If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

The Elmira Star Gazette is reporting a breaking news story regarding a death on a natural gas site.  Reports say Greg Allen Henry, a 31-year-old worker, died on March 11, 2010 after falling 20 feet off a natural gas rig in Towanda Township, Pennsylvania.  The man was working on a Nomac Drilling site located just off Plank Road.

This accident highlights concerns regarding safety on natural  gas rigs shared by many people throughout New York’s Southern Tier and Pennsylvania’s Northern Tier.  As exploration of the Marcellus Shale continues to increase, many rural areas are experiencing (or hope to soon experience) strong economic growth.  However, this growth may come at a steep price, as the family of Mr. Henry is no doubt realizing today.  Natural gas drilling is risky business, and the desire to work quickly in order to maximize profits may lead to unnecessary injuries — and even death.

I will follow-up on this post as more details become available.

Thanks, Christina
_________________________________
Christina Bruner Sonsire, Esq.
NY & PA Injury & Malpractice Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William Street
Elmira, New York 14902-1338
csonsire@zifflaw.com
Office: 607.733.8866
Toll-Free: 800.ZIFFLAW (943.3529)
Web: zifflaw.com
Blog: NYInjuryLawBlog.com

As a Plaintiff’s Attorney who conducts depositions on a regular basis, one of the more frustrating issues I encounter is the non-party witness (NPW) who is represented by counsel.  Sometimes the NPW brings in their own outside counsel to represent them.  More commonly, the NPW has some loose affiliation with the interests of the Defendants in the case, and defense counsel tries to claim that they are also representing the NPW.  Defense counsel then obstructs objects and delays, hoping to prevent me from obtaining damaging information from the NPW.  These kinds of tactics usually end up in the deposition being adjourned, or a call to the judge to determine the extent to which the defense attorney will be allowed to participate, with wildly varying decisions froom the judges who have addressed the issue.

Thankfully, the Appellate Division has finally ruled on the issue.  In Thompson v. Mather, the NYS Appellate Division, Fourth Department recently ruled that while an NPW is certainly entitled to whatever counsel they want, the NPW’s attorney IS NOT entitled to participate in the deposition.  So they can’t object or obstruct or delay or do any of the many other things that slow, and sometimes stop a deposition dead in its tracks.

This is a boon for not just plaintiffs attorneys, but for every attorney who handles depositions.  The trial judges who have to field phone calls from attorneys complaining of these tactics will be happy to hear of this decision as well.  Many thanks to our good friend Eric Turkewitz, who wrote about the topic here.  It seems that the scales of justice may be tipping toward common sense!

Thanks for reading,

_______________________________
Adam M. Gee, Esq.

I have handled many tragic cases involving pedestrians struck by cars. As might be expected when a car weighing thousands of runs over a fragile human body, death or multiple traumatic injuries are common.

A recent pedestrian fatality (the WETM story, “Man Hit by Car Dies” is pasted below) not two miles from my own home, got me thinking about just how careful we need to be when driving our cars.

Normally we think of our cars as transportation, or a status symbol, or a hobby if you are a car enthusiast. Rarely do we think of our cars as what they really are—CARS ARE KILLING MACHINES.

Used incorrectly or unsafely, cars can be as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than a gun or knife. When you are behind the wheel of a car, you have incredible power at your fingertips. You also have the potential to inflict incredible injury in a micro-second.

Because of that potential for harm, it is SO important that we all be as careful as possible when driving.

I know this sounds simple but I can’t tell you how many people I see driving who are not paying attention to what they are doing—they are talking on their cell phone, they are eating, they have a dog in their lap, etc. Not one of these people is thinking that they might be seconds away from killing an innocent pedestrian, running down a bicyclist or hitting another car.

These people aren’t necessarily bad people—they are just distracted people. Unfortunately, distracted drivers often cause deadly accidents.

Sorry to pontificate, but I just wanted to take a few minutes to remind everyone of the huge responsibility to the safety of others that we take on every time we put the key in the ignition of our car. Let’s be careful out there and save some lives…

Thanks for reading and stay safe on the road,

Jim
_________________________________
James B. Reed
NY & PA Injury & Malpractice Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
Mailto: jreed@zifflaw.com
Office: (607)733-8866
Toll-Free: 800-ZIFFLAW (943-3529)
Web: www.zifflaw.com
Blogs: NYInjuryLawBlog.com and
NYBikeAccidentBlog.com

From WETM: Man Hit by Car Dies (Update)

Reported by: Sofia Ojeda
Email: sojeda@wetmtv.com

West Elmira, (N.Y.) -  The name of the man killed while crossing a street in West Elmira Saturday morning, has been released.

At around 7:30 Saturday morning, deputies say 66 year old, Philip Childs, of Ohio, was walking on West Water Street and crossing Forrest Hill Drive.That’s when deputies say 41 year old David Joyce of Elmira hit Childs with his Chevy Suburban.

Investigators say witnesses saw Joyce leaving the Wilson Farm across the street when the incident occurred.

Childs was sent by ambulance to Arnot Ogden Medical Center, where he died from his injuries.

No word yet if any charges have been filed against the driver.

The accident is still under investigation.

The Elmira Star-Gazette recently published a letter written by my cousin Pat O’Donnell. Although I agree with my cousin on many matters, there are a few on which we differ. One subject on which our opinions vary is tort reform and the cost of health care in America. First, let me share my cousin’s letter, then I’ll explain why I feel I must dispute his argument.

From the Elmira Star-Gazette, Feb. 19, 2010:

“Most Americans agree we need health care reform. What we do not want is for the government to take over the industry. Start with tort reform. Doctors are paying six-figure checks for malpractice insurance a year, and these figures increase yearly, as do all our premiums. The reason Washington does not want to address this problem is most of them are lawyers (with friends who are lawyers) getting rich on malpractice law suits.

The second problem to tackle is the sale of insurance across state lines (you can buy insurance only from a company within your own state). Open up the lines – its called competition – which in turn make you sharpen your pencil when you quote your goods.

Next – jobs. Unemployment’s hovering around 10 percent; we tried to spend our way out time and time again, but it does not work. Cut taxes across the board. If we Americans have more, we spend more. Consumer spending creates jobs. It’s time we stand up to the corruption once and for all. Maybe its time we elected some people that actually live the life the people now in Washington so want to control.”

- Pat O’Donnell

To counter Mr. O’Donnell assertions, I can begin with the results of a comprehensive study published by University of Connecticut Law Professor Tom Baker.  He revealed that the cost of all malpractice claims in the United States – including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts – amounts to less than one-half of 1 percent of all U.S. health care spending.

I’d also like to share this CNN clip of Senator Richard J. Durbin making a strong, compelling argument against the Republican push for malpractice reform:

Simply put, lawsuits are not to blame for our health care system’s deficiencies – they are simply political scapegoats.

Malpractice claims actually decrease spending by encouraging doctors to perform properly, avoiding costs associated with caring for people injured by their mistakes.

Moreover, tort reformists want to shift responsibility from private insurance companies to taxpayers.

According to the Institute of Medicine, 98,000 people die from malpractice each year.  Currently, victims are compensated by negligent doctors’ insurance companies.  By limiting doctors’ exposure to lawsuits, victims will have to look to public entities to cover future medical treatment, lost wages and physical and occupational rehabilitation.

Yes, that’s right– if you limit recoveries in lawsuits, the medical costs will be borne by YOU the taxpayer rather than the medical malpractice insurance carrier!

Although tort reform has the potential to save money – by allowing doctors to save negligible amounts of money in insurance premiums – it is much more likely to lead to increased costs for the rest of us.

As I mentioned, my cousin and I have many opinions in common, but this is a subject on which we diverge. I’m sure Mr. O’Connell will agree with me in an appreciation of a healthy debate!

Thank you,

Christina
________________________________
Christina Bruner Sonsire, Esq.
NY & PA Injury & Malpractice Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William Street
Elmira, New York 14902-1338
csonsire@zifflaw.com
Office: 607.733.8866
Toll-Free: 800.ZIFFLAW (943.3529)
Web: zifflaw.com
Blog: NYInjuryLawBlog.com

When will these drug manufacturers learn that it is NOT acceptable to keep distributing a drug they KNOW is causing injury and death?

Haven’t they learned anything from the asbestos cases, the Vioxx cases, the Levaquin cases? The bottom line is that they will NOT be able to conceal damaging information forever. In today’s age of free exchange of information, it is becoming more difficult than ever for any manufacturer to keep a lid on problems with their products. In the old days, a heart attack victim in Pennsylvania might know nothing about a heart attack victim in New York, but those days are over. Online communities of patients, doctors and medical researchers can now share their experience with people around the world with just a click of a button.

If this is so obvious to me, why isn’t it obvious to these drug manufacturers who mistakenly believe they can hide the damaging information from the public? Hmmmm, perhaps it is the lure of BIG DOLLARS. The longer you wait to recall a drug can mean millions if not billions of dollars of drug sales.

Heck, why not try to make as much money as possible on a drug before you pull the plug on it? It sure makes business sense but it totally forgets that you are injuring or killing innocent people in exchange for a few more $. Sadly, big business often cares more about profits than people.

A recommendation to manufacturers

Here’s what I would like to tell the companies who have learned that a product they thought was safe but has now been revealed as dangererous: IMMEDIATELY stop distribution of any suspected dangerous product BEFORE more people are permanently injured or killed. Toyota, are you listening?

It appears that Avandia is among the latest drugs to join the “dangerous drug concealed from the public” camp. Avandia, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, is a popular diabetes drug. Unfortunately, Avandia has a deadly side effect of drastically increasing the risk of heart attacks and causing liver damage.

A 2007 study in the highly respected New England Journal of Medicine revealed the increased heart attack risks associated with Avandia. CNN did a great video report on the dangers of Avandia and how those dangers were well known to GlaxoSmithKline long before they publicly revealed any information:

Avandia Linked to Heart Attacks – CNN “American Morning”

More details about Avandia:

Avandia (rosiglitazone maleate) is a GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) drug developed to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. First approved by the FDA in 1999, the agency reported 8 years later a significant increase in the risk of heart attack in those patients to whom Avandia had been prescribed. And many deaths have been linked to Avandia. More recently, two independent studies showed that bone fractures, particularly in female patients, have been associated with this popular diabetes drug, while a third study has found a link between Avandia and liver failure.

Safety concerns and side effects that have been associated with Avandia include the following:

• hypersensitivity
• cardiac failure
• hepatic impairment
• macular oedema
• bone fracture

In addition to these serious side effects, several other risk factors associated with consuming Avandia include: weight gain, cold, cough, headache, inflammation of sinuses, back pain, swelling, fluid retention and cardiac arrest.

If you or a family member have used Avandia and have suffered heart attack or liver damage after taking Avandia, please consult with an experienced malpractice lawyer ASAP so you can learn about your legal options. If you do not know an experienced malpractice lawyer, you can feel free to e-mail me at jreed@zifflaw.com.

Thanks, Jim

_________________________________

James B. Reed
NY & PA Injury & Malpractice Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
Mailto: jreed@zifflaw.com
Office: (607)733-8866
Toll-Free: 800-ZIFFLAW (943-3529)
Web: www.zifflaw.com
Blogs: NYInjuryLawBlog.com and
NYBikeAccidentBlog.com

As I have blogged many times before, there is nothing more tragic than the death of a child. And with three teenagers myself, I know the fear that creeps in to every parent’s heart every time they watch their kid walk out the door with the keys to the family car.

I thought I would let you in on a shocking statistic that I have heard many times during my years of handling car crash cases in NY and PA:

• A teenager is TWO TIMES more likely to die in a car accident if there is 1 passenger in the car.

• A teenager is THREE TIMES more likely to die if there are 3 or more passengers in the car.

So, the simple tip is this: PRACTICE TOUGH LOVE BY STRICTLY LIMITING THE NUMBER OF PASSENGERS PERMITTED IN THE CAR WHEN YOUR TEEN IS DRIVING.

Of course, your kids while whine about the rule but if they want the keys to your car (and you want to keep your kid as safe as possible!), just hold your ground on this potentially life-saving family rule.

If you catch them driving with more passenger than the permitted number, it’s time for a little bit more tough love… Enjoy your walking shoes for the next month, Johnny!

Here’s to keeping our kids safe….

Jim
_________________________________
James B. Reed
New York Car Accident Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
Mailto: jreed@zifflaw.com
Office: (607)733-8866
Toll-Free: 800-ZIFFLAW (943-3529)
Web: www.zifflaw.com
Blogs: NYInjuryLawBlog.com and
NYBikeAccidentBlog.com

As a NY accident lawyer, I can tell you that there is nothing more difficult than to sit with parents who have lost a child in a fatal car crash.

Often these cases involve a teen driver who didn’t  have the experience or the maturity to safely drive a car. Often these teen car accidents involve carloads of teenagers – we all know all too well that peer pressure can result in unsafe driving activities, such as speeding and drinking and driving.

Now there is a great new New York state law that seeks to address these dangers by placing new restrictions on teen drivers in NY, the New York Graduated License Law for drivers under age 18. The law took effect on Monday, Feb. 22.

What does the new law do?

• It reduces from two to one the number of non-family passengers under age 21 riding in a motor vehicle operated by a junior license holder when not accompanied by a licensed parent or guardian
• Eliminates the limited use junior license and require that a junior permit be held for at least 6 months before a junior or senior license may be issued
• Increases the number of supervised driving hours before scheduling a road test from 20 to 50 hours, that includes 15 hours of driving after sunset.

WETM-TV reported on this new law in a news story, “More Strict Driving Rules for Teens.” In the WETM story, Chemung County Clerk Katie Hughes said of teens: “They are so busy now with all the stuff going on around them, kids in the car, people in the car, talking on the phone, texting which is against the law so they are really cutting down on this.”

The thought behind the new law

The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles released a Graduated Driving Law video explaining the changes in the law and offering an important explanation from DMV Commissioner David Swarts.

” The intent of this new law …  is to help prepare our young drivers for the life-long responsibility of driving. The rationale behind these changes is very simple. Motor vehicle crashes are the number one cause of death for teens. The crash fatality rate is highest for 16- to 17-year-olds within the first six months of getting their license. These changes strengthen the current law and address the main causes of teen driver crashes-distractions and inexperience.”

I’m sure there is going to be a lot of disappointment expressed in the halls of high schools across the state. But this law is an absolute necessity if if can cut down on the number of fatal car accidents for teens. Our state’s young people shouldn’t have their lives cut short in car accidents, and parents shouldn’t have to hear that their child is gone.

Thanks for reading,

Jim
________________________________________
James B. Reed, Esq.
Personal Injury & Malpractice Attorney
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14902
Tel. (607) 733-8866 Fax. (607) 732-6062
Toll Free 1-800-943-3529
mailto:jreed@zifflaw.com http://www.zifflaw.com
E-mail me at FreeReports@zifflaw.com for two free books:
NY Car Accidents and NY Car Insurance Secrets YOU Need to Know.

The Ziff Law Firm has planned an important seminar for legal professionals.

The firm will host Liens, Set-Asides and Special Needs Trusts, noon to 2 p.m. on Friday, March 5 at the Ziff offices, 303 William Street in Elmira.

The seminar will be presented by Brett Newman, managing partner of Lien Resolution Group, and Ziff Law’s Christina Bruner Sonsire, Esq.

Participants earn two CLE credits and lunch will be provided. The cost is free for members of the Academy of Trial Lawyers and $100 for non-members. The $100 admission fee can be applied toward the cost of a one-year membership in the Academy. For more information, follow this link to the Seminar Brochure and/or check the Academy of Trial Lawyers Brochure.

The seminar will cover a variety of topics:

• Changes in state and federal laws affecting Medicare reimbursement claims
• Medicaid liens
• Private health insurance subrogation claims
• When Medicare set-asides are appropriate in liability and workers compensation cases
• Attorney and client liability for Medicare, Medicaid and ERISA claims
• Procedures to identify potential liens, initiate correspondence with the lien holder, audit and petition bills and payment summaries, and negotiate procurement offset
• The protection of client government benefits through special needs trusts

To register for the seminar, please visit the Academy of Trial Lawyers online or call the Academy at (518) 364-4044. Please contact me directly if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Christina
________________________________
Christina Bruner Sonsire, Esq.
NY & PA Injury & Malpractice Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William Street
Elmira, New York 14902-1338
csonsire@zifflaw.com
Office: 607.733.8866
Toll-Free: 800.ZIFFLAW (943.3529)
Web: zifflaw.com
Blog: NYInjuryLawBlog.com

I recently had an e-mail from a concerned personal injury victim about his case. The writer is not a client of mine, but he was hoping I could give him some advice about the statute of limitations on legal malpractice claims.

I told him that the time limit to bring a legal malpractice claim in NY  is “generally” 3 years from the date of the alleged malpractice by the attorney (ie the first date you feel the lawyer screwed up).

The reason I qualified this statement by saying “generally” is that there are a few, very limited exceptions to this 3 year time limit requirement (more on this below).

In this man’s situation, his case may be dismissed – and that could have been caused by legal malpractice by his own attorney. Through no fault of his own, this victim is looking at his case being dismissed before he even really gets started because the time limit to bring a NY legal malpractice case (3 years) has already expired.

The sad part is that he might not have any recourse because he was so caught up in his medical situation that he didn’t even know the applicable time limit for bringing a lawsuit against his lawyer. Now he has discovered that he may have to hurry up and file a legal malpractice case – if he can – before the 3-year window to bring a legal malpractice case closes.

He wanted to know if this was all the time his case had left – and if there were anything else he could do.

Statute of limitations in legal malpractice cases can be very tricky to determine and often are very fact-dependent.

My usual rule of thumb is to use 3 years from the date of the alleged malpractice.  Any date other than that can become very risky because you are relying on exceptions to the general rule.

With that said, there is an exception generally referred to as the “continuous treatment doctrine” that is occasionally applied in medical malpractice cases. It says the clock doesn’t start to tick on the time limit to file a malpractice claim until the last date the defendant doctor continued to provide active treatment to the patient.

The corollary to this exception in the legal malpractice world is the “continuous representation doctrine” and it would suggest that the clock doesn’t start to tick on the attorney’s malpractice until the last date the attorney represented you on the particular matter that you allege he screwed up.

As I said before, these are general exceptions and the courts can be very strict in applying these exceptions to the facts of any particular case.  Accordingly, competent malpractice lawyers prefer not to ever rely on these exceptions and try to bring the action within 3 years of the date of the alleged malpractice.  I refer to this as the KISS principle: Keep It Simple, Stupid!

Because determining the proper time limit is so important (and fatal to your case if you do it incorrectly!), I urge anyone with a this issue to consult with an experienced malpractice lawyer ASAP!

I hope this helps.

Thanks for reading,
Jim
_________________________________________
James B. Reed, Esq.
Personal Injury & Malpractice Attorney
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14902
Tel. (607) 733-8866  Fax. (607) 732-6062
Toll Free 1-800-943-3529
mailto:jreed@zifflaw.com http://www.zifflaw.com

E-mail me at FreeReports@zifflaw.com for two free books:
NY Car Accidents and NY Car Insurance Secrets YOU Need to Know.

“If it is too good to be true, it is too good to be true.”

I ALWAYS keep that old saying in mind when considering any aspect of my personal injury or malpractice cases. Over the years, being extremely suspicious of something that sounds too good to be true has saved my bacon more times than I can count.

Just this past week, my suspicious instinct for self-preservation saved me from the most sophisticated Internet scam I have ever seen. What is amazing about this scam is that it is specifically targeting law firms.

And lest you think lawyers are too smart to get victimized by a simple Internet scam, think again — I am told that at least 22 law firms have fallen prey to this scam with each of them losing $300,000 to $400,000. That’s right, MORE than $300,000 each! And there is no recourse for these duped firms.

So let me tell you about the scam so you can make sure you don’t fall prey to this scam.

It starts innocently enough. You receive an E-mail from a woman who has been terribly hurt in a New York City accident. The woman tells you she is Korean and was working in the US in NYC at the time of her injury.

She says that the insurance company (MetLife in my case) has offered her $400,000 to settle her case but they are now jerking her around about paying because she has moved back to Korea due to her injuries and disability. She says she just needs a US attorney to receive the settlement check and then send her the funds in Korea.

Well, I am so used to insurance companies jerking people around for every reason under the sun, that that part of the story is entirelyplausible. Even though my instinct was that this smelled funny (and I told my wife that), I decided to play along and see where this would go.

I emailed back and said I would be happy to help but would need documentation of the settlement and additional information.

To my surprise, I was then emailed settlement documents that looked totally legitimate. They were professionally done, grammatically correct, and notarized. Not the kind of thing you normally see with the typical Internet scam where there are tons of misspellings and atrocious grammar. The documents identified a MetLife Adjuster with both a phone number and e-mail address for him.

So, I decided to continue to play along to see what would happen next.

I emailed the adjuster after checking that the E-mail was actually going to a MetLife domain. I truly thought that would be the end of it. But knock me over with a feather, I got an E-mail back from the adjuster

saying that he would process the $400,000 check and send it to me. I thought sure…..

The next day, I received a $400,000 MetLife check via FEDEX. The check (see the posted photo) looked totally legitimate and was drawn on a CitiBank account. I was amazed and was beginning to teeter on the edge of believing this actually might be legitimate. But that’s when I received a phone call from the US Postal Inspector. They asked if I had received a $400,000 check. I told them I had and they said that they were glad they had reached me before the check had been cashed or any funds had been transferred.

I was told that so far they were aware of 40 checks for $400,000 sent to lawyers and of those 40, 22 had already wired funds of more than $300,000 each out of the country. For those unfortunate lawyers, there is no recourse because the funds were now outside the US.

The Postal inspector explained that the CitiBank check did in fact have correct routing numbers for a MetLife account so that when the lawyer presented the check to his bank, that bank would honor the check because it looked to be legitimate. It would only be several days later when CitiBank rejected the check that a lawyer would learn of the scam. If the lawyer had already wired the money out of the country, they were totally out of luck.

So, a word to the wise: If it is too good to be true, it is too good to be true!” And another word to all attorneys: Wait until a check has CLEARED before disbursing any funds even if that means you have to wait 7 to 10 days. Better safe than sorry!

Thanks for reading,

Jim

_________________________________

James B. Reed
NY & PA Injury & Malpractice Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
Mailto: jreed@zifflaw.com
Office: (607)733-8866
Toll-Free: 800-ZIFFLAW (943-3529)
Web: www.zifflaw.com
Blogs: NYInjuryLawBlog.com and
NYBikeAccidentBlog.com