A $20,000,000+ Settlement Against Corning Hospital!

Lawsuits, Medical Malpractice, Most Popular Posts, NY Courts, NY Laws and CasesNo Comments

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

Tragically, just 40 minutes can make the difference between a healthy baby and a little girl who will never walk, never talk, never feed herself, never have a boyfriend, never get married…

In this case handled by Elmira medical malpractice attorney Jim Reed, the Labor and Delivery nurses hooked the Mom up to an electronic fetal monitor and then left the Mom unattended for 40+ minutes. Unfortunately, fetal monitors are absolutely no good if no one is there to read the results….

That’s why the standard of care for labor and delivery nurses requires nurses to review the monitor strips for the first 20 minutes that the mother is placed on the monitor. If all is OK after 20 minutes, the Mom can then be left unattended for short periods of time. If the strips are not OK, then the nurse is trained to immediately intervene and summon a doctor if necessary.

In this case, a careful review of the medical records revealed that the mother had been left totally unattended for the first 40+ minutes she was placed on the fetal monitor. As you might have guessed, the monitor strips were bad meaning that the baby was in trouble and needed immediate delivery. The problem is that no one was in the room to hear read the results and respond to the baby’s cries for help. As a result, the necessary C-section to rescue the baby was delayed by more than an hour causing the baby to suffer profound brain damage (Cerebral Palsy). The baby was rushed from the Corning Hospital to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at the Arnot Ogden Medical Center in Elmira, but the damage was already done. The baby had a permanent brain injury called Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy (HIE) which means that the baby’s brain was deprived of oxygen at birth. Read the rest…


E-MAIL US NOW

New York Accident Lawyer: Non Party Witnesses NOT Entitled to Counsel At Deposition

Lawsuits, Miscellaneous, NY Courts, NY Laws and Cases, Practice TipsNo Comments
Scale of justice, Enhanced version of an image...

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.

NY and PA Personal Injury and Malpractice Attorney
The Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William Street
Elmira, NY  14901
Phone: (607)733-8866
Fax: (607)732-6062
Email: agee@zifflaw.com
www.zifflaw.com
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


E-MAIL US NOW

NY Workers’ Comp Lawyer Explains Why He Probably Will Take Your Work Related Athletic Injury Comp Case

Miscellaneous, NY Laws and Cases, NY Workers CompensationNo Comments

Attorney Jim Reed recently posted a very informative blog about school-sports injuries at “NY Accident Lawyer Explains Why He Probably Won’t Take Your School Sports Injury Case.”  However, if you’re injured while participating in work-related athletic activity you may very well have a Workers’ Compensation case.

IllinoisStateBreakout2008CollegeFinals.jpg

You might have a Workers’ Comp case if you’re injured when the employer required you to participate in the athletic activity, the employer compensated you for participating in the activity or the employer otherwise sponsors the activity.

I’m certainly not interested in discouraging employers from sponsoring athletic activity.  I am encouraging employers to keep safety in mind.  For example, some time ago the folks at the Ziff Law Firm got together for some firm sponsored paintball.  Anyone who knows anything about paintball will tell you that you can, and often will, get injured playing paintball.  Beyond that, given the competitive nature of folks at this firm, permanent disabilities were likely.  I encouraged Jim Reed, the firm’s managing partner, to make sure good safety equipment was available and used.  I’m happy to report that no employees of the Ziff Law Firm were seriously physically injured :  )

If you’re injured while participating in work-related athletic activity, protect yourself and talk to an attorney.

Thanks for reading,
Eric

____________________________________________
Eric L. Johnson, Esq.
Workers’ Compensation and Disability Attorney
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14901
Tel: (607) 733-8866
Fax: (607) 732-6062
Toll Free: 1-800-943-3529
Email: ejohnson@zifflaw.com
Web: http://www.zifflaw.com
Twitter:  http://twitter.com/AttorneyEric
Admitted to practice in New York and North Carolina

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


E-MAIL US NOW

NY Accident Lawyer Explains Why He Probably WON’T Take Your School Sports Injury Case

Choosing a Lawyer, Injury FAQ's, Lawsuits, NY Laws and Cases1 Comment

Baseball-sliding-into-base

As an experienced injury lawyer, you often demonstrate how smart you are by the cases you DO NOT take – as much so as by those cases that you DO take.

While I certainly don’t mind a challenging case (and I have taken many over the years!), there are certain types of cases where the law is so stacked against you that you just have to know when to say NO.

Sad to say, school sports injury cases are an example of the type of case that is virtually impossible to win.

Why?

Well, the law is stacked against you in many respects.  First, there is a defense known as the “assumption of the risk doctrine.” Basically, this doctrine contends that people who are voluntarily engaging in a sport, assume the risk of the types of injuries that are inherent in that sport, and therefore they cannot recover for those injuries.

For example, if you are a pitcher on a baseball team, you assume the risk that a batter might hit a ball that hits you in the mouth. Likewise, if you are a baseball spectator, you assume the risk that a foul ball might hit you. On both of these scenarios, there are tons of NY cases that have been dismissed by the court because of the assumption of risk doctrine.

Two great blog posts, “Assumption of Risk Doctrine Bars New York Sports Injury Lawsuits – Part 1″ and “Assumption of Risk Doctrine Bars New York Sports Injury Lawsuits – Part 2 (Baseball)”, by NYC attorney John Hochfelder explain the assumption of the risk doctrine as it applies to many sports:  baseball, floor hockey, wrestling and soccer.

With all of that said, there ARE some types of sports injuries cases that MAY be a possible case despite the assumption of the risk doctrine.

These cases usually involve an injury that is NOT inherent in the nature of the sport or a hazard of a type that is generally not assumed in that particular sport. For instance, if there’s a metal spike sticking up out of the ground in the base path to second base and a school knew about that hazard and failed to take any steps to remedy that condition, that might give rise to liability against the school.

The bottom line is that it is VERY difficult to decide if you have a good case or not and therefore it is usually best that you consult with an experienced injury lawyer to determine if you have a case or not.

If you want to e-mail me the details of your case at jreed@zifflaw.com, I am happy to let you know what I think.

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


E-MAIL US NOW

NY Workers Comp Attorney Makes the Carrier Pay for Filing Frivolous Appeal

NY Laws and Cases, NY Workers CompensationNo Comments

Got a terrific Board Panel decision today that will make my client happy and an insurance company and its lawyers unhappy.  A unanimous Board Panel penalized the insurance company $500 for filing a frivolous appeal.  That $500 is paid to my client.

There are a couple of things about this Board Panel decision that make it particularly sweet.  First, the decision that the insurance company frivolously appealed was a decision that awarded my client a penalty of nearly $4,400.  I sought this first penalty for late payment of his lost wage benefit.   So the $500  penalty for frivilous appeal was on top of the nearly $4,400  penalty for late payment of lost wages.

The other thing that makes this Board Panel decision special  is that this is the first time I’ve gotten a penalty against a carrier for filing a frivolous appeal.  Insurance companies delay and deny and they endlessly appeal.  I routinely seek and obtain penalties when the insurance company delays in paying my clients’ lost wage benefits and I routinely seek penalties for frivolous appeal.  I’ve been trying to get insurance companies penalized for frivolous appeals since I started practicing Workers’ Compensation and I was beginning to wonder if the Board would find anything frivolous.  Well . . . I’m happy to say that the Board will assess a penalty for filing a frivolous appeal.  Insurance companies beware.
Thanks for reading,
Eric

____________________________________________
Eric L. Johnson, Esq.
Workers’ Compensation and Disability Attorney
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14901
Tel: (607) 733-8866
Fax: (607) 732-6062
Toll Free: 1-800-943-3529
Email: ejohnson@zifflaw.com
Web: http://www.zifflaw.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/AttorneyEric
Admitted to practice in New York and North Carolina

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


E-MAIL US NOW

Horseheads Man Killed In Scaffold Fall in Lansing

Keeping Your Family Safe, NY Laws and Cases2 Comments

Legal-informationOur 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.


E-MAIL US NOW

CLARIFICATION: Good News for NY Workers’ Compensation Claimants and Physicians

Miscellaneous, NY Laws and Cases, NY Workers CompensationNo Comments

There was an inaccurate statement in my blog post yesterday “Good News for NY Workers’ Compensation Claimants and Physicians.” In my rush to get that information out, I didn’t read the Board’s release as closely as I should have and I apologize for that. I got an email this afternoon from Joseph Cavalcante, Assistant Director of Public Information for the NYS Workers’ Compensation Board, informing me about my error. I thank Mr. Cavalcante for reading and letting me know about the inaccuracy. 

My statement should be corrected to read “as a measure to deal with that shortage, Mr. Beloten temporarily rescinded the mandate that AUTHORIZED providers IN THE PROVIDER TEMPORARY SHORTAGE AREA file a C-4 form in order to be paid for seeing claimants. With regard to the rest of New York, authorized providers may file the new or older versions of the C-4. Doctors outside provider temporary shortage area are not authorized to submit the CMS-1500 as a result of this subject number.”

In short, only providers in the temporary shortage area are relieved of having to file C-4 forms. However, the good news for any provider statewide is that they have the option of filing the older and easier C-4 form and still have their bills enforced by the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Being in a rush is a pitfall of having a busy practice area such as Workers’ Compensation, but I’m not going to make any excuses and I do apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

As always thanks for reading,
Eric

______________________________________
Eric L. Johnson, Esq.
Workers’ Compensation and Disability Attorney
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14901
Tel: (607) 733-8866
Fax: (607) 732-6062
Email: ejohnson@zifflaw.com
Web: http://www.zifflaw.com


E-MAIL US NOW

Good News for NY Workers’ Compensation Claimants and Physicians

NY Laws and Cases, NY Workers Compensation1 Comment

It’s not news to most New York Workers’ Compensation claimants and certainly not news to physicians and other health care providers that the Workers’ Compensation Board has been imposing increasingly rigorous paperwork requirements on providers without a commensurate increase in the amount providers can charge and the fee schedule was already set at a rate where many providers considered seeing Workers’ Comp claimants as a money-losing proposition.  

This was something that could only last so long.  This afternoon Robert E. Beloten, the Chair of the NY Workers’ Compensation Board, announced in Subject Number 046-398 that there is a provider shortage in the Rochester Area or more specifically in Monroe, Livingston, Steuben, Allegheny, Wyoming and Ontario counties.  As a measure to deal with that shortage, Mr. Beloten temporarily rescinded statewide the mandate that providers file a C-4 form in order to be paid for seeing claimants.  Providers’ bills will be enforced if they are submitted on universal claim forms (CMS-1500 or HCFA-1500) with sufficiently detailed office or narrative notes.

Hopefully this reduction in mandatory paperwork will stem the tide of providers turning away Comp claimants.   Let’s also hope that this temporary measure is made permanent.

I would only caution claimants who are temporarily disabled and who have lost time from work that if your doctor is no longer submitting the C-4 form, it’s a really great idea to remind him or her to document your degree of disability in the office or narrative note.  That little bit of advice will go a long way to making sure you get paid for your lost time.

Thanks for reading,
Eric

___________________________________________
Eric L. Johnson, Esq.
Workers’ Compensation and Disability Attorney
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14901
Tel: (607) 733-8866
Fax: (607) 732-6062
Toll Free: 1-800-943-3529
Email: ejohnson@zifflaw.com
Web: http://www.zifflaw.com

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


E-MAIL US NOW

More About Dangerous Dogs: What to Do if You are a Victim of a Dog Attack

NY & PA Dog Bite Cases, NY Laws and CasesNo Comments

Vicious-dog-imageBecoming a victim of a dog attack can be a devastating experience – both physically and emotionally. The physical wounds can range from cuts, to broken bones to disfiguring or even life-threatening injuries.

The emotional after-effects can be even more severe.  Dog attacks may affect the life of the victim in many ways:

Attacks may cause the victim to miss work and may result in a complete change in the victim’s life due to the injuries.

Many victims must deal with concerns such as stress or depression due to physical and financial limitations as a result of the attack.

Victims may also have to deal with the psychological symptoms due to experiencing a traumatic situation that may range from fear to flashbacks or anywhere in between.

Finally, victims may be terrified to deal with dogs and may be robbed of the wonderful experience of owning a pet.

Who is considered a victim of a dog attack? Those who are attacked by a dog are the obvious victims.  However, some folks find it surprising that those injured fleeing a potential attack also have legal options.

What Should I Do if I Have Been Attacked?

If you have become a victim of a dog attack, there are some steps that you should take. 

  • First, seek medical attention. Whether you call 911 or go to the hospital on your own, DO NOT WAIT.
  • Second, call the police or animal control as soon as possible to let them know that you were attacked. It is especially important to call the police or animal control quickly when the dog is loose or you do not know who it belongs to; a prompt call may allow them to find the dog.  Unfortunately, without the dog or knowledge of who owns dog, treatment may be more difficult for you, others may be in danger of similar injury and future legal proceedings may be impossible.
  • Third, when speaking with police, animal control and medical providers, ask for documentation. If no documentation is available at the time, ask for report numbers or names of the individual you are talking to. Fourth, document your injuries, medical visits and experiences through pictures and notes.   This will help you remember what you’ve gone through as a result of this injury and may be of help in future legal proceedings.
  • Finally, do not hesitate to contact an attorney that specializes in this type of case. Most clients feel that having someone going through the process with them is immensely helpful.  Ziff Law can help; we have years of experience handling this type of case.

What Happens in the Legal System?

In New York, there are a few different avenues to deal with dog attacks that provide different outcomes.  First, there is a dangerous dog proceeding.  In addition, there is a civil case against the owner of the dog.
What happens in each? Below, I will explain both types of proceedings briefly including what the proceeding is, what it is used for and how it may affect you, the owner and the dog. For further questions, help with the process, or to talk about your case, please feel free to call the Ziff Law Firm for expert advice.

Dangerous Dog Proceeding

A dangerous dog proceeding is a proceeding under Section 121 of Agriculture and Markets Law.  See the blog post ” ‘Dangerous Dog’ Law in New York State” for a more detailed description.  However, basically, a dangerous dog proceeding is a proceeding to impose penalties on the owner for having a dangerous dog which allows society to place controls on the dog.

As a victim of a dog attack, your involvement in this process will be contacting animal control and asking for a dangerous dog proceeding if animal control does not already suggest it. The proceeding is usually held in a local court and you may have to testify at the proceeding to help prove that it is “more likely than not that the dog attacked or threatened to attack.”  If the court finds that the dog was dangerous, the court will impose penalties against the owner and dog.

How does this proceeding affect the owner, the dog and you? Typically, the owner will only be fined unless the dog has attacked in the past; if the dog has attacked in the past it is possible that the owner may go to jail for up to 1 year.

Will the dog be euthanized or “put down”? Although many believe that this happens frequently, in reality, the opposite is true. Euthanizing a dog is a last resort and typically the court does not decide to do that unless the dog’s attack causes death or serious injury to a person or other animal or the dog has attacked in the past.  Rather, if the court finds that the dog is dangerous, they will likely impose other restrictions on the owner and dog to keep society safe from the animal.  For example, the court may require the pet be trained, require leashing or muzzling when in public and/or request confinement, among other things.

As a victim of a dog attack, a dangerous dog proceeding may help you by covering some of the costs of your injuries.  However, the costs are the only things that are covered.  Therefore, to reach additional expenses including emotional injuries or costs due to loss of work, a civil case against the owner is necessary.

A Civil Case: Liability Against the Pet’s Owner

As discussed above, bringing a civil case against a dog owner is different than a dangerous dog proceeding.  A civil case focuses on whether the owner is at fault, i.e., liable, and should pay for the victim’s expenses; therefore, a civil case is more about the victim’s experience than a dangerous dog proceeding.

For an owner to be held responsible for their dog’s attack in a civil case, it must be proved that the dog had “vicious propensities.” This concept is fairly complex; for more details see my “Vicious Propensities” posting.

However, in short, we can think of vicious propensities as something in the past that should have tipped off the owner that the dog might have a tendency to attack.  In a civil case, a jury decides whether the dog’s past actions were enough to “tip off” the owner by considering whether a reasonable person would have thought that the dog might attack. (For more details about what past juries have considered enough to hold owners responsible, you should also check see my “Vicious Propensities” posting on this blog.)

Unlike a dangerous dog proceeding, a civil case does not fine an owner or place controls on the dog; in fact, a civil case does not have any effect on the dog responsible for the attack.  Rather, a civil case compensates the victim for the losses associated with the attack if a jury believes the owner should have known the vicious propensity of his or her pet.

As a victim of a dog attack, a civil case may be helpful because it can allow you to recover additional costs related to the incident that would not be permitted in a dangerous dog proceeding.

In Summary

The dangerous dog proceeding and the civil case have different effects on the parties involved.  There are a few main differences:

  1. A dangerous dog proceeding may impose for some restrictions on the attacking dog, e.g., requiring a leash, muzzle or training and, in extreme cases, euthanasia; a civil case cannot impose restrictions on the attacking pet.
  2. A civil case allows for more compensation for a dog attack; a dangerous dog proceeding allows only costs to be covered.

Surprisingly, there is also some overlap between dangerous dog proceedings and civil cases. A finding of a dog as dangerous can be helpful in establishing vicious propensities of the dog in a civil case.

Can I proceed with both? It is possible to proceed with both. In fact, many people often find it satisfying to proceed with both because they are able to be involved in protecting others from a similar experience by helping to impose controls on the attacking pet as well as making sure they, as a victim, are fully compensated for their injuries and losses.

This article has been written to give you a very basic idea of what to do if you have been a victim of a dog attack.  Being such can be a very traumatic and difficult experience. Please do not hesitate 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


E-MAIL US NOW

Leandra’s Legacy: NY Accident Lawyer Discusses Tough New DWI Law and Its Penalties

Auto Accidents, Keeping Your Family Safe, NY Laws and CasesNo Comments

Leandra RosadoSince 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.


E-MAIL US NOW

« Previous Entries