet gone; they are turned off. Perhaps drivers still believed that the cameras were in use and, therefore, drove differently. Please feel free to share your insight.

Source

The Arizona Republic: "Tempe crashes rise after cameras removed," Laurie Merrill, Jan. 19, 2012

Injured motorcyclist collects $7.5M for damaged penis

2012-01-19T16:48:15Z

A jury in an out-of-state personal injury case handed a verdict of $7.5 million dollars to a motorcyclist whose penis was crushed and permanently shortened in a motorcycle accident with a shuttle van. The plaintiff is a former Navy officer who was 23 years old at the time of the crash. The shuttle van belonged to an automotive shop. The driver of the van, who had never been trained as a professional driver, had an expired driver's license.

The injured man was riding to work more than four years ago when the van turned left in front of him. The van's driver had failed to check oncoming traffic before he turned. When the motorcyclist struck the van, his pubic rambus bone was fractured against the motorcycle frame, and his penis was crushed. He also suffered nerve and artery damage.

]]> Surgeons were able to reconstruct the man's penis, but he lost 1-1/2 inches in length. At the time of the crash, the injured man was recently married. He is now divorced. According to his personal injury lawyer, he may not be able to have children and his relationships and self-esteem will suffer.

The accident illustrates the need for drivers of cars, vans and trucks to be on the lookout for motorcycles. Two-wheeled vehicles can disappear in a driver's blind spot. They can be hard to see in rainy weather or through glare on a windshield. When a two-wheeler collides with a four-wheeler in a motorcycle accident, the driver of the two-wheeler virtually always loses.

A representative for the automotive company that owned the van refused to comment on the trial except to say that the company plans to appeal the verdict.

Source

UTSanDiego.com: "Jury awards man with penis injury $7.5 million," Greg Moran, Jan. 13, 2012

Arizona cracks down on red light accidents

2012-01-14T20:16:22Z

Traffic lights are installed to control traffic but also to help keep roads safe and protect both motorists and pedestrians from accidents. Still, the lights alone are not always enough to prevent car accidents. At many problem intersections in Phoenix there are also cameras located near the red lights to help identify who is running red lights and putting themselves and others at risk for car accidents.

Phoenix police report that red light accidents can be some of the worst because those who run red lights actually accelerate when they are going through a light in an attempt to get through the light as quickly as possible. When they do hit another car or pedestrian the impact is that much worse. A suspected red light accident happened just this Wednesday in Phoenix.

]]> While installing cameras has faced some controversy, safety officials believe that cameras at troublesome intersections do help. They help determine who has run the red light, and, therefore, make it easy to identify the drivers responsible for serious and fatal accidents. This allows for more clear cut traffic citations and personal injury cases. If you are trying to recover from injuries caused by someone running a red light, the cameras can be your friend.

Red light cameras are only one way of attempting to reduce car accidents and hold drivers accountable for recklessness. Increased signs and pavement markings have also been suggested as ways to help assure that people stop at red lights. But perhaps the safest bet is for drivers to increase their focus on the roads in general.

Source

Myfoxphoenix.com: "Police Emphasize Risks of Running Red Lights," Jan. 11, 2012

Anniversary of shooting highlights impact of brain injuries

2012-01-12T15:54:36Z

It's already been about a year since the gunfire attack at an Arizona supermarket, where Representative Gabrielle Giffords sustained a serious injury that has drawn the attention and worry of the entire nation. She sustained a brain injury in the attack that took others' lives.

While she is fortunate to have lived through the terrible Tucson incident, there's no doubt that she and others who sustain brain injuries often return home to live quite different lives. Brain injuries are more than simply physical damage. They alter a person's character and interests. The New York Times reports on the impact that a brain injury can have on families.

]]> Giffords and her astronaut husband remain married. We do not know precisely how her brain injury has affected their marriage. They keep such information quite private. But it is easy to see how a relationship could be tried when one spouse suffers from a serious brain injury. What if the couple no longer shares the same interests, passions or memories?

The New York Times doesn't report that there is a higher rate of divorce among couples wherein a spouse has sustained brain damage. Many couples will stay together to honor their vows. Some might stick an otherwise unhappy marriage out because one feels that they can't leave their loved one due to guilt. Maybe the injured spouse needs the care of their spouse following an injury.

This is a relevant matter to bring up on this personal injury blog because the severity and widespread impact that a catastrophic accident can cause a victim and her family shouldn't be underestimated. Sure, an accident means medical bills and physical pain. But it can also mean emotional stress and a completely altered future.

Source

The New York Times: "When Injuries to the Brain Tear at Hearts," Sarah Wheaton, Jan. 9, 2012

Another Arizona motorcyclist lost to careless turn

2012-01-07T18:51:19Z

The responsibility that we take on as drivers is too easily forgotten. People's lives beyond our own are put at risk when traffic laws are ignored. While all sorts of drivers and passengers face the potential of injury or death in the wake of an accident, there are definitely some drivers who face a higher risk when hit by a car: motorcyclists.

Arizona roads are not strangers to deadly motorcycle accidents. And a recent fatal accident in Glendale adds to the list of riders' lives taken by a car driver who supposedly was not paying close enough attention to the road and its rules. The Arizona Republic reports that the deadly crash occurred on Tuesday; the victim died as a result of his injuries on Wednesday.

]]> News reports tend to always mention when a motorcyclist wasn't wearing a helmet, and in this incident, the accident victim reportedly was not wearing a helmet. But that fact shouldn't shift the focus of fault to the victim. Sources suggest that it was negligent driving that caused the collision.

Not wearing a helmet doesn't cause an accident. Bad driving causes accidents in Arizona and throughout the country every day. And lots of drivers just don't recognize how important it is to drive especially cautiously around motorcycles. Sometimes it seems as though drivers completely forget that motorcyclists exist and that they have every right to drive safely on the roads as anyone else.

The accident happened on Tuesday, when a driver of a car attempted to turn in front of the oncoming motorcycle. The motorcyclist couldn't stop in time to avoid the car and hit its side. The impact was serious, taking the life of the rider.

Sources don't yet report whether the car driver will face any charges as a result of the accident. Such action wouldn't occur until a thorough investigation has been concluded.

Source

The Arizona Republic: "Glendale man dies in motorcycle crash," Liz Kotalik, Jan. 5, 2012

Will reduced sentencing for DUI offenders create more accidents?

2012-01-03T02:21:32Z

It's the New Year, and that means different things to different folks. For many, it means tackling their 2012 resolutions. But all drivers may be affected by a more serious change that 2012 has ushered into Arizona.

The state is known for its relatively harsh drunk driving laws. Even first-time DUI offenders face quite strict sentencing. Part of that sentencing has been that first-time offenders' driving freedoms are limited. Up until the first of this new year, the offenders were required to use ignition interlock devices in their vehicles for a year after their conviction. That rule is no more, and some traffic safety advocates question whether this change will lead to more drunk driving accidents in Arizona.

]]> Senator Linda Gray fought against the strict DUI first offense sentencing, arguing that the offenders didn't need an entire year to learn from their one-time mistakes. An ignition interlock device works like this. A driver has to blow into the device before he can start his car. The car will only start if no alcohol is detected on the driver's breath.

As you can likely understand, this process could damage a person's sense of pride. But the ignition interlock device costs more than a person's pride; it costs them money, too. It's the DUI offender who has to pay to get the device installed in his car, as well as to have the device maintained on a monthly basis.

The change in first-time DUI sentencing took effect as of Jan. 1. It means that first offenders will have to use the ignition interlock devices for the shorter period of time of six months. Critics of the sentencing change, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, worry that lessening the required use of the devices will mean that more first offenders will offend again and, therefore, cause drunk driving accidents.

These challengers are sure to follow traffic safety and accident trends. If they see a rise in DUI fatalities, don't be surprised to see them attempt to change the sentencing back to its stricter version.

Source

My Fox Phoenix: "DUI Interlock Requirement Change Begins Jan 1," Dec. 26, 2011

Brain injury victim from Phoenix in midst of unexpected recovery

2011-12-29T02:39:36Z

A few months ago, a young man was simply an Arizona State University student with a bright future ahead of him. The 21-year-old was involved in a multi-vehicle car accident in Tucson in October, and since then, his family and friends have lived with the possible reality that the young man wouldn't pull through his injuries.

He sustained a serious brain injury as a result of the accident and was taken to a Phoenix hospital to get the specialized treatment that he needed. He was in a coma, but his health suddenly picked up in late October, and his family was able to enjoy this holiday with their son. He recovered just in time, according to reports.

]]> The Washington Post indicates that the hospital staff had begun considering taking the young brain injury victim off of life support before he pulled through. He had undergone surgery, and when doctors saw that he wasn't showing the responsiveness they'd hope for, the talk of ending life support and donating his organs started.

Thankfully, the young man was given another chance before any drastic measures were taken. He responded to a request to hold up his fingers, and from that point on, the prognosis of the brain injury victim's condition grew more positive. His family is extremely thankful that they were able to spend the past holiday with the young man, with him even speaking and walking again.

Of course, the victim, his family and medical professionals are hoping for a full recovery, but there is a long road ahead toward that possibility. The report doesn't discuss much about the details of the accident and its cause, but this story highlights the truth of the seriousness and great costs behind sustaining a brain injury.

Whether this family has pursued any civil action as a result of the crash is undisclosed. But victims in this situation who believe an injury was caused by a negligent driver could have reason to sue and seek damages that would go toward medical bills and more.

Source

The Washington Post: "Coma patient wakes up, speaks after nearly being taken off life support following crash," Dec. 23, 2011

Lack of autopsies could mask hospital errors

2011-12-22T18:43:57Z

If one watches medical dramas on television they might assume that autopsies are commonplace in hospitals, especially when the cause of death isn't obvious. This was true several decades ago when hospitals went as far as to require a minimum number of autopsies be performed in order for the hospital to retain their accreditation, but without the requirement autopsies are increasingly rare, and are often only ordered when "foul play" is suspected.

In one recent case there was a woman who died suddenly after collapsing at home. The cause of death was undetermined, but due to her special connections as a cancer researcher an autopsy was performed free of charge as a favor to her husband. She had received a recent cancer diagnosis herself, but medical professionals missed the fact that the cancer had spread into many other areas as well. The hospital error contributed to a blood clot which was finally determined as the cause of death.

]]> When autopsies were more commonplace they served as a medical audit, and many suspect that finding hospital errors had a lot to do with why the requirement was lifted in order to prevent medical malpractice suits. Even with advanced equipment, diagnostic errors do occur, and autopsies can provide answers that are missed through CAT scans and MRIs. Knowing the true cause of death can also allow the family of the deceased some peace of mind as they obtain closure after the loss of their loved one. There may even be ailments discovered that will allow those same family members to take needed precautions with their own health.

And of course, a little accountability can be a good thing too. If there are too many questions after a death, looking into an autopsy may be worth it, as evidence of medical malpractice may be found and getting definitive answers to questions can often prevent errors from getting out of control.

Source

ProPublica: "Without Autopsies, Hospitals Bury Their Mistakes," Marshall Allen, Dec. 15, 2011

Fatigued driving is as dangerous as drunk driving

2011-12-17T23:35:50Z

When it comes to driving safety the biggest concern on how to prevent a car accident is not to drive under the influence, but there is one "influence" that drivers need more of, and more attention needs to be paid when it comes to dishing out consequences. When drivers don't have enough sleep, their risk of a car accident rises to levels similar to those who drive under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. The problem is that sleep impairment is much more difficult to determine than other types of impairment even though it can often be just as deadly.

One recent Arizona accident between a semi-truck and a pickup truck involved fatigue as the cause. And in 2010, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that two in five drivers admit to falling asleep while driving. Some even argue that it can be worse than drunk driving because sleeping drivers are less likely to be able to react to potential crash situations by steering away or applying the brakes.

]]> Since the exact level of sleep deprivation and its effect on driving is so difficult to determine it is up to all of us to make smart decisions. It is also important to call out friends and family who may be too sleepy to handle the drive home. When it comes to longer trips, experts recommend at least six hours of sleep before heading out, and taking a break at least every two hours.

Fatigue and sleepiness is something we all face from time to time, but just because it's something we can relate to doesn't mean that those who cause car accidents because of excessive fatigue behind the wheel shouldn't be held responsible. One day, there may be a "sobriety" test that determines whether we've had the necessary amount of sleep to drive safely, until then it's up to us to stay alert on the road and hold others to the same standard.

Source

Eastern Arizona Courier: "Drowsy driving leads to crash," Jon Johnson, Dec. 12, 2011

Technology's dangerous distraction spreads into medical field

2011-12-16T18:05:55Z

We have discussed distracted driving on this personal injury blog in the past. It's a dangerous trend that takes the lives of unsuspecting drivers and pedestrians all too often. Distracted driving, in fact, has gotten a lot of attention this week due to a federal recommendation that all states should ban cell phone use behind the wheel.

But perhaps we've been naïve to believe that the risk of technology-driven distractions wouldn't spread beyond traffic safety. A New York Times piece that came out this week suggests that we now have something new to fear: "distracted doctoring." There's been at least one case of a patient filing a medical malpractice lawsuit against a doctor who was distracted by his phone during surgery.

]]> The plaintiff in the medical malpractice case and the hospital where he was treated settled the suit out of court. The negligence claim reports that the doctor had made several personal phone calls while performing a surgery, and the patient wound up paralyzed as a result of the procedure and likely distraction.

Sources report that technological devices are a common part of many medical professionals' routines. Some medical students are even given iPads while in school. And the purpose of the technology comes from a positive place. Medical-related or patient-related tasks can be done more efficiently and safely on a computer. Certain technological systems have created safer medical experiences for patients in many ways.

But it is not a safer medical experience when doctors, nurses or technicians are using their phones or other devices for reasons that take their attention away from a medical matter at-hand. According to research, more than half of a group of technicians responsible for bypass machines admit to talking on their cell phones during a procedure.

This is a matter that will likely show up in the headlines consistently, just as distracted driving has become a central safety concern throughout the country. If there are any related developments, we will post an update.

Source

The New York Times: "As Doctors Use More Devices, Potential for Distraction Grows," Matt Richtel, Dec. 14, 2011

Even a mild brain injury can put kids off-track after an accident

2011-12-12T20:07:47Z

Researchers recently published a report of their findings related to kids' injuries and headaches. They looked at kids who went to the hospital and were classified to have suffered from bodily injuries, mild brain injuries and severe brain injuries. The researchers from Seattle Children's Research Institute tracked a group of more than 400 kids and compared the injuries they sustained to the rate of headaches that each child reported a year after their injuries.

The results of the study are a bit surprising. On one hand, it is not surprising that kids who sustained head injuries were more likely to complain about headaches than kids who sustained other bodily injuries. Where the intrigue increases is in the fact that kids who suffered from mild brain injuries were more likely to report headaches than kids who sustained serious, traumatic brain injuries.

]]> According to the research, about 43 percent of kids with mild brain injuries reported headaches in their journals. Of those with more severe head injuries, 37 percent reported headaches in the year after the accident. Why is this data important to know?

It is too easy for people who don't suffer from headaches to underestimate the effect that they can have on a person's everyday life. Taking Tylenol doesn't always do the trick, and kids' headaches can keep them up at night and make it difficult for them to concentrate and keep up in school. The pain can negatively impact the fun that all kids should be able to enjoy.

With regards to personal injury cases involving brain injuries, this research goes to show how worthwhile it can be to sue someone if his or her carelessness resulted in even a mild brain injury. Traumatic brain injury victims are not alone in needing support to treat the medical and emotional aftermath of an accident. Even those who sustain mild concussions in car accidents could have months of headaches and costly healing ahead of him.

Source

Reuters: "Headaches common in kids months after brain injury," Kerry Grens, Dec. 7, 2011