Redding Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Most Commented

Fatal Plane Crash at Fall River

Todd Slaughter — Sat, 24 May 2008 17:02:37 GMT

On Friday morning, May 23, 2008, a single-engined Beechcraft V35 Bonanza crashed in the trees some 4000 feet short of the runway at Fall River Mills aiport. Luckily no one on the ground was injured. The plane is registered to a resident of Mendocino County. The four occupants were killed on impact and have not yet been identified.

This fatal plane crash highlights the increasing frequency of airplane crashes that are occuring in Northern California. The plane purportedily sputtered and stalled as it banked into a turn on approach. Weather does not appear to have been a factor. The cause of the accident is to be evaluated by the the National Transportation Safety board and the Federal Aviation Administration.

The subject airstrip was developed around WWII. Recently it was lengthened from 3000 feet to 5000 feet.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Blue Cross/Shield Pay $13 Million for Improper Cancellation

Todd Slaughter — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:42:30 GMT

The Associated Press reported today that two of California's largest health care insurers, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of California, will pay regulators $13 million to settle claims that the carriers illegally cancelled coverage to policyholders after medical bills were submitted to the plans for payment. The action was pursued by the California Department of Managed Health Care.

In addition to this assessment, the companies agreed to reinstate coverage to approximately 2,200 enrollees whose policies had been rescinded. Further the companies agreed to reimburse these enrollees for all medical expenses incurred while coverage was denied.

Remarkably, Blue Shield's Vice President of Public Affairs stated that the companies did not acknowledge that "our practices were inappropriate." In further defense, he asserted that cancellations involved only a small percentage of their policyholders, approximately "one-tenth of 1 percent of our individual health plan contracts since 2004."

His words are interesting, if not deceptive. Wouldn't it be more meaningful to know how many of the cancellations were made before any claims for benefits were made? Wouldn't it also be more enlightening to know the amount of money that Blue Shield and Blue Cross were attempting to save by denying coverage? And isn't it interesting that he segregated "individual health plan contracts" in his commentary. Aren't these policies purchased by individuals who pay the highest price for coverage for themselves and their families because they are not associated with an employer or other group plan? And, aren't these "individual health plan" policyholders the ones that are most vulnerable to financial ruin when coverage is denied? Finally, aren't the owners of "individual health plans" the ones that have the least clout and voice, and accordingly, would have the hardest time making a claim against these huge insurance carriers?

We think that the entire health care insurance industry needs to rethink and reshape its coverage practices. As Governor Schwarzenegger observed, "patients should not live in fear of unfairly losing their health care coverage when they need it most." If the carriers do not reform their practices, the legislators must be called upon to do it for them.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Two Drivers Seriously Injured in Head-On I-5 Crash

Todd Slaughter — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:23:22 GMT

ANDERSON, Calif. - A mid-afternoon crash on I-5 yesterday sent both motorists to Mercy Medical Center with major injuries. According to the Redding Record Searchlight, the crash occurred on I-5 near Balls Ferry Road when a vehicle driven by a 29-year-old Red Bluff man lost control in the northbound lanes and crossed the center median. The vehicle then crashed into a southbound car driven by a 63-year-old Red Bluff woman. Both are reported to be stable at this time. It was not raining when the crash occurred, but the roadway was wet.

Several road closures have been occuring throughout the Northern California with the recent batch of cold storms that have crossed the region. It has also been reported that many vehicles have lost control on I-5 north of Redding as they passed through the Sacramento River canyon. There are no specific road closures at this moment, but motorists should be checking ahead for closures and chain requirements through the President's Day holiday. Be safe out there.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Pedestrian Hit by Lassen County Deputy

Todd Slaughter — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:06:02 GMT

It is hard to believe that we are posting about another pedestrian vs. vehicle accident occuring in Northern California. On December 9, 2008 a 59-year-old Susanville woman was hit by a Lassen County Sheriff's unit as she was crossing Main Street. The accident occurred when a Deputy Sheriff saw a break in traffic and turned left from Park Street onto Main. Unfortunately, the deputy did not observe the woman in the crosswalk until it was too late and hit her.

The woman was taken to Banner Lassen Medical Center for treatment of her injuries. The nature of the injuries was not disclosed.

According to the Lassen County News, the accident is being investigated by the CHP.

In reviewing the media reports throughout Northern California over the last few weeks, it appears that there have been a high incidence of pedestrian vs. automobile accidents, as well as automobile vs. automobile accidents. Some drivers are complaining in blogs that others seem pre-occupied and are driving erractically.

We all need reminding sometimes that it is important to anticipate the conduct of others, particularly when the roads are busy with holiday shoppers and travelers. While the hustle and bustle of the Holidays are part of the joy of the season, an injury-causing-collision is not. Let's all stop and think for a moment before going out to the shops and malls this season.

Let's all be safe for the Holidays! That would be a blessing!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Aetna Settles Class Action by Extending Coverage for Eating Disorders

Todd Slaughter — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:49:10 GMT

It is well known that certain individuals, usually young women, develop eating disorders which eventually affect their health. In fact, anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa, if left untreated often result in death. Young women suffering from these disorders require intensive psychological and nutritional intervention that often takes years.

Aetna, and several other carriers, have placed arbitrary limits on the number of treatments that these patients can seek. In Aetna's case the limitis 20 outpatient visits per calendar year and 30 days of inpatient benefits. These and other policy restrictions often inhibit eating disorder sufferers from seeking treatment, as they know it is expensive, and they do not believe the carriers will cover all the session in the end.

A class action suit was brought against Aetna in New Jersey, DeVito v. Aetna Inc., civ-070-418, seeking to require Aetna to extend the same level of benefits it does for "biologically based mental illnesses," such as schizophrenia, to eating disorders which Aetna simply characterized as "non-biologically based."

In a monumentalstep forward, Aetna has now settled this class action by agreeingto"cover claims submitted [by its] insureds for the diagnosis, care and treatment of eating disorders in the same manner as biiologically based mental illnesses." Though Aetna has made a significant concession on this topic, the details of how far the new coverage recognition will apply is still uncertain. Aetna maintains that this coverage will be available in all "fully insured" plans.Those are plans funded by employers. As to whether Aetna's newcoverage policywill trickle down to individual policies or non-ERISA based plans is entirely uncertain.

This is the first time that a carrier has placed eating disorders on a parity with other "biologically based mental disorders." In doing so, it is expected that many individuals suffering from anorexia or bullima will finally come forward and obtain the treatment that they so desparately need.

Finding the words "magnanimity" and "insurance carrier" hard to reconcile, it appears that Aetna may have been motivated by certain legislation now before Congress seeking to provide equitable treatment for those suffering from eating disorders.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Case Involving Dangerous Magnetic Toy Settles

Todd Slaughter — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:33:17 GMT

Our firm recently settled an action brought on behalf of a four year-old child that was seriously injured when he ingested the magnetic parts of a Magnetix-brand building set. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

The Magnetix X-treme Combo is a modern day tinker-toy like building set where parts are attached together by magnets imbedded in the ends of plastic pieces of varying sizes. The toys were advertised as appropriate for children from the age of “3 to 100.” They were manufactured and distributed by Rose Art and sold to the child’s grandmother by Toys R’ Us in Redding, California.

While playing with the toy, the parents noticed that the small magnets would occasionally separate from the plastic and remain magnetized to the steel ball connectors. For this reason, the toy was discarded. Unfortunately, the harm was already done.

Days after the toy had been thrown away, the child became extremely ill and was rushed to the hospital. There it was thought that he was suffering from a ruptured appendix. The child was rushed to an emergency surgery. Once the abdomen was opened, the physicians were astonished to find three small magnetic parts that had attached together in the peritoneum and perforated the cecum. This resulted in a severe case of peritonitis that would have killed the child within hours. To remove the magnets a portion of the intestines had to be removed. The lawsuit was filed in April of 2006.

In March of 2006 the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a recall of 3.8 million Magnetix toys. That recall came after the death of a toddler who had swallowed the toy’s magnets. The original recall was subsequently expanded to include an additional 4 million Magnetix toys.

In April of 2007, CPSC issued a Consumer Alert warning of the serious injuries that toys with magnets were causing throughout the United States. At that point at least 33 children had been injured by swallowing loose magnets and required emergency surgery. There was one reported death.

The CPSC warned that “if two or more magnet components, or a magnet and another metal object are swallowed separately, they can attract to one another through intestinal walls. When this happens, parents and physicians may think that the materials will pass through the child. But with magnets this is often not the case. The magnets become trapped in the body and can twist or pinch the intestine, causing holes, blockage and infection in the intestine or blood poisoning. All of which can lead to death.”

Our experience with these toys is that they are dangerous not only to the child that is playing with them, but particularly dangerous to infants and toddlers in the home. The magnets are less than ¼ inch in diameter and 1/8 inch high. They easily become invisible in carpet or behind furniture and can be swallowed by an infant at a time when the parent has already put the toy away. The Magnetix line of toys are not the only toys that incorporate tiny strong magnets that pose the same dangers. Other toys include Polly Pockets, magnetic jewelry and other brands of magnetic building sets.

WARNING TO PARENTS

1.If you have these toys you should immediately return them to the store where it was purchased. Further, before returning the toy, examine it carefully to see if any magnets have become dislodged from the ends of the parts. If so, search your home carefully to find any missing pieces.

2.Seek prompt medical attention if you suspect your child may have swallowed a magnet.

3.Look for non-specific abdominal symptoms: abdominal pains, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.

4. Note that these objects may appear in an x-ray as one piece when they could be multiple pieces trapped in the intestines.

We were very happy to successfully conclude this matter on behalf of our young client and his parents. More importantly, however, we were gratified that our work identified another dangerous toy that had entered the American marketplace, and that we played a role in having those toys removed from our shelves.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Chrysler's Ticking Time Bombs

Todd Slaughter — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:37:35 GMT

As we posted earlier this week, Chrysler has emerged from bankruptcy freed from responsibility for all deaths and catastrophic injuries caused by their defective cars, vans and trucks. This means that many families who own Chrysler products may be driving around in vehicles that have dangerous defects that they don't even know about. If catastrophy occurs as a result of those defects, these families will have no means of recovering for their losses. With the backing of the Obama administration, Chrysler has been given immunity from liability. Hence, these families are driving around on ticking time bombs.

It is estimated that there are 40 million Chrysler and GM vehicles on the road today. GM is also in bankruptcy and seeks the same legal loophole. Historical data compiled from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration shows that 47% of all death and injury claims filed against auto manufacturers involve Chrysler and GM cars. In the last 5 years, 3,497 casualities were connected to problems with Chrysler cars and 15,284 connected to problems with GM cars.

On June 9, 2009, letters were sent to Chrysler and GM by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senators Jay Rockefeller (D/Virginia) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R/Texas), signed by 18 members of the 26-member committee, imploring the "new" Chrysler and GM to not abandon their legal obligation to customers injured or killed by one of their defective products. "The rights and responsibilities Chrysler [and GM] owe to its customers do not end with an arbitrary date."

We enlist all that are out there to write, phone, email, or tweet your congressman or senator to insist that GM and Chrysler accept responsibility for defective products that they sell, and remain accountable to those injured or killed thereby. This is not China!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

What's the Law When the Donkey Bites?

Todd Slaughter — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:26:20 GMT

PALO CEDRO, Calif. - A recent incident that occurred in this small rural bedroom community in Northern California reminds us of the potential dangers that arise when children and domestic animals mix. As reported by the Redding Record Searchlight this morning, an 8-year-old child was seriously injured when attacked and bitten on the head by a donkey. The article did not report who owned or kept the animal, nor the child's relationship to it. The incident does prompt the question, however: What is the law when a child is bitten by a domestic animal?

California has a dog bite statute that imposes strict liability on the owner or keeper of a dog that injures someone with a bite. Liability is imposed even if the dog had no prior history of biting. There is no "first bite is free" leeway in this state.

With respect to other domestic animals such as horses, donkeys, cattle, etc. the law is different. In these cases liability attaches to the owner or keeper of the animal only if the animal had an unusually dangerous nature or vicious propensity. These are dangerous "habits" or tendencies that the keeper was either aware of, or should have been aware of, that make the animal potentially dangerous to humans. Once an owner or keeper becomes aware of, or should be aware of, such a dangerous potential, it does not matter how carefully they guard or restrain the animal. If the animal injures someone out of that dangerous propensity, the owner or keeper is strictly liable.

"Biting" is a common "bad habit" of horses and donkeys. These bites can be very severe and painful, and can expose one to dangerous infections. Children not accustomed to an animal or its habits should not be left alone to "play" with or around it. Even children familiar with the animal should be regularly reminded of any propensities. Remember, as the owner, if the animal has a dangerous habit or tendency, you will be held liable for the injury caused thereby, and will not be excused by the fact that you warned someone, or otherwise acted carefully.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Chronic Whiplash Pain Is Real, and Often Caused by Spinal Facet Injury

Todd Slaughter — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:24:18 GMT

In an article published in late 2007 in the prestigious Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the often asserted position that whiplash injuries cannot result in chronic pain was evaluated by three reknown spine specialists in an evidence-based analysis. The result: there is no basis for this assertion. In fact, the article shows that a significant number of persons suffering acute neck pain following a motor vehicle collision develop chronic pain that last for years. Further, that a significant number of these patients succumb to partial or total disability. The most common source of the chronic pain: damage to the spinal facet joints.

The facet joints are small joints on each side of a vertebrae that, along with the disc, stabilize the spine and allow bending, twisting and side to side movement. In a rear-end automobile collision, the "facet joints undergo a nonphysiologic pinching motion, with compression posteriorly and distraction anteriorly, usually coupled with shear." This abnormal stress on the joint can cause damage to the capsular structure around the joint, damage to the articulating structures of the joint itself, and even intra-articular hemorrhage. When such damage occurs pain is transmitted to the brain through a medial branch nerve that innervates the facet joint.

The problem with facet injuries is that they do not show up on x-rays, CAT Scans or MRIs. That is because the injuries involve microscopic damage to tiny features within the joint that are not usually observable in these studies. Often, this leads physicians to the conclusion that there is no structural damage to the spine, and that the pain must be deriving from the surrounding "soft tissues." This then leads to the conclusion that "soft tissue" injuries ordinarily resolve in weeks or months, not years.

In the past several years, many advancements have been made in the field of pain management that have furthered our understanding of the role that the facet joints have in chronic whiplash pain. Through injection procedures called "medial branch blocks," and then through specific deadening of the medial branch nerve through a procedure called "radiofrequency ablation," medicine has been able to isolate the facet from other spinal structures to determine if the joint is the source of the pain. The beauty of these new techniques is that only the pain that can come from the facet joint is intercepted. This not only confirms the involvement of the facet joint, it also verifies the legitimacy of the patient's complaint.

In this recent article, entitled Chronic Whiplash and Whiplash-Associated Disorders: An Evidence-Based Approach, (Amer Acad Orthop Surg 2007; 15:596-606), the authors review the medical literature and published data concerning chronic whiplash pain. The review reveals that 15% to 40% of patients with acute neck pain following a motor vehicle collision develop chronic pain, and that 5% to 7% become permanently partially or totally disabled. The most common source of chronic whiplash neck pain - the facet joint (49% to 54%).

Over the years, it has been our experience that the potential of a facet injury to explain chronic whiplash neck pain is often overlooked by the medical community. Patients that continue to suffer chronic pain months and years after a motor vehicle collision should discuss the possibility of such an injury with their physicians. A referral to a competent pain management specialist may quickly confirm the existence of a facet based injury, and lead to good management of this chronic pain syndrome.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Does the New California Cell Phone Law Make the Roads Safer?

Todd Slaughter — Fri, 30 May 2008 17:09:48 GMT

The papers and television stations have recently highlighted the changes in California lawconcerning the use of cell phones due to take effect on July 1, 2008. Our previous post on the subject highlighted the requirements of the new law and noted the studies that lead to its passage in September of 2006. The California Department of Motor Vehicles has published an excellent FAQ addressing the variety of components that qualify as "hands-free," when exemptions to the law may apply, how the law is different for motorists under the age of 18, and how the new law will be enforced. We would encourage viewing this site, especially if you are traveling in California from out-of-state, as the law applies to everyone on the roads. The question posed in this post is whether the lawwent far enough.

In the only study that has reviewed and compared the level of distraction that cell phones create during driving,the human factor experts conducting the test concluded that "people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated. . ." (Strayer, Drews, Crouch 2006 article in Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society). More importantly, however, the University of Utah study found that the level of impairment for those drivers who talked on handheld or "hands-free" cell phoneswas essentially the same. It was not the delivery system of the message that made the difference, it was thefocus on the message that impaired the driver.

Under the new California law, drivers over the age of 18 may utilize cell phones in the "hands free" modalityat any time. Because the law exempts this type of system, it creates a false sense that "hands free" use of cell phones is safe. The human factors studies are completely counter to this conclusion. Unbelievably, "texting" is not addressed by the new law.On this, it should be noted that within the last year a42 year-old mother of fourwas killed on State Route 299 near Shingletown while stopped at a construction site, when another woman crashed into the back of her car while texting. The car burst into flames and theycould not get the poor woman out.

Though the users of cell phones have become addicted to their use in vehicles, the dangerousness cannot be overstated. All drivers should limit their use as much as possible, and should refrain from utilizing the phone when full attentiveness to traffic, roadway, pedestrians, or other conditions is required. No phone conversation is wortha life taken.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter