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

Over my 23 years of practice in Upstate NY and PA, I have handled my share of tragic cases due to falls on snow and ice:

• a woman from Ithaca, NY who suffered a permanent brain injury due to hitting her head on an ice sidewalk outside a Corning, NY pizzeria;
• a construction worker from Elmira who was caused to suffer a nasty, spiral fracture of his femur when caused to fall on icy steps at a Waverly, NY factory;
• a Binghamton, NY man who badly injured his back in a twisting fall in a shopping mall parking lot.

Each of these cases resulted in very substantial payments by the insurance carriers for the property owners.

The sad part about each of these cases was just how easily they could have been avoided had the property owner just taken the simple (and legally required) step of keeping their property free of snow and ice.

Now don’t get me wrong, as a property owner myself, I know that it’s often a pain in the neck to keep my home and my office clear of snow and ice but I also know that it is my legal responsibility to do so and even more important, I sure don’t want to see one of my family, friends or clients hurt just because I was too lazy to make sure that I kept my property safe.

During the cold and stormy months of winter, it seems as if we just get the sidewalks cleared before Mother Nature strikes with another storm. A new layer of snow and ice coats the area, making roads and sidewalks slippery and dangerous until we can treat and clear them again.

I want to share some advice about winter conditions and legal liability. This is good information to remember, no matter what your “walk” in life. You may a business or building owner with the responsibility of keeping sidewalks and entrances clear and safe, or you could be a victim of a nasty fall on ice, trying to figure out what your legal rights are.

I was inspired to share some information about this issue by a post, Snow and Ice: Five Ways to Avoid Legal Liability by attorney Tim Rayne. Tim’s tips address the potential liability of property owners. He basically cautions them to:

Determine who is responsible for keeping walking areas free of snow and ice. It may be the property owner, or it could be the municipality – the key is to KNOW for SURE and assume the responsibility if it is yours.

Treat ice and snow effectively and get rid of it quickly. Don’t dawdle! If you are a property owner, and you don’t address dangerous walking conditions quickly, you are opening yourself up to a lawsuit.

I want to add that if you are a pedestrian and you note poor conditions, be sure and tell the property owner. You don’t want to be the victim of a slip and fall accident – or allow anyone else to be, either.

And finally, Tim tells property owners to be sure and have enough liability insurance to cover the cost of perhaps serious injuries to victims of slip and fall accidents.

I know from my 20+ years of experience handling personal injury cases that even when insurance adequately covers the costs of physical recovery, serious injuries have repercussions in victims’ family life, careers, mental state and more. First and foremost, we need to keep people aware of their responsibilities and/or risk during this sometimes treacherous season.  Stay safe!

Thanks for reading,

Jim

_________________________________________
James B. Reed, Esq.
NY Fall and Injury Lawyer
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.

Our hearts go out to the family of local builder, John Roy from Horseheads, NY, who died after falling from a scaffold while building a house in Lansing, NY.  John had an excellent local reputation and I fondly remember time spent talking with him years ago when I was building my own home.  We send our thoughts and prayers to his family.

The facts of John’s fall are not very clear at this time.  The Corning Leader and WETM report:  “62-year old John Roy of Horseheads died after falling 30 feet from scaffolding while building a home in Lansing.  Roy was working on the roof of the house at the time.”

John’s tragic death caused me to reflect on the purpose behind a very important New York law.

Under NY law, construction workers are protected by what is referred to as the Scaffold Law (copied below). This law imposes liability on both the owners and general contractor whenever a worker is injured or killed due to an “elevation related risk.” Most commonly, cases under the Scaffold Law involve falls from a ladder or scaffold but they can involve other types of falls where the worker was exposed to injury due to working at a height.

The public policy behind this law is to encourage greater workplace safety for NY workers and accordingly it is a law that serves a very important function.  Because of this law, over the years, construction safety practices have dramatically improved. Heck, when I was a teenager carrying shingles for a local roofer, I never had the protection of a safety line but now such safety equipment is routinely seen on work sites.

Despite the fact that I am a lawyer who makes my living representing injured workers and their families, I am a strong supporter of any law that seeks to protect public safety.  My feeling is that unfortunately there will always be way too many injured people, so anything that can help protect more people is a great thing.

Here is an excerpt from the NY Scaffold Law:

New York Labor Law 240. Scaffolding and other devices for use of employees

1. All contractors and owners and their agents, except owners of one and two- family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work, in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed.

Thanks for reading and stay safe,

Jim
_________________________________
James B. Reed

NY Scaffold 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

Here is a copy of a story The Leader ran about John’s accident:

H’heads contractor dies after fall

(By Derrick Ek; Corning Leader; Wednesday Jan. 27, 2010, 04:33 PM EST)

Horseheads, N.Y. – A Horseheads man killed in a construction accident Tuesday was a longtime member of the community and a respected businessman, according to Horseheads Mayor Don Zeigler.

John D. Roy, 62, the owner of Roy Builders Inc., died after falling 30 feet from scaffolding at a home his company was building in an upscale neighborhood in Lansing, north of Ithaca, said Capt. Derek Osborne of the Tompkins County Sheriff’s Office.

Roy was climbing out of a window near the roof of the home onto the scaffolding when he fell, Osborne said. The scaffolding may have been unstable, Osborne added.

Roy was rushed by ambulance to Cayuga Medical Center, where he succumbed to his injuries, Osborne said.

Zeigler called Roy a good man and an excellent contractor who had built many homes and larger projects over the years, contributing to the area’s growth. Roy had recently submitted plans to village officials for a 30-unit senior housing complex near Hanover Square in Horseheads.

“He will be greatly missed,” Zeigler said.

Roy, who lived on Johnson Road in the town of Horseheads, leaves behind a wife and two children, said Jim Lynch, owner of Lynch’s Funeral Home in Horseheads, which is handling Roy’s funeral arrangements.

Lynch had known Roy since high school, he said. Roy was a good friend and a “master craftsman” who truly cared about his customers, Lynch said.

Calling hours are 5-8 p.m. Friday at Lynch Funeral Home, 318 W. Broad St., Horseheads. Funeral services will be held at 11 a.m. Saturday at Trinity Episcopal Church, located at the corner of Main and Church streets in Elmira.

Since Dec. 18, 2009, there is a new law effective in New York state: Leandra’s Law.

As a lawyer who has handled way too many tragic drunk-driving cases over the years, I applaud the New York State Legislature for enacting one of the toughest anti-drunk driving laws in the United States.

This law was inspired by a tragic drunk-driving fatality. According to news coverage of the accident, 11-year-old Leandra Rosado of Manhattan was killed on the way to a sleepover party. The accident happened in October on the Henry Hudson Parkway in Manhattan. Leandra and six other children were passengers in a vehicle that crashed. It was driven by the mother of one of Leandra’s friends. Unfortunately, this mother was driving while intoxicated. She ended up flipping her vehicle and killing Leandra in a horrible collision.

Leandra’s Law makes it a felony for anyone to drive drunk with a child under the age of 16 years old in the car. This new law automatically elevates what was a misdemeanor DWI to an E level felony if there is a child in the car.

Under this law, regardless of whether there is an accident or not, a drunk-driving adult can be sentenced to up to 4 years in state prison.  In the event there is a crash that injures the child passenger, the drunk driver can be sentenced to up to 15 years in state prison. If the child is killed in a crash, the drunk driver can receive a prison sentence of up to 25 years.

For all those who might argue that these penalties are too tough, I can tell you that if you have ever sat with the family of a child who was killed as a result of a drunk driver these new penalties aren’t nearly tough enough.

I am a weekly commentator on WETM TV’s Law Talk segment, and on Dec. 30 I was asked to discuss Leandra’s Law.

The producers at WETM TV field questions for my Law Talk segment. It airs each Wednesday at noon. If you have a question, a problem, or you would like to hear my thoughts on legal developments, please e-mail lawtalk@wetmtv.com.

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  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.

Safety-conscious adults realize that driveways and parking lots are danger zones for children, but I was surprised by some recent information I read about the extent of the risk.

A recent InjuryBoard newsletter included details from Kids and Cars, a non-profit advocacy group that hopes to end non-traffic car accident injuries to children. According to the organization, today’s large SUVs and trucks may have a rear blind-spot up to 50 feet long! The average age of a child involved in a back-over accident is between 12 and 23 months. Compounding the tragedy, statistics show that in more than 70 percent of such accidents, a parent or close relative is driving the vehicle.

I personally have handled several cases of kids badly hurt by driveway accidents. It is ALWAYS a good idea to be very careful when driving into or out of driveways. We all know that young kids are unpredictable and have no conception of just how dangerous a car can be.

Here are 15 tips from Kids and Cars to protect children from driveway back-over accidents:

1. Walk around and behind a vehicle prior to moving it.
2. Know where your children are. Make kids move away from your vehicle to a place where they are in full view before moving the car and know that another adult is properly supervising children before moving your vehicle.
3. Teach children that “parked” cars might move. Let them know that they can see the vehicle, but the driver might not be able to see them.
4. Consider installing safety devices: cross-view mirrors, audible collision detectors, rear-view video camera and or some type of back-up detection device.
5. Measure the size of the blind-zone area behind the vehicle(s) you drive. A 5-foot, 1-inch driver in a pickup truck can have a rear blind zone that is approximately 8 feet wide and 50 feet long.
6. Be aware that steep inclines and large SUVs, vans and trucks add to the difficulty of seeing behind a vehicle.
7. Hold children’s hands when leaving the vehicle.
8. Teach your children to NEVER play in, around or behind a vehicle.
9. Keep toys and other sports equipment off the driveway.
10. Homeowners should trim landscaping around the driveway to ensure they can see the sidewalk, street and pedestrians clearly when backing out of their driveway. Pedestrians also need to be able to see a vehicle pulling out of the driveway.
11. Never leave children alone in or around cars, not even for a minute.
12. Keep vehicles locked at all times, even in the garage or driveway, and always set your parking brake.
13. Keys and/or remote openers should never be left within reach of children.
14. Make sure all child passengers have left the car after it is parked.
15. Be especially careful about keeping children safe in and around cars during busy times, schedule changes and periods of crisis or holidays.

Change is in sight

In February 2008, The Cameron Grubransen Kids Transportation Safety Act was signed into law by President Bush. Two-year-old Cameron was killed in a back-over accident. His father was driving the family’s SUV, and did not see Cameron in the vehicle’s blind spot.

The tragedy inspired legislation which enables the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration to require safety improvements in new vehicles – features including rear-view cameras, automatic shutoffs on power windows, and brake improvements to prevent rollaway cars. All will help prevent injuries to children – amazingly, many of these features are standard on vehicles in Europe.

It may take 4 to 8 years for the Act to have an impact. Even as vehicles improve, ultimately the safety of children depends on drives. It is important that we, as the adult drivers, be extra cautious particularly when we know that there are kids in the area. As always, simple precautions can prevent serious injuries.

Thanks for reading,

Jim
_________________________________________
James B. Reed, Esq.
NY Accident Lawyer
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.

To many people, dogs truly are “man’s best friend.” Certainly, dogs can be wonderful companions and add much to people’s lives.

As a dog lover and past Board member for the Chemung County SPCA, I wholeheartedly agree with all the great sentiments about dogs and the joy that they can bring.

Unfortunately, however, some folks do not realize the responsibilities that come with dog ownership – including controlling your dog and keeping it appropriately fenced or leashed. Often, not controlling or appropriately containing a pet hurts the pet. A dog can easily be the victim of an accident or become lost. In other scenarios, a dog owner’s lack of responsibility hurts other people. Our law firm has seen too many people scared for life from a dog attack or avoiding a dog attack.

When can someone be held responsible for a dog attack?

There is no easy answer to this question. It is more of step-by-step process, decided by a series of standards:

First, was the injured party bit by the dog or hurt while avoiding a dog? When people think of this area of law, many folks think an actual attack is required, but a pet owner can be held responsible if someone is injured fleeing a dog when they believe they are going to be attacked.

Second – and it gets more complicated here – did the dog owner know the dog had “vicious propensities” as is required under N.Y. dog bite law?

“Vicious propensity”… what in the world is that and what does it mean?

Like many things in the law, the answer to is: It’s complicated. See my related post, “Vicious Propensities”: Dog Owners’ Liability and Responsibilty to Spot Warning Signs of Attack” for details.

For the purposes of this post and simply put, it means: Could something about the dog’s behavior have tipped off the owners that this dog might have the tendency to attack someone? It could be something obvious – like vicious growling or biting in the past. However, it could be something less obvious – such as use as a guard dog.

The determination of whether a dog has exhibited vicious propensities must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Clearly, a prior attack or bite by the dog constitutes a vicious propensity, but short of a previous attack or bite, the determination must be based upon the facts of this particular dog’s history.

Can owners be held responsible if their dog is NOT LEASHED and it attacks?

Many municipalities in New York state, including Elmira, have leash laws whereby an owner can be fined for not keeping a dog confined or on a leash. But what about their being held liable in a civil proceeding if their dog is not leashed or confined and it attacks?

In the past, an owner could be held liable through negligence if a person was injured by a dog attack while the owner was violating the leash law.

Negligence? Generally, negligence means having a responsibility to act a certain way and then not doing it.However, it is a bit more complex and usually broken down into parts.

Specifically, negligence means that someone has a duty to do something, that duty is not completed and not following the duty caused the injury with damages. For example, if there was a duty to leash a dog, the owner did not leash it, the dog ran away from the owner and bit someone because it was loose, the person had medical bills and lost work, etc, that would amount to negligence.

Being held responsible for a dog biting when off a leash makes sense, right? After all, if the owner is supposed to keep a dog on a leash and does not, the owner should be held responsible if a person is hurt as a result of the pet being loose. The attack probably would not have happened if they were following the rules! Unfortunately, though, the high court of New York, the Court of Appeals, recently disagreed in the case of Petrone v. Fernandez.

N.Y. Courts take a step backward …

In Petrone v. Fernandez, a dog was not leashed or fenced, in violation of a local leash law. A mail carrier was delivering mail when she turned around to see a large dog running at her, only about six feet way. The mail carrier ran and attempted to jump in her car.

While jumping in her car through the window, her hand was stuck outside the car and she injured her finger, causing her pain for several months, missed work and was only able to engage in limited activities. She sued and, although the incident likely would not have happened had the dog been leashed, the court said that violating a leash law, although an indication of the owners’ negligence, was not enough to hold the pet’s owners responsible.

What does that all mean? It means that, as a result of this case, indications of negligence by the owners, including violating the law by not keeping the pet on a leash, is not enough is make an owner liable. In other words, negligence is NOT enough; the ONLY way that an owner can be held responsible is if they knew the dog had vicious propensities.

Why did the Court of Appeals change the law in the Petrone case?

Why the change and why discourage responsibility? Hard to say.

The court may want to simplify these cases and make them more “cut and dried” or maybe they think that violation of a leash law is not a good enough indication that the owners should be held responsible for their pet’s actions. Maybe they want to limit the cases on this subject.

Whatever the reason, it seems unlikely that insisting on the foreknowledge of “vicious propensities” will make things simpler or do justice to people who have been attacked.

Is it really fair to make someone that has been injured jump through hoops to prove that an owner knew of his or her dog’s vicious propensities – even when the incident likely would not have happened if the owner followed the law? And, what if no vicious propensities can be found – should a victim of such an incident be left without compensation and justice? We do not think so.

We hope you found this information helpful. Be sure to look at our other posts on dog bites and dog attacks here on the NY Injury Law Blog.

If you or a loved one has been the victim of a dog attack or dog bite, please feel free to contact me directly at jreed@zifflaw.com or call 800-ZIFFLAW (943-3529) to discuss your legal options.

Thanks,

Jim
_________________________________

James B. Reed
NY & PA Dog Bite Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14902
Phone: (607) 733-8866 Fax: (607) 732-6062
Toll-free: (800)-943-3529
mailto:jreed@zifflaw.com www.zifflaw.com

Sad to say, but over the years I have handled way too many cases on behalf of people who have been badly injured when mauled in a dog attack or dog bite case.

I am a dog lover myself (and a former Board member of our local SPCA), but the fact remains: not all dogs are safe or fit to be around people.

In this post, I want to explain the basics of dog bite and dog attack law in New York. Of course, because I’m just covering the basics here, I welcome your questions about dog bite law in NY. You can post a comment below or e-mail me directly at jreed@zifflaw.com.

NY’s Dog Laws

New York State Agriculture and Markets Law Section 121 imposes penalties and controls on the owners of dogs who have attacked or threatened to attack.

Penalties for Owners

By statute, the penalties on the owner of a pet who has attacked can range from a fine to the possibility of one year in jail.

The penalty depends on what happened during an attack and whether the pet had ever been declared “dangerous” before. For example, if a dog attacked a person or caused physical injury or serious physical injury to a guide dog, the owner may be fined. However, if the attacking dog was declared dangerous in the past and attacked again, the owner may be charged with a misdemeanor and face up to one year in jail.

Penalties/Controls on the Pet: A Dangerous Dog

If a dog attacks or threatens to attack people or other pets, there can be a hearing in court on whether the dog is a “dangerous dog.” Finding a dog “dangerous” allows the court to force the owners to take action to attempt to make sure the dog interacts safely with others.

The court can request a variety of actions for the pet including:

• Requesting that the dog to be leashed or muzzled at all times in a public area,
• requesting the owners to confine the pet (by fencing it, etc.) for a specific amount of time,
• having the dog trained,
• maintaining an insurance policy on the dog in case of future attack, and,
• in very serious cases, euthanasia (putting the dog down) or permanent confinement.

Euthanasia or permanent confinement can not be mandated unless the dog caused serious physical injury or death while attacking a person, had attacked a person in the past, OR caused serious physical injury to another animal after being declared dangerous for the same behavior in the past.

What Can I Do if I Believe that a Dog is Dangerous?

First, if you have been attacked or witnessed a dog attack or threatened attack on a person or another animal, you should to make a complaint to an animal control officer as soon as possible.

(If you live in our area of Upstate New York, the link to the Horseheads and Elmira Animal Control Officers are below. If you are out of these areas, contact the police or call the animal control officers in your area.)

After an animal control officer receives a report of a witnessed or threatened attack, he or she will likely start a Dangerous Dog Proceeding with the court system. If the court feels that it is possible that the dog is a danger then the dog will be seized for the safety of the public until a hearing on the matter. Usually a hearing occurs within five days.

To find a dog a “dangerous dog” in a hearing, the animal control officer or person who brought the proceeding must prove that the dog is dangerous by showing that it is “more likely than not that the dog attacked or threatened to attack.” This is called the “burden of proof” and the burden is on the party bringing the dangerous dog complaint to prove that the dog did attack or threatened to attack. To satisfy this burden of proof you must bring witnesses that have first-hand knowledge (eyewitnesses) of the attack, or other proof of the attack (for example, pictures or videos).

The court will consider all the facts of the incident including if the dog was justified in its behavior. To make sure the dog’s dangerous tendencies can be proven, you may have to testify about what you observed.

If the court finds a dog to be dangerous, they will decide between the various penalties discussed above ranging from training to muzzling in public. Generally, euthanasia is not a penalty on the first complaint unless the situation is very serious, as discussed above.

What Do “Dangerous Dogs” and Statutory Penalties Have to Do with Dog Attack Liability?

I recently wrote about an important related topic – DOG ATTACK LIABILITY – in the post “When Dogs Attack: “Vicious Propensities” and Owner Liability Under New York State Law“ here on the NY Injury Law Blog. Under New York state law, the penalties against the owners and the finding of a dangerous dog are separate from the liability I discussed in the post. This means that – if you were attacked by a dog, your case may proceed in both ways.

Why? Because the owner’s liability and the dog’s “dangerous” designation deal with different things. For example, dog attack liability does not have any control over the actions the owner may have to take with the pet and cannot require fines; the dangerous dog sections usually do not compensate a dog attack victim for anything besides his or her expenses as a result of the attack.

However, although is generally separate, sometimes a “Dangerous Dog” finding can be useful in a civil trial by helping to prove vicious propensities.

Last Thoughts and Sources of Help

Please call your local animal control or police if you have been attacked or witnessed an attack by a dog. Also, if you are concerned about a dog’s aggressive behavior, even if they have not attacked or threatened to attack, PLEASE give the authorities a call. It may save you or someone else from a terrifying, painful or even deadly experience.

Who to Call: Upstate NY Animal Control Officers

The area code for the following phone numbers is 607 unless noted.

CHEMUNG COUNTY

The Chemung County Humane Society & SPCA has animal control contracts with nine of the municipalities in the county. Their website is www.chemungspca.org.

Caton, N.Y. Dog Control Officer – David Scouten, (607) 524-8411

Elmira, N.Y. Dog Control: www.cityofelmira.net/shelter/animal_control.html

Elmira City Animal Control Officer, 737-5807

Horseheads, N.Y. Dog Control: www.horseheads.org/index.php?n=Govt.Town#toc2

STEUBEN COUNTY

Addison: Robert Revis, 359-2034

Avoca/Howard: Betty Walden, 776-2453

Bath: Carl and Ruth Tuttle, 583-2229

Bradford: Edward Machuga, 583-2430

Cameron: Darrell Hoad, 776-7070

Campbell: Harold Austin, 527-8183

Canisteo: Gary Hadsell, 698-4350

Caton: David Scouten Sr., 524-8411

Cohocton/Wayland: Deb Breese, (716) 384-5499

Corning City: Linda Holmes, day 936-8422; night 527-8763

Corning Town: Jay Josephson, 524-6603

Dansville: Mary Lackey, 728-2999

Erwin: Jay Josephson, 524-6603

Freemont: John DuPont, 324-0002

Greenwood: John and Annette Jacobs, 478-5314

Hartsville: Michael D. Henry, 689-2677

Hornby: Gardiner Bills, 962-0882

Hornesville: Hornell Humane Society, 324-1270

Jasper/Woodhull: Richard Harrison, 458-5724

Lindley: Douglas Taft, 523-7779

Prattsburgh/Wheeler: Donald Gifford, 776-6058

Pulteney: John and Sherri Ballam, 522-5030

Rathbone: Jerry Aldrich, 359-2908

South Corning Village: Jay Josephson, 524-6603

Thurston: Gregory Crans, 776-2678

Troupsburg: John Space, 525-6354

Tuscarora: Paulena Webester, 350-3604

Wayne/Urbana: Marvin Rethmel, 569-3737

West Union: Alice Delill and Doris Williams, 225-4483

TOMPKINS COUNTY

Town of Ulysses: Chris Austin, Dog Control Officer, 387-9598

Towns of Lansing and Groton: Country Acres Pet Services, 749-2734, cell 423-2888

Town of Dryden: Richard and Gena Leonard, 844-3641, cell (for emergencies only) 351-2144

The City of Ithaca and the Towns of Danby, Caroline, Newfield, Enfield and Ithaca receive animal control services from the SPCA: 319-5067, emergency/off hours 592-6773

If there is not an animal control officer in your community, call your local police department or, in case of emergency, 911 to make sure they are informed of a dangerous animal!

We hope you found this information helpful. If you or a loved one has been the victim of a dog attack or dog bite please feel free to contact me directly at jreed@zifflaw.com or call 800-ZIFFLAW (943-3529) to discuss your legal options.

Thanks,

Jim
_________________________________

James B. Reed
NY & PA Dog Bite Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14902
Phone: (607) 733-8866 Fax: (607) 732-6062
Toll-free: (800)-943-3529
mailto:jreed@zifflaw.com www.zifflaw.com

In New York state, more than 27% of the car accidents in which someone is killed involve at least one driver who is impaired by alcohol.

That statistic really did shock me. When I think of all the possible causes of car accidents – bad road conditions, poor visibility, vehicle problems – it’s extremely sad to think that close to a third of road fatalities are linked to a condition that is totally under individual control. From an early age, even children know you don’t drink and drive.

I started to think about this topic for two reasons: One, I keep tabs on the Day On Torts blog by attorney John Day.  Last week John posted an entry about his state, Tennessee, and the prevalence of alcohol-related vehicle accidents there. John related how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tracks detailed accident information for every state. So, of course, I went to check out New York’s figures.

According to the NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis, there were 1,231 people killed on New York state roads in 2008. Of those fatalities, 341 of them involved at least one driver who had a blood alcohol level of 0.8 or greater.

The second reason: It’s the season.  A big part of the holidays are festive gatherings of colleagues, families and friends. Many adults enjoy raising their spirits with spirits – and as John says, “No one is saying that you should not be able to enjoy the holiday season and that, if you are an adult, you cannot enjoy alcohol as a part of celebration of the season.”

Who would deny his final point: “You have no right to place the lives of others at risk because you choose to operate a vehicle while you are impaired.”

It’s simple. Act responsibly – plan a place to stay, designate a sober driver, keep that cab company card in your wallet. Take steps while you are in a clear state of mind and the preparation will serve you well when your thinking might be clouded by alcohol.

Nationwide, 11,773 people died in alcohol-related crashes in 2008. Do what you can this holiday season to act responsibly and get others to do so as well. Hopefully the effort will pay off in much lower numbers when the NHTSA tallies up 2009.

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

As a lawyer who has handled several multi-million dollar cases against the Ira Davenport Hospital (IDH) in Hammondsport, N.Y., I applaud the merger of that hospital and the Arnot-Ogden Medical Center in Elmira, N.Y.

WETM-TV recently posted an Associate Press report that this merger was going through – see the story, “Hospital Merger, WETM 18 Online” (a copy is pasted below).

Why do I care about this merger? Because I truly hope that IDH will finally get some long overdue help in upgrading the quality of its facilities and staff.

In my cases against IDH I was appalled to learn about the total lack of appropriate staff training at the hospital.

Let me give you just one example of what I learned and why I was so appalled.

My first case against Ira Davenport Hospital involved a prolonged delay in the delivery of a baby girl. In that case, the electronic fetal monitoring machine showed clear evidence that the baby was in distress for a prolonged period of time before either the nurses or the doctors did anything to deliver the baby. The whole purpose of putting a mother who is in labor on an electronic fetal monitoring machine is to be able to watch both the interaction between the baby’s heart rate and the mother’s contractions. There are certain patterns of heart rates that are reassuring—they show that the baby is doing well—and other patterns of heart rates that tell you the baby is in big trouble. Labor and delivery nurses, as well as obstetricians who deliver babies, are supposed to be trained to recognize both the good and bad heart-rate patterns. They are also taught what they are supposed to do when they see a bad heart rate on the electronic fetal monitoring machine.

The problem is that all of this presumes that the medical staff are properly trained and it presumes that they are actually paying attention to the printouts from the monitoring machine. Let’s face it, the machine is no go at all if people aren’t properly trained to interpret the information that the machine is printing out and the machine is totally worthless if no one is even bothering to regularly monitor what it is saying.

In my first case against the Ira Davenport Hospital, I was shocked to learn how little training the delivery nurses had received on the fetal monitoring machine. While the nurses were very nice ladies and truly cared about their patients, the only training the two nurses involved in the care of my client received was a very brief course offered via fax machine. Yes, that’s right, their ONLY training was via fax machine during a brief course.

When I questioned the nurses about their knowledge of the various heart-rate patterns, I was shocked to learn that they had no real understanding of the most dangerous patterns. In my client’s case, the ominous heart-rate patterns were there for a long time but the nurses totally failed to understand that the patterns were dangerous. The machine clearly showed that the baby was essentially being choked to death as her brain was being deprived of oxygen. The nurses simply didn’t understand the data that the machine was providing because they had not received adequate training in the use of the machine.

The insurance company for the Ira Davenport Hospital settled that case by paying their full policy limits of $2,000,000.

Now wouldn’t you think if you had to pay $2,000,000 because your nurses were inadequately trained, you would make darn sure that they got additional training so this kind of nightmare would never occur again?

Flash forward five years. I am now handling a second case against the Ira Davenport Hospital. The facts are eerily similar to the first case — a little boy who suffered cerebral palsy – permanent brain damage – due to a delay in delivery. In fact, in this second case, some of the same nurses involved in the first case, are involved in the this case. I am taking their deposition and I ask what I think is a simple question: In the last five years since case #1, what additional training have you received on the fetal monitoring machine? I am expecting to hear that the nurses have received all sorts of additional training.

What I heard shocked me:  “Nothing … we have received no additional training.”

You have got to be kidding me…you almost kill a baby……you leave her with permanent brain damage….you have to pay $2,000,000 to settle a lawsuit for the horrible injuries you caused…..and you haven’t done ANYTHING to fix the problem? Unbelievable.

The second case settled for $1,625,000.

Thankfully I haven’t had a third case so I don’t know what additional training the nurses may have received since that case but I can only hope that they received some real, in-depth training.

So this is a long way around saying why I applaud the merger between these two hospitals: I applaud it because I hope that the affiliation between these two hospitals will upgrade the quality of the facilities and the staff training at the Ira Davenport Hospital. As much as I make my living handling medical malpractice cases, I do NOT want to see people unnecessarily hurt by their medical providers so I embrace anything that can be done to improve the quality of the care provided by our local hospitals here in upstate New York.

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

Ira Davenport, Arnot Ogden Hospitals to Merge

(AP, Natario, 12/03)
URBANA – Patients that go to Ira Davenport Memorial Hospital will now have access to more doctors.
The hospital has officially agreed to merge with Arnot Ogden Medical Center in Elmira.
At the Steuben County hospital there will be more surgical doctors on hand.
Ira Davenport will also be under the umbrella of Arnot Ogden, which officials say will help them pay off debts.
Without the merger, officials say there is little doubt the hospital could have remained open.
“Small hospitals across the state of New York are really struggling. Nursing homes in the state of New York are really struggling due to the economics of it all. All of the health care in upstate New York are really struggling. So we felt this was a necessary step”, said James Watson.
New York State is helping to fund the merger through hundreds of thousands of dollars in “Heal New York” grants.
The money helps larger hospitals keep open smaller, rural hospitals.
Besides more doctors, Ira Davenport hospital will also be receiving some structural work.