Redding Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Most Popular

Medi-Vac Helicopter Crashes in Northern California Killing Three

Todd Slaughter — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:05:33 GMT

LASSEN COUNTY, Calif. - A medical helicopter stationed in Susanville crashed 15 miles north of Reno at approximately 2:01 am Saturday morning. A "mayday" report was heard just prior to loss of contact. A witness purportedily saw the copter go into a sudden decline. The medi-vac team had just dropped off a patient at Renown Hospital in Reno. All three members of the medical crew were killed. They were the pilot from Hawaii, and the flight nurse and paramedic, both from Susanville.

According to the Lassen County Times, the crash involved an Aerospatiale AS350 that was completely destroyed by the crash and fire that followed. The helicopter was apparently built in 1982. The helicopter was operated by Mountain LifeFlight. The National Transportation Safety Board is on-site investigating the incident.

The Redding Record Searchlight reports that Mountain Lifeflight had another helicopter crash in March of 2002. At that time a Eurocopter As-350B crashed into Honey Lake about 11 miles south of Susanville. The pilot was killed but two medical personnel survived. The NTSB determined that the crash was caused by pilot error. The pilot purportedily became disoriented by the placid sheen off Honey Lake as they flew over it.

Because of the vast distance between populated areas, and the mountaineous terrain of Northern California, medical helicopters play a vital role in the delivery of emergency medical care in our region. When medical responders are tragically killed in the line of duty delivering these services to our citizens, we must each take pause and thank them for the dedicated service they perform everyday, usually without thanks. Our sincerest condolences go to the families, friends and co-workers of these dedicated and heroic medical responders.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Two Teens Die of Alcohol Poisoning over Holidays

Todd Slaughter — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:55:28 GMT

Today, the Enterprise Record Searchlight sadly reported the death of an 18-year-old Chico High Student that occurred in the early morning hours of New Years Day. Witnesses reported that he had been drinking earlier that night and retired about 2:30 am. Soon thereafter he was found vomiting and convulsing. He was rushed to the hospital but was declared dead at 5:00 am. Toxicology reports have not yet confirmed the cause of death.

The Holiday Season was marred by another tragic death when a 17-year-old Redding student was found unconscious in the bathroom of her friend's house. The two had been drinking after the parents had apparently gone to bed. Alcohol poisoning was determined to be the cause of death.

These two events in such a short span of time in Northern California reminds us of the importance of communicating the potential lethal nature of so-called "binge drinking" with our adolscents. These young people do not appreciate the intoxicating effects of these beverages, nor how alcohol impaired judgment can lead to dangerous behavior that results in a lethal overdose.

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism has recently published a Statistical Snapshot of Underage Drinking at www.niaaa.nih.gov . This report shows that alcohol is the preferred drug of teenagers with 3/4's of 12th graders, 2/3's of 10th graders and as many as 2/5's of 8th graders admitting to its use. The study also reports as many as 5000 alcohol-related underage deaths occur each year, the majority arising from vehicular crashes.

Parents and other adults need to be reminded that providing alcohol to a minor is illegal in California and significant criminal penalties can attach.

SAFETY TIPS

The Student Health Services of the University of California at Davis has published guidelines on monitoring and responding to someone potentially suffeing from alcohol poisoning. For ease of reference, these steps are restated here:

Continually monitor the intoxicated person.
Check their breathing, waking them often to be sure they are not unconscious.
DO NOT exercise the person.
DO NOT allow the person to drive a car or ride a bicycle.
DO NOT give the person food, liquid, medicines or drugs to sober them up.
DO NOT give the person a cold shower; the shock of the cold could cause unconsciousness.

REMEMBER: THE ONLY THING THAT CAN SOBER A DRUNK PERSON IS TIME.

How to Tell if Someone Has Alcohol Poisoning

If the person is breathing less than 13 times per minute or stops breathing for periods of eight seconds or more CALL 9-1-1.
If the person is asleep and you are unable to wake him/her up, CALL 9-1-1.
Look at the person's skin. If it is cold, clammy, pale or bluish in color, CALL 9-1-1.
If the person is continually vomiting (repeated, uncontrolled), CALL 9-1-1.

Other Important Factors

Stay with a person who is vomiting. Keep him/her sitting up. If s/he must lie down, keep them on their side with head turned to the side. If person begins to choke, GET HELP IMMEDIATELY, CALL 9-1-1.
Any person that has altered consciousness, slowed respiration, repeated, uncontrolled vomiting, or cool, pale skin is experiencing acute alcohol intoxication (alcohol poisoning). This is a medical emergency and you MUST get help! CALL 9-1-1.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Large US Toymakers Agree to Lead Standards for Christmas

Todd Slaughter — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:24:35 GMT

SACRAMENTO - The San Francisco Chronicle reported today that several of the largest toymakers in America agreed to comply with the Federal toy lead standards for the upcoming holiday season. The Federal standards, though adopted earlier year, do not take legal effect until February. In settling a lawsuit brought by California Attorney General Jerry Brown, Mattel, Fisher-Price, RC2, A & A Global Industries, Cranium Inc., Eveready Battery Co., Marvel Entertainment, Toy & Investments, Kids II and Amscan agreed to stop manufacturing toys that do not meet the Federal lead standards by this Monday.

The manufacturers also agreed to contribute $500,000 to fund the testing of toys. If toys are found to have lead contents that exceed the Federal limits, the manufacturer is to notify the California Attorney General's office and the retailer. Interestingly, the agreement does not require the manufacturer to pull the toys from the shelves. In addition, the retailers named in the lawsuit did not settle and are not bound by this agreement.

This, of course, is a positive step towards the elimination of lead contents in the toys that are sold on American shelves. It seems to us that the amount offered for funding the testing is a drop in the bucket. This is particularly true in light of the vast number of foreign manufactured toys that inundate American store shelves during the holiday season. It is startling to see the number of toys recalled by the U.S. Consumer Protection Agency each week because of lead content.

Another disturbing development is that many, if not most, of the toys found with high lead contents are very inexpensive and are marketed to the lowest economic strata. They are found at "$1.00" stores and the like, and are often selling for less than $1-2. For twenty dollars, twenty different kids can be exposed to the toxic leads. Who is monitoring this?

The new Federal standard gives us hope, but enforcement is the key. Americans should be confident when they go into a store to select a toy for their child, grandchild, niece, nephew or neighbor that the toy is safe! What could be more basic? And yet, millions of lead containing toys continue to flood into our market. This is because there is practically no recourse against the off-shore manufacturers under current law. As long as Congress ignores this reality, these low-priced products will continue to fast-track into our stores and homes.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

NTSB Assigns Pilot Error to '08 Fall River Plane Crash

Todd Slaughter — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:16:28 GMT

REDDING, Calif. - Approximately one year after the May 23, 2008 crash of a single-engine Beechcraft V35 Bonanza, 4000' from the Fall River Mills air strip, the National Transportation Safety Board issued its report indicating that the probable cause of the crash was pilot error. All four occupants from Mendocino County were killed. We previously posted on this crash which, at the time, occurred during what appeared to be a high frequency of plane crashes in Shasta County.

According to the Redding Record Searchlight, the crash occurred as the plane was approaching the run way with an inadequate airspeed. This caused the plane to stall and crash on the ground. Witnesses at the time reported hearing engine sputtering then a crash.

The 61-year-old pilot had 25 years of flight experience and is reported to have been a careful pilot by friends.

Again, our condolences go out to the families of those lost in this tragic accident.

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

Cell Phone Causes Major I-5 Crash - Federal Government Employee not Following California Law

Todd Slaughter — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:30:44 GMT

We all know it is a bad idea to fool around with our cell phones while we are driving. One group of researchers at the University of Utah found that drivers on cell phones are more likely to cause an accident than drivers who are drunk. Many of us do it anyway, and often we cause accidents or even deaths.

California, since July of 2008, has been one of five states that ban the use of hand held cell phones while driving. Moreover, in California the ban is one of primary enforcement, meaning that law enforcement officers can pull a driver over simply for the use of the phone.

One might expect that if anyone should be obeying the law in California, it would be law enforcement personnel. And yet, this week we see undercover officers of the federal government involved in a serious accident. These officers somehow managed to not see an enormous highway maintenance truck, at least until they were slamming into it from behind. The driver, an undercover agent of the Bureau of Land Management told investigators that he was talking on his cell phone and simply did not see the truck. His passenger is currently hospitalized with major internal injuries.

So, for the sake of a momentary convenience, the agent's cell phone use seriously injured his passenger, caused two others to be taken to the hospital, closed down the I-5 southbound for more than an hour, and destroyed a Caltrans maintenance vehicle. Was this phone call important enough to justify all this?

With very few exceptions, no one should be making calls while driving. It’s not just a bad idea, in California it’s against the law. Law enforcement personnel, whether state or federal, should know the law and act as examples to others. More and more drivers seem to be ignoring the law passed just one year ago. For federal employees to refuse to obey California law is unacceptable. Moreover, the officer’s cell-phone caused inattention proved to be reprehensibly dangerous, pure and simple.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Mt. Lassen Park Officials Warned of Trail Dangers - Rock Slide Kills 9-year-old

Todd Slaughter — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:22:49 GMT

LASSEN VOLCANIC NATIONAL PARK - Calif. As reported by the Red Bluff Daily News, last week a 9-year-old boy was killed and his 13-year-old sister was seriously injured when rocks began falling upon them while they hiked with their family up the Lassen Peak Trail. This is an easy to moderate 2.5 mile foot trail which switchbacks up to the peak of Mt. Lassen. It is utilized by as many as 25,000 to 30,000 visitors a year. The trail has been closed following this tragic incident.

This weekend, in a letter to the Editor of the Redding Record Searchlight, Karen Couwenhoven of Antelope, California, wrote that she had hiked the peak trail on July 23, 2009 and found that it to be "in the worst shape [she had] ever seen it in and was extremely dangerous." After her descent from the top with her 5-year-old daughter, she made a specific effort to contact the rangers at the national park and advise them that people had been cutting the switchbacks creating "a lot of very unsteady rocks." She was advised by the officials that they would look into it, but questioned if they ever did. He words were a harbinger of the disaster to come.

This author is a long time hiker in the mountains of northern and central California. I have always had a great deal of respect for the rangers and forest service personnel that work in the national parks as they consistently have impressed me as persons who genuinely care about the dangers of the wilderness, and are conscientious about safety. If Ms. Couwenhoven's warnings were not heeded or investigated, this would be out of step with the agency's usual approach. For the sake of the safety of future visitors, I am hopeful that the agency will be forthcoming in what steps were taken to assure the safety of visitors once the warning light was lit, and that they will make whatever changes are necessary to avoid future tragedies of this kind.

Our sincerest condolences go out to the family of the young lad. Our best wishes for the swift and full recovery of his sister.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Cell Phones Cause Deaths, Inspire New California Laws

Todd Slaughter — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:16:53 GMT

With the explosion of newer, cheaper mobile technology, the rate at which cell phones are purchased now exceeds the amount of babies born in the United States every year. As a result, America has become 'chatty.' For a growing number of people, cars have now become their Mobile Phone Booth.

Recent studies are showing the increasing numbers of 'car talkers' present new dangers. It is now commonplace to witness drivers committing flagrant driving errors while engrossed in their cell phone conversations. In many ways the cell phone has changed the straightforward task of driving into a complex system of multi-tasking.
.
The danger of car crashes caused by cell phone distraction has lead 48 countries and half of the United States to adopt legislation restricting the use of cellular telephones in automobiles. Most recently, the State of California launched a new campaign against "talking and driving" by passing Senate Bills 33 and 1613 (Cal. Vehicle Code Â§12810.3 and Â§23124). This blog will discuss the findings of some of these studies, as well as the implications of California's new laws in an effort to keep you safe on the road.

A recent study by Harvard University found that 1 in 20 car accidents are caused by cell phones, resulting in 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries, annually. A University of Utah psychology professor found that "If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone, their reaction times are the same as a 70-year-old driver who is not using a cell phone." In 2004 and 2005, the California Highway Patrol found that talking on a cell phone was the leading cause of vehicular deaths due to driving inattention. The CHP study was the leading argument for the new protective driving laws in California.

Stay Within the Law

Effective July 1, 2008, no driver in California can use a handheld cellular telephone unless under extreme emergency circumstances. Drivers, 18 or older will only be allowed to use communication devices that are designed to allow "hands-free". This includes cell phones with speakerphone, BluetoothÂ®, headset, and Push-To-Talk functions. If a driver is caught violating these exceptions, the fines are $20 for the first offense, and $50 for each subsequent offense. For minor drivers, cell phone communication in any form is entirely prohibited.

Though the law dramatically alters the manner with which cellular communications can be conducted while operating a motor vehicle, it still permits adult drivers to engage in behavior that diverts their undivided attention from the road. The personal injury lawyers at Reiner, Simpson & Slaughter have kept a watchful eye on the use of cell phones on the roadways of Northern California, and continue to hold those irresponsible few accountable for their carelessness.

Stay Safe

Reiner, Simpson & Slaughter would like to extend the following safety recommendations, introduced first by the State of New York Transportation Department, to you.

1.) Position your phone where it is easy to see and reach.
2.) Familiarize yourself with the phones' operation while the car is parked.
3.) Use a voice-activated dial or speed dial when making calls.
4.) Pull over whenever possible during conversation.
5.) Never take notes while driving.
6.) Use voice mail to pick up your calls if it is inconvenient or unsafe to drive while talking.
7.) Never text message while driving.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Are There Ethical Standards for Medical Arbitration Agreements?

Todd Slaughter — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:24:04 GMT

Doctors can refuse to see patients who object to signing an Arbitration Clause. However, if the situation is a medical emergency the doctor cannot ethically refuse treatment where the patient will not agree to the clause. The American Medical Association (AMA) Principles of Medical Ethics states: “A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate....”. American Medical Association, Principles of Medical Ethics, 2001, available at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/principles-medical-ethics.shtml. Yet, other principles within the same canon are directly adverse to the argument that a doctor can refuse to treat patients not presenting an emergency and who refuse to sign an Arbitration Agreement. The following principles from the AMA canon are relevant to this analysis:

“A physician shall support access to medical care for all people”. Id.

“A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary to the best interests of the patient”. Id.

With regards to the first section, requiring patients to sign an Arbitration Agreement certainly conflicts with the concept of open access to medical care. These agreements close access; they limit medical care to only those that agree to relinquish certain constitutionally guaranteed rights. As more and more providers demand arbitration clauses in their service agreements, patients unwilling to sacrifice their legal rights have fewer and fewer providers available to them.

Concerning the second principle, requiring patients to give up legal rights before offering treatment reflects an aversion to, rather than a respect for, the law. This canon also imposes a responsibility upon the doctor to seek changes in the law if necessary to preserve the "best interests of the patient." This is intuitively contrary to a doctor's efforts to change his legal relationship with his patient by requiring mandatory arbitration agreement that lessens the patient's rights. Of course, doctors have argued that lower malpractice premiums serve the interest of the patient by keeping medical costs down. However, these minor cost savings are of small solace to the patient that suffers serious injury or death from the physician's malpractice. For that patient or the loved ones, the loss of the full remedies recognized by law is monumental in comparison.

It is important to note that the AMA principles are not laws themselves and only serve as standards of conduct. They guide physician behavior rather than govern it. In light of the increasing number of physicians and medical providers that are incorporating arbitration clauses into their service agreements, greater ethical guidance is needed from the AMA. Otherwise we may be vexed with a loss of physician accountability combined with a continually decreasing level of care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Brinks Truck Overturns in Bay Point

Shannon Weidemann — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:01:29 GMT

Dense fog may have been responsible for a Brinks Truck overturning in Bay Point this morning. The trucking accident happened on Highway 4. The fog reduced visibility to 100 to 200 feet early today.

The accident was reported to the CHP at 6:51 a.m. east of Bailey Road, according to patrol logs. There were no serious injuries, but fire crews were called to rescue one person trapped in the truck.
The armored car "took the ramp too fast," CHP officer Scott Yox said.

The Brinks armored vehicle did not loose it's payload during the accident. The accident is being investigated by the California Highway Patrol. No other vehicles were involved in the crash.

If you would like to read more about trucking accidents, please visit InjuryBoard's Trucking Accident Information page.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shannon Weidemann