Redding Personal Injury Lawyer - Miscellaneous

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

New Law Protects California Good Samaritans

Todd Slaughter — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:26:10 GMT

In December 2008, the California Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, narrowly interpreted existing statutory protections for Good Samaritans coming to the aid of accident victims, limiting the application of the statute to those rendering "medical assistance." In the case of Van Horn v. Watson (2008) 45 Cal.4th 322, the California Supreme Court refused to extend the Good Samaritan immunity to a crash victim's friend and co-worker who pulled the victim from a wrecked vehicle in fear of fire or explosion. The new law, Senate Bill 39 and Assembly Bill 83, signed into law by Governor Schwartznegger, immediately provides a qualified immunity to the rescuers, so long as they do not act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner.

The AB 83 was authored by Assemblyman Mike Feuer who offered these supporting comments:

Although the Supreme Court's recent Good Samaritan
ruling may be accurate regarding the Court's narrow
reading of 1980s legislative intent, it is also an
important invitation to the Legislature to quickly
clarify the Legislature's goal of encouraging Good
Samaritan acts -- whether of a medical or non-medical
nature - so long as such acts are done in good faith
and responsibly. My bill responds directly to the
Supreme Court's invitation for legislative
clarification in a measured manner that encourages
Good Samaritan acts that can save lives.

A similar bill, SB 39, authored by Senator John Benoit, extended immunity to disaster relief volunteers and workers. Both bills were supported by the Consumer Attorneys of California which noted that "society should encourage citizens to voluntarily aid others at the scene of an emergency."

Under common law principles, no citizen is required to render assistance to another in need of emergency service at an accident scene. When a citizen stepped forward and did so, however, even if it involved their own personal peril, the law was murky as to whether or not they could be legally liable if they did not perform the rescue carefully. The new law clarifies that such rescuers will not be liable unless they act in a grossly negligent or reckless manner. "Gross negligence" has been defined as conduct that involves "so slight a degree of care as to justify the belief there was indifference to the interest and welfare of others." (46 Cal.Jur.3d, Negligence 100). "Reckless misconduct" is conduct that is "so unreasonable and dangerous that [the person knows] it is highly probable that harm will result." (City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747).

We wholeheartedly agree with adoption of this new law. We should never discourage our fellow citizens from stepping up and helping those in need of emergency attention and help. That is what the old law did.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Doctors' Grassroots Action Committee Tells Insurers - Stop Practicing Medicine

Todd Slaughter — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:01:03 GMT

MONTEREY, Calif. - A grassroots political action committee (PAC) comprised mainly of physicians is seeking to influence President Obama's and state legislative reforms to the health care system. The message to health insurance industry devolves from the PAC's name: Stop Practicing Medicine.

The committee's founder, Dr. Bradley W. Carpentier, a Board Certified Pain Management Specialist and Anesthesiologist practicing in Salinas and Monterey, formed the committee to get insurance carriers out of the business of making medical decisions for insureds through the power of the refusal to pay for care. As stated by Dr. Carpentier in his website, "Physicians across the country are fed up with insurance company interference in patient care. That is why we are orgainizing. By refusing to pay for needed medical care, they are dening patients the freedom and right to heal."

Dr. Carpentier is particularly critical of the practice of health care insurers to refer recommendations of specialists such as himself to non-specialized physicians who then question the need or appropriateness of the treatment. While these physicians are usually not on the company's payroll, they understand their role in trying to save the carrier's money. To this committee, this longstanding and widely adopted practice is reprehensible.

The committee does not dispute the benefits that insurance carriers play in the health care system. It believes that the carriers could play an educational role in assisting doctors to understand the need for, and ways to accomplish, cost containment. However, where the carrier invades the "partnership" between a doctor and the patient, united by the goal of restoring or retaining the patient's health, this is simply going too far.

We applaud the efforts of this still forming political action committee. Their voice is that of physicians and patients that have had medical decisions made or inappropriately trumped by health insurance carriers. Carriers that are putting profit over people. If you have such an experience, or would otherwise like to join their cause, provide your story to their website. The hope, apparently, is that a groundswell will begin and will eventually influence the reforms that are being made.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

CPSC Issues New Report on Child Drownings. May is Water Safety Month.

Todd Slaughter — Thu, 21 May 2009 16:25:05 GMT

Today, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a new report concerning the number of child drownings, and near drownings, in pools and spas. The announcement came as May, the national Water Safety Month, winds down and we go into the Memorial Day Holiday.

The new report states that nearly 300 children younger than 5 drown in pools and spas each year. 2/3's of these fatalities involve children ages 1-2, and 80% of the drowning fatalities occur in residential settings, either the child's home, a friend or relative's home or a neighborhood home. Access gained to the pool through "doggie doors" have recently been reported.

New data reveals that from 1999 through 2008, 83 reports of filter entrapments in pools and spas were made. 11 cases involved fatalities. The recently enacted Federal Pool and Spa Safety Act requires public pools and spas to have anti-entrapment devices installed. We believe that full compliance with this law has been postponed to 2010, but the agency has placed special emphasis on enforcing the new rules at public wading pools, kiddie pools and in-ground spas. The law does not apply to residential premises.

In light of these troubling statistics, parents and homeowners with pools should re-double the efforts to make their pools safe. Some common sense safety rules were posted at our home site earlier this month.

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

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

Health Net Settlement - Up to $14 Million for Wrongful Recission of Policies

Todd Slaughter — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:10:17 GMT

It seems like just yesterday I posted about the settlement reached by healthcare insurance giant, Anthem Blue Cross, in a California case brought by 2,300 policyholders for wrongful rescission of policies. Oh, it was yesterday? But today, Health Net announced that it too had settled a wrongful rescission case. According to the Los Angeles Times, Health Net, one of the nation's largest healthcare insurance companies, will pay $2 million in fines to the Los Angeles City Attorney's office, will restore coverage to 800 former policy holders, and will pay for health care bills incurred by the policy holders after they were wrongfully denied. The total estimated cost of the settlement is as much as $14 million.

It seems like I have already written or heard of this story before. Oh, I have. In September of 2008 I posted on another settlement reached by Health Net with 926 of its policy holders that were wrongfully rescinded. This time the settlement was for $13 million, and was supposed to be accompanied by a moratorium on policy rescisions and cooperation with regulatory agencies.

Oh, and Health Net was also found liable for $9 million by an arbitration judge after it wrongfully rescinded a policy of a Gardena hair salon owner when she had been diagnosed with breast cancer. The woman had to suspend chemotherapy because her coverage was dropped.

What is truly amazing is the fact that the basis for rescission is always a claim of misreporting of prior medical history. Such misrepresentations, if true, would be tantamount to fraud and the carrier should not be bound to afford coverage in those intances. Yet, in the 1000s of cases that we are now hearing about, it does not appear that even one claim of "insurance fraud" could be supported.

These carriers have turned the promise of providing the "best healthcare coverage available" into a horrifying nightmare where policyholders are told that the policy does not even exist, at a time when they are suddenly faced with critical healthcare needs. This is reprehensible and the slap on the hand treatment that these carriers have received thus far is incomprehensible.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Blue Cross Fined $1 Million for Wrongful Cancellation of Sick Policyholders

Todd Slaughter — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:07:26 GMT

In what appears to be a continuing revelation of corrupt insurance claims practices, Anthem Blue Cross will announce today that the health care insurance company will pay $1 million in fines to the State of California, and offer reinstatement to 2,330 policy holders whose policies were wrongfully rescinded. In July, we posted about a $13 million settlement that the Blue Cross reached in a case involving 2,200 rescinded policy holders. This settlement notice comes on the heals of an article in the San Francisco Chronicle describing consumer outrage about the company's intent to increase premiums on individual policy holders as much as 30-40% next year.

In the settlement reached with the California Department of Insurance, Anthem Blue Cross will pay the $1 million fine and offer to reimburse its cancelled policyholders for the medical expenses incurred during the time their insurance claims were wrongfully denied. The Los Angeles Times reported that the cost of reimbursement may approach $14 million. Note, that these payments would simply be of amounts the insurer was obliged to cover before it wrongfully terminated policies. According to the Times, Blue Cross will also invite the disenfranchised policy holders to enroll in new coverage without the necessity of meeting any new medical qualifications. Of course, in order for a policy holder to obtain reimbursement for medical expenses wrongfully denied by the carrier, a waiver of any further claim against Blue Cross is required.

From these recent developments it is clear that Anthem Blue Cross, as an insurance company, adopted a practice of denying claims and rescinding policies when the cost of care became disagreeable to them. It has been estimated that Blue Cross saved in excess of $35 million in this campaign.

For those that were wrongfully rescinded, this settlement does nothing to address the horror that each of them felt when told that they had no insurance coverage for treatment that had already been obtained or that was being recommended. Many of them may have been in critical need of treatment. All of them were suddenly faced with great financial duress, a burden that they thought they had protected themselves against. Now, with their credit ruined and after fighting with the carrier for years, they are simply asked to "get back on board." Blue Cross should be ashamed of the way they treated these people. In the view of this author, this "penalty" is merely a slap on the hand. Anthem Blue Cross should not be rewarded in this way when they engage in conduct designed solely to evade responsibilities that they had promised to their insureds.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Inexperienced Drift Boater Capsizes At SR 44 Bridge Construction

Todd Slaughter — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:57:56 GMT

REDDING, Calif. - The Record Searchlight reported yesterday that three fishermen were pitched into the frigid waters of the Sacramento River when their 17-foot driftboat struck a pillar at the SR 44 bridge. Fortunately, all three, including a 14 year-old teenager, were wearing safety vests and were able to swim to shore. No injuries were reported.

This bridge has been under reconstruction for over the last year, and the river has been narrowed into a fast moving channel. Authorities attributed the incident to the inexperience of the 44-year-old operator.

This may be so, but boaters are not screened for experience, nor warned of the specific hazards created by the reconstruction work at this bridge as well as the Cypress Street bridge approximately 3/4 of a mile downstream.

Our Redding lawyers have been monitoring the safety issues at these bridges under construction for some time. At least three capsize events have occurred since construction began. One death occurred at the construction work at North Street bridge in Anderson last year.

Perhaps this most recent incident should prompt a re-look at the safety of continuing to allow boating traffic from the Posse Grounds to below the Cypress Street bridge during construction.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Insurer Settles Class Action Seeking Medical Coverage for Eating Disorders

Todd Slaughter — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:59:25 GMT

For the second time in the last six months, a healthcare insurance company has settled a class action seeking to establish that treatments for eating disorders such as bulimia or anexoria should be covered like other biologically based psychological disorders like schizophrenia. This time, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey agreed to pay $3.6 million to settle the case and, according to the New Jersey Law Journal, further agreed to have all disputes regarding coverage for treatment of eating disorders resolved in binding arbitration by an eating disorder specialist. The settlement still needs the approval of the Federal Judge presiding over the case.

The impact of this decision for those with eating disorders is dramatic. The treatment for these disorders often requires intensive psychological and nutritional interventions on an inpatient basis, with an extensive post-treatment follow-up. Many insurance carriers have limited the number of visits or raise immediate questions regarding the extent of coverage available for these disorders. This itself inhibits those suffering with the disorders from seeking the expensive therapy.

By placing eating disorders on a parity with other biologically based mental illnesses, coverage would be recognized in the vast majority of eating disorder cases. In the first case of this kind, where a similar settlement was reached six months ago, Aetna pledged to re-educate its claims staff regarding the nature of eating disorders and accept coverage when appropriate. In the current Horizon settlement, no similar pledge was made. All that has changed is that Horizon Blue Shield has agreed to revamp its dispute resolution procedure when such a coverage issue arises. Only time will tell if this is an adequate protection for those suffering the disorders.

To this author, the placement of eating disorders on a parity with other mental based or emotional based disorders recognized for coverage is a "no-brainer." The majority of those suffering from eating disorders are young and otherwise healthy. The long-term health implications of untreated eating disorders, however, are serious if not grave. Why not nip it in the bud now and avoid the high costs of long-term or critical care that will arise when the disorder tips into irreversible digestive, kidney and autoimmune system diseases.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter