Orlando Personal Injury Lawyer - Negligence

Officials Find "Total Collapse" of Care at Local Assisted Living Facility

Sandy Grinnell — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:21:15 GMT

According to the Orlando Sentinel, after seven complaints, officials from the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration inspected an Emeritus Properties' assisted living facility called Emeritius at Crossing Pointe. As a result of the inspection, they placed an immediate stop to any and all new admissions at this facility.

Inspectors found dozens of violations over a two week period and reported conditions such as:

A patient who died of heart failure after staff members failed for four days to give her the heart medicine she had been prescribed.

Another patient who was given a blood thinner — a medicine she had not been prescribed — that made her so sick, she went to the hospital for an emergency blood transfusion.

An employee who had falsified medication and nurse's orders.

Three Alzheimer's patients with toenails so long they curled around their toes.

Managers who, over several days, could not give an accurate resident count. One day, they were off by more than 30 people.

Emeritus owns four other facilities in Orange County and have fully complied with the Agency's requests, submitting a corrective action plan in writing to address the current problems as well as preventative measures so these conditions will not occur in the future.

It is because of horror stories like these that it is imperative that caregivers fully inspect facilities prior to placing their loved ones in a facility, make unannounced visits, and visit often. Do not let this happen to your loved one!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Sandy Grinnell

"Go Ahead And Hurt My Kid" Law Progresses

Ed Normand — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:41:04 GMT

Incredibly the Florida Legislature is proceeding with a bill to allow negligent corporations to escape all liability for injuries or death that they cause to children even from negligence. At issue are waivers the certain corporations make parents sign before they let a child engage in an activity. Under current laws the waivers are valid only for injuries caused by inherent risks in an activity. The version of the law proposed in the Florida House would permit waivers to cover not only inherent risks but would also provide a shield for liability for negligent acts. The Florida Senate version would shield for liability for inherent risks but not for negligence.

The alleged point of a waiver is to protect businesses from liability for injuries caused by the inherent risk of the activities. For activities such as horseback riding a waiver makes sense as some injuries will happen even when an activity is performed with properly trained and equipped personnel. If, for example, a horse gets spooked on a trail ride and a rider falls off there is no problem in protecting the stable from liability if they had proper equipment. That is the law in Florida now and it works well. Some businesses, however, are not satisfied with that and instead want a law that gives them blanket protection from liability for actual negligence. They want a law that would shield them from liability for all injuries even ones they could have prevented merely by using reasonable care.

The current law and the law proposed by the Senate that allows waivers for inherent risks makes sense. Under this law a parent and child can evaluate a known risk of the normal activity and, therefore, they cannot sue for suffering an injury caused by the exact danger that made the activity risky in the first place. But a waiver that excuses negligence will allow businesses to avoid all safety measures and standards of care and yet still be free from liability. Children only assume risks that are obvious in the activity, but they should not have to assume risks caused by negligence.

Lets explore a water ski injury as an example. If a parent signs a waiver and allows their child to water ski and the child is hurt from falling on the ski during normal operation there is no liability. The waiver is valid under the current law and the Senate bill. Under the proposed law the waiver goes much further. For instance, if a company hires a pedophile and never bothers with a background check and the child is sexually molested and killed when out on the boat the company gets off completely with no liability at all. If the boat driver is drinking or using drugs on the job and hurts a child, even if the company knows about the drug and alcohol use but does nothing about it, the company also has no liability under the proposed House version of the law.

The corporations argue that the parents do not have to sign the waivers, but in reality, these are "take it or leave it" waivers. Either you sign it and participate in the activity, or you don’t; it leaves no room for bargaining. Further there is no requirement that the corporation provide any information to parents about the safety of the activity before they must sign the waiver. Thus a company could conceal all injuries and deaths from the parents and hide the real facts about the safety of the activity when getting the waiver signed. Many tourists to Florida are from out of state or out of the country and it is highly unlikely they will understand that the waiver lets a company be completely careless with the safety of their child, lets them hide any knowledge of other injuries from the activity and gives them blanket protection from liability for all injuries and deaths even when caused by negligence . Most parents would interpret the form to be only a standardized form absolving the company from liability only for inherent risks of the activity.

Companies argue that the waivers protect them from incurring substantial legal fees. That is true but what they conveniently ignore is that they are just pushing the costs onto society (we the taxpayers or private health insurance). We want laws that make a company pay the cost for hurting an innocent child when they are negligent for ignoring all reasonable safety standards. Sadly, unscrupulous companies can and will use the law to cut corners because there is absolutely no reason not to. They can avoid all liability for just the cost of a piece of paper and ink that makes up a waiver, which is much cheaper than providing safe equipment or trained employees. Further, the law not only shields the companies from liability it also shields their insurance company from owing anything. As we all know, there are no free rides. Someone must pay for the medical care caused by the injury and the costs will be spread to the rest of us, not the at fault negligent party. Instead of the negligent company or its liability insurer owing the money it will be the government through medicaid or private health insurance or the hospital that pays . A law that provides for a negligent party to pay for medical bills caused by its negligence provides an incentive for safety and an incentive to get insurance instead of leaving the rest of us to pay for the damage they cause.

Under the House version of the proposed bill, however, it will end up with the taxpayers, private health insurance or hospitals footing the bills for negligent conduct. The House bill will give a cost advantage to unsafe companies who will not buy insurance or who will not pay for safety measures. Why would a lawmaker in the State of Florida want a law that gives carte blanche to ignore all safety measures and yet escape accountability for dangerous conduct? Why would they want a law that shifts the cost of ignoring safety from a negligent party to private health insurance or to the State and our hospitals? Obviously certain lawmakers are getting promises of contributions for campaigns from the lobbyists and are, shamefully, putting the money above the safety of our kids. If any of you lawmakers who support the bill are listening please use this forum to tell us why you would want such a dangerous law (other than helping you get campaign money) and how it will make for a better world for our children.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Should Businesses Have A Get Out Of Jail Free Card For Child Injuries?

Ed Normand — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:36:30 GMT

For many years businesses have required parents to sign forms before a child can participate in an activity. Usually the form-called a pre-injury release--is filled with legalese and the parents will not know what it is they signed until the child is hurt or dies. Then they realize that the form purports to release the business from all liability for death or injury to the child even when the injury results from the negligent or reckless conduct of the business. Further, the release works to free the insurance company for the business from any liability even though a premium was paid for liability insurance to protect and compensate the injured child in this very situation. Finally, the release is used to protect the business even when only one parent signs the release, and even when signed without the knowledge of or over the objection of the other parent.

Recently the Florida Supreme Court was asked to decide if a pre-injury release is valid to allow a business to escape all liability for its alleged negligent conduct that resulted in the death of a minor. The Court held that pre-injury releases are not valid as to minors involved in commercial activities. The Court astutely concluded that there is "injustice" to deny a child a right to legal accountability when the child is injured by the negligence of a commercial business just because one parent signed all rights away. It noted that pre-injury releases take away all incentive for businesses to use safety precautions. After all if a company can get out of responsibility by just having a parent sign a piece of paper that is a lot cheaper than training its employees or making sure the product or activity is safe to begin with. The Court carefully noted that the decision did not apply to non-commercial interests such as church or community groups, or school events.

Florida businesses, including the big theme parks, are lobbying hard right now to get the Florida Legislature to overrule the Supreme Court. They want a law that says one parent can sign away all rights of a child to recover from commercial for profit businesses even when the business is negligent or reckless and that negligence directly causes death or injury to a child. Florida legislators must decide if it makes sense to give a business a free ride to hurt our children and make a profit to boot.

It makes better sense to adopt a law that would that would make a pre-injury release valid as to injuries caused by the "inherent risk" of an activity. But if the child is injured from the negligent or reckless conduct of the business there would be no protection. An example is swimming with dolphins. If a dolphin knocks over a child, a business should not be responsible for that, however, if they drop a hot electrical wire into the tank and the child gets electrocuted then they would be liable. This is the compromise suggested by the Florida Justice Association. The theme parks are fighting this language. They and other businesses want absolute liability for all negligent and reckless conduct even when it directly injures or kills a child. They do not seem to consider that it will hurt Florida tourism if a child tourist is hurt or killed but, because of a signed paper full of legal mumbo jumbo, the business can hurt or kill a child with absolutely no recourse whatsoever. If the theme parks get their way, this will be a lesson soon learned by parents of residents and tourists alike. Is that how we really want Florida to treat our children and the children of our tourists that we invite to the State?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Peanut Butter Danger Speads To 491 Infected Persons

Ed Normand — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 08:44:00 GMT

The food poisoning outbreak related to Salmonella keeps getting larger and larger. According to the the United States Center for Disease Control (CDC) there are now 491 reported cases of people infected with the outbreak strain of Salmonella Typhimurium. have been reported from 43 states and Canada. The illness is very broad with reported peanut butter related infections in the elderly and children, and infecting men and women about equally. This is a very serious infection. Already seven deaths are reported to be related to the peanut butter infection. According to the CDC:

Among the persons with confirmed, reported dates available, illnesses began between September 14, 2008 and January 8, 2009. Patients range in age from <1 to 98 years; 48% are female. Among persons with available information, 22% reported being hospitalized. Infection may have contributed to seven deaths.

Some may wonder what the legal remedies are for persons infected from the peanut butter salmonella outbreak. Essentially in Florida product liability laws govern the claims related to food poisoning ingestion from food products. Most product liability claims fall under two legal claims: negligence and strict liability. Negligence claims will require proof that the peanut butter manufacturer, supplier, seller or distributor was breached the appropriate standard of care in the storage, manufacture or transport of the peanut butter that caused the infection from salmonella contained within the peanut butter. Strict liability claims hold everyone in the chain of distribution of the infected peanut butter--manufacturers, suppliers, and even retail sellers of the product (the Walmarts, Publix etc..) for the sale of an unreasonably dangerous product. Because infected peanut butter is unreasonably dangerous and because the exact source of the contaminations are still being evaluated the strict liability product liability claim is essential to these the succesful pursuit of a peanut butter salmonella related injury or death claim.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

30 Preventable Medical Mistakes

Ed Normand — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:07:00 GMT

30 common but preventable medical mistakes:

1. Prescribing the wrong dosage of medication

2. Prescribing the wrong medication

3. Providing medications not prescribed

4. Prescribing multiple medicines with complications when taken together

5. Wrong site surgery

6. Surgery on the wrong patient

7. Performing wrong procedure on patient

8. Medical devices improperly left in patient’s body

9. Non medical objects left in patient’s body

10. Sexual molestation of patient

11. Voyeurism of patients

12. Physical attacks on patients by other patients

13. Physical attacks on patients by staff

14. Physical attacks on patients by others

15. Injury caused by contaminated medical devices

16. Injury caused by

17. Providing the wrong type blood to a patient

18. Patient suicide while under medical care

19. Patient elopement from the facility

20. Child or incompetent patient discharged to wrong person

21. Child or incompetent patient abducted from facility

22. Injuries from recalled medical devices after known danger is apparent

23. Health care provider imposters providing medical care

24. Patient falls from failure to take apparent fall precautions

25. Bedsores from failure to maintain skin integrity of at risk patients

26. Injuries from the use of patient restraints

27. Injuries from burns in healthcare facility

28. Improper placement of venous line in artery

29. Infection from lack of appropriate sanitary precautions

30. Birth related death or injury in low risk pregnancy

Source: National Quality Forum.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Want Lower Health Insurance? Prevent Surgical Errors.

Ed Normand — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:18:00 GMT

Eliminating medical malpractice would result in savings of billions of dollars each year. The annual cost of medical errors in additional medical expenses to fix the injuries caused by malpractice is estimated to be over 1.4 billion dollars for just surgical errors alone. This does not include misdiagnosis cases, medication errors and other medical mishaps not related to surgery.

The reason for the high cost is because of the sheer extent of malpractice in our medical system. It has been estimated that "about 1 in 10 deaths occurring within 90 days of surgery stemmed from a preventable error". This calculation comes from data analyzed by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Now think about that if one in ten of plane flights resulted in deaths from preventable error our society would be outraged. If truckers caused deaths in one in ten trips from preventable errors the Department of Transportation would crack down on the bad truckers causing all these deaths. Sadly, the health care providers are not regulated by the DOT, they are regulated by various and sundry state agencies that use peer review systems to sanction other health care providers. Enforcement is lax and sometimes nonexistent. It appears that our legal system and lawsuits are the only deterrents we have to rampant medical malpractice. Sadly, however, many laws immunize health care providers from financial liability in wrongful death cases. For example, in Florida health care providers have virtually no liability for the negligently causing a death of someone who is single and without minor children.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand