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

Most people take it as a given that doctors are accountable for accurate, competent care of EVERY person whom they see in a professional capacity. It’s difficult to believe, but until just recently, there was a big exception to that standard.

It was VERY difficult to successfully sue doctors who conducted medical exams for the defense in no-fault, worker’s compensation and personal injury cases. Typically retained by insurance companies or patients’ employers, these physicians were protected from lawsuits because they did not have a “duty of care” to the patients they saw. This duty wasn’t established because these doctors have a fleeting interaction with patients – seeing them once to collect information for the defense.

That has all changed, however, due to a recent decision by the New York Appellate Court – a decision I found out about via attorney Eric Turkewitz’s New York Personal Injury Law Blog. In the post, “NY Appellate Court Says OK to Sue No-Fault, Workers’ Comp and DME Physicians,” Eric explains this important change – a set of court-established criteria that make these “Doctors for the Defense” accountable for any bad advice or poor care they give the patients they see.

As Eric  explains it, the New York’s Appellate Division First Department said that these doctors, can be sued if certain conditions exist. A court panel  unanimously set these rules, based on the case Badalto v. Rosenberg:

“In the context of a physical examination conducted for the purpose of rendering an evaluation for a third party, such as an employer or insurer, an implied physician-patient relationship may arise if the physician either affirmatively treats the examinee or affirmatively advises the examinee as to a course of treatment.”

The three conditions set forth by the court are:

1. that the advice was incorrect,

2. that it was foreseeable that the plaintiff would rely on the advice, and

3. that the plaintiff detrimentally relied on the advice.

As an experienced personal injury attorney, Eric not only does a great job of explaining the qualifications demanded to make a case – but the consequences for personal injury law in general. This ruling gives a new protection to plaintiffs – and undermines the practice of quick, shallow medical exams for the defense.

To quote from Eric’s New York Personal Injury Blog posting on the subject:

“All those 5-10 minute quickie exams done by doctors on behalf of insurance companies may now subject those doctors to liability. If a doctor is going to cut off benefits, s/he will now have to write that the worker can go back to work, but also write that the worker shouldn’t actually rely on this opinion. The physicians will have to write, essentially, that their opinions are actually worthless and should not be relied upon. If an injured party shouldn’t rely on it, why should a judge or jury?”

Accountability. Standards. Informed opinions. Should anything less be expected of doctors – for any exam?

Thanks again to Eric Turkewitz for blogging about this and other important developments in personal injury law.

Sincerely,

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.

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

Last week, the New York State Legislature passed an anti-subrogation bill. To the general reader, I realize this news needs some explanation, but believe me, this is VITAL information for anyone who lives in New York State and it is GREAT NEWS for NY consumers!

Roy A. Mura, posted about the new law on his excellent blog, Coverage Counsel.

Roy gives a very technical explanation, but the real gist of it is that this new law will prevent health insurance carriers in N.Y. from getting away with their historic practice of “double dipping.”

You can check out Roy’s detailed analysis of the new bill in his post “New York State Legislature Passes New Anti-Subrogation Law.”

Below is my less technical explanation of what this new law means to the average person.

What is subrogation – and what’s so bad about it?

As a concept, think of subrogation as you paying someone else’s debt and then your attempting to collect from the person that originally owed the debt. No problem if you do it fairly, but insurance companies have been adding their own twist to the idea.

An example would be: You know Jim owes Mary $40. You run into Mary, she mentions your friend Jim’s debt and you pay it. Then you ask Jim for the money. Fair enough. But what if Mary also asked Jim for the money again? And he paid it again? If he paid you back too, he’d be out $80. Mary would end up with $80 – twice the amount she risked!

The analogy is close to what the insurance companies have been doing for years. First, they charge you HUGE premiums for your health coverage. Then, if you get hurt, and you successfully pursue a personal injury case, they tell you you have to pay them back for the health bills they paid on your behalf!

So essentially, you pay for coverage and then when you use the coverage that you paid for, they say they should get reimbursed IN FULL from YOUR money!

Thankfully, this law will stop this horrible double dipping. I am just glad that the whole health care debate is finally shining a spotlight on some of the egregious past practices of health insurance companies!

Thanks again to Roy A. Mura for his detailed posting about the anti-subrogation bill and his permission to link to it from the NY Injury Law Blog.

Thanks for reading,

Jim
_________________________________________
James B. Reed, Esq.
Personal Injury & Malpractice 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

In response to Adam Gee’s recent post regarding the new New York Don’t Text While Driving law (a GREAT law in my book), I received a FaceBook Comment from one of my best friends. Before even discussing her comment, I want to say that my friend is one of the kindest, most intelligent people I know so I truly take her comment to heart. She expressed a sentiment I hear all too often—THERE ARE TOO MANY LAWS!

While I certainly understand that sentiment and I am the first one to admit that there are plenty of absolutely stupid laws on the books, the plain fact remains that most laws are designed to protect us and our quality of life. We are incredibly lucky to live in a society governed by laws rather than the law of the jungle…..

MY FRIEND’S COMMENT:

You know – I was just saying the other day if we added up all the new laws that protect us from ourselves and the cost to enforce these laws – states could really turn their budget around. Seat belts, cell phones, texting, car seats for 8 year olds – it’s staggering.

MY RESPONSE:

Dear Friend: From my perspective, the costs of our laws are a VERY small price to pay for MANY, MANY saved lives.

When seat belts first came out, people thought it was nuts but just think of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives saved…. Last week, I sat with the family mourning the loss of their 9 year old daughter who died because she wasn’t wearing a seatbelt while riding in the car with a teen driver…..

I WISH people just used more common sense and such laws wouldn’t be necessary but the plain fact is that it takes laws to change behaviors….. Sorry about the soapbox speech but I think too many people focus on the bad side of the laws rather than focusing on the good that is achieved. I prefer my glass half full……

Thanks, Jim
______________________________
James B. Reed, Esq.
Personal Injury & Malpractice 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: jreed@zifflaw.com
Web: http://www.zifflaw.com

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

Well, its now official. New York’s ban on texting while driving went into effect on November 1, 2009. You can be sure that law enforcement officers all over the state will be aggressively enforcing the law to let drivers know they are taking it seriously. You can read Attorney Jim Reeds previous article on this new law here.

The question is, how can they enforce it? The problem with this law is that an officer is not allowed to pull you over JUST for texting while driving. They have to pull you over for something else in order to issue the ticket. This means they will be looking for any reason to stop you if they suspect you are texting while driving. Have a broken tail light? Something hanging from your rear view mirror? How about a sticker in your back window? Any of these could give the officer all the reason he needs to stop your vehicle and issue you a ticket if you are texting while driving.

The problem for the officers attempting to enforce this law will be determining whether someone is actually texting or not. Enforcing the ban on the use of hand held cell phones was easy. If the officer saw you with a cellphone in your hand held up to your ear you were guilty. But texting is different. People don’t hold their cell phones up by their ear while texting. It is usually done with the cell phone in or near your lap, where the officer can’t see it.

I foresee two different scenarios in which these tickets will be issued. First will be if an officer sees you driving down the road with your eyes pointed down and a hand in your lap. This will cause the officer to be suspicious, and he or she will find a reason to pull you over. Once they do, they will approach the car quickly, looking for the cell phone. Whether they see the phone or not, they may ask you whether you were texting while driving, and may even ask to see your phone in order to check for the time of the last text. The second possible scenario is when an officer sees a vehicle operating erratically, swerving within its lane or even going on to the shoulder or crossing into the opposing lane. The officer will pull you over for sure, but won’t need any other reason but your erratic operation to do so. When he approaches the car, the officer won’t know whether to suspect intoxication or texting, but the officer will understandably treat the stop as a serious event. The officer will be looking around your car and asking questions to determine why you were operating the car in that fashion. Don’t be surprised if the officer is less than friendly in this situation, as he or she won’t know what sort of situation they are dealing with, and will be cautious.

The best advice I can give people is don’t text and drive, its as dangerous as drinking and driving. If you must return a text, pull over to do so. Or you can do what people did before texting became prevalent – call the person you want to talk to. Just make sure you use a hands free device like a blue tooth!

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

Having handled too many tragic boating accident cases over the years, I am in favor of any new laws that contribute to better safety on the water.

In September, New York became the first state with a comprehensive life jacket law that will save lives during some of the most dangerous months of the year for boaters. Fall into spring, the waters in our region are colder and deadlier.

Lifejackets are now required for EVERYONE in all small pleasure craft during the six coldest months of the year, when capsized boaters drown faster in chilly water. According to an Associated Press story on the new law, “Falling into cold water can trigger shock, disorientation or gasping and inhaling water. Immersion can lead to hypothermia and passing out.”

Starting Nov. 1, anyone out on the water in a craft less than 21 feet long must be wearing a Coast Guard-approved personal flotation device.

The rule, in effect through May 1, applies to kayaks, canoes and motorboats on lakes, waterways and the ocean.

If you are foolish enough to break the new law, you could be in for a fine of $100 to $250.

We have so many beautiful lakes in the Finger Lakes, each with its own distinctive character. Lamoka Lake and Waneta Lakes, small enough to freeze over in the winter and provide an escape for ice-racing or ice-fishing.

Seneca Lake offers spectacular views, wineries (the biggest Wine Trail in Finger Lakes wine country!) and fantastic boating. I think its very depth (estimated to be up to 630 feet) adds to its calm – and is one of the best insulators for the micro-climate that makes vineyards viable in this area of upstate New York.

Cayuga Lake has the inlet, with great restaurants and the Ithaca Farmers Market; Keuka Lake offers charming Hammondsport, of course. And Keuka Lake — a Y-shaped lake is a real-estate dream. I think the view from the deck at Esperanza Mansion rivals anywhere in Europe. The Finger Lakes is the most beautiful lakes region in the world. after all (see my previous blog post, “Finger Lakes Tops List of ‘World’s Best Lakeside Retreats’ “).

I don’t want to miss mentioning the smaller Finger lakes, Conesus, Cazenovia and Hemlock, as well as the “thumb,” lovely Oneida Lake.

In the Rochester area, you can enjoy a historic waterway, the tranquil Erie Canal. A little close to home, at least from my perspective in Elmira, we have the gorgeous Chemung and Susquehanna rivers.

The point I mean to make is that we have a unique and wonderful access to an incredible natural resource. There is no reason to take an unnecessary risk, and the new life jacket law is an added incentive to do the safe thing.

Thanks for reading,

Jim
_________________________________________
James B. Reed, Esq.
NY Boating 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

New York Gov. David Paterson recently signed off on legislation banning texting or the use of a keypad on any electronic device while driving. The ban starts November 1.

Research, informed communities and an unfortunate number of accidents, particularly involving teenagers, have led to this important law.

The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute recently released the results of a study about distracted driving. Their research found that “dialing a cell phone or merely reaching for an electronic device boosted the risk of an accident about six times in cars and trucks.”

The study also found that truckers who sent a text message were 23 times more likely to have an accident.

Some critics argue that the law will be difficult to enforce and lacks bite. The maximum penalty for breaking the new statewide law is a $150 fine that can only be applied if the driver also committed another infraction.

Advocates contend that the legislation is better late than never. New York made the hand-held use of cellphones while driving illegal eight years ago. The ban does send the message that distracted driving is dangerous. Including New York, 18 states and the District of Columbia have banned texting.

Pennsylvania is also looking at a texting ban, as the federal government becomes more likely to link highway funding to states’ willingness to apply the law. There are sure to be more states joining the movement as the year passes.

“The risks associated with texting while driving are well documented,” Paterson said in an announcement about the law. “As we learn more and more about just how dangerous this practice can be, I urge all New Yorkers to drive with caution and get in the habit of putting their cell phones away while driving to protect their own lives and the lives of others.”

Thanks for reading,
Jim
_________________________________________
James B. Reed, Esq.
New York Car Accident Lawyer & 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

An unfortunate local story points out a big problem with newspapers’ transformation into online information centers with 24/7 commentary from anyone with free time.

Journalists are compelled by the law, ethics – and job security- to supply correct information to the public – and their names are on the stories they write. The public isn’t under the same obligations, and has the anonymity of user names. Malicious, even just careless remarks can be attached to news stories, to linger on the Web indefinitely.

The local story I referred is that of a teenage employee at the Corning YMCA falsely blamed for an awful crime on a newspaper’s website – not by the newspaper or the police, but by a citizen commentator. WETM published the tale online with the title “YMCA Employee Wrongly Named” (Meagan Kolkmann, 8/13).

The teen was falsely named as the employee arrested last week for having pornographic photos of children supervised at the YMCA.

The actual 18-year-old perpetrator, also accused of sexually assaulting a 2-year-old girl he was related to, was arrested and charged (though he’s currently out on bail).

The Corning YMCA sent a letter to parents after the false online accusation. The letter stressed three key points:

• The YMCA plans to review its employee screening process and supervision guidelines for the Child Watch program and the entire organization.

• YMCA employees are “shocked and saddened” by the betrayal of trust by the guilty employee.

• The teenager falsely named had nothing to do with the crime. J.D. Young, president of the YMCA board and the letter’s author, calls him a “dedicated employee and a great human being.”

Whoever wrongly pointed the finger at the poor kid may be facing a big lawsuit. Online, lies can spread quickly and be promulgated by people who don’t think it matters if they don’t have all the facts. A well-publicized lawsuit might make them think differently.

Thanks for reading,
Jim
_________________________________________
James B. Reed, Esq.
New York Accident 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

For all of us who have teenage drivers in the house, I just read a great post by NY Insurance coverage expert Roy Mura entitled: Suing the Kid for Crashing the Car Into the Garage. I strongly urge you to read Roy’s full post but the highlights are below:

Roy was asked: Can an unemancipated child be held “legally responsible” to a parent for crashing mom’s car into the garage?

He answered: In New York, the answer is yes. In 1969, in the case of Gelbman v. Gelbman, the New York Court of Appeals abolished the intrafamily immunity doctrine and permitted a mother to sue her unemancipated minor son for injuries she had sustained in an auto accident while riding as a passenger in a car her son was driving. Gelbman remains “good law” in New York.

But then Roy went on to ask the really relevant and practical question: Is there insurance coverage for the kid crashing the car into the garage?

Roy answered by saying that there probably is coverage for damage to the garage (but not its contents) under a homeowner’s policy and “there would also be liability coverage favoring the child under a personal auto policy that provides coverage for “damages for … ‘property damage’ for which any ‘insured’ becomes legally responsible because of an auto accident.”

Roy’s parting tongue-in-cheek comment is that while you might be able to successfully sue your kid for wrecking your car and your garage, and even though there might be insurance coverage to cover it, you might face non-renewal of your insurance coverage when your policy is up for renewal. That certainly is food for thought…

Thanks for reading, Jim
______________________________

James B. Reed, Esq.
Personal Injury & Malpractice 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: jreed@zifflaw.com
Web: http://www.zifflaw.com

Please visit the New York Injury Law Blog at: http://www.NYInjuryLawBlog.com

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

Nursing home neglect is a devastating crime, for both the elderly victims and the family members who feel terrible guilt because their loved ones were mistreated in a place that should have given them loving care.

Over the years the Ziff Law Firm has handled a number of very sad cases where nursing home residents were either neglected or even actually abused by nursing home staff.

Now there is important news to report. Recent amendments to New York state’s Public Health Law have put some teeth into New York law in these cases.

Punitive = intended as punishment

The law provides for both a straight mathematical calculation of the MINIMUM damages that a jury may award as well as setting forth that a jury may award PUNITIVE damages if the jury finds that the nursing home engaged in conduct that was “willful or in reckless disregard of the lawful rights of the patient.” This is a very important amendment to New York state law and one that assists in protecting the health and safety of nursing home residents.

The Twin Tiers has a significant senior population. According to 2007 Census Bureau data, Chemung, Schuyler and Steuben counties all have a higher percentage of people over age 65 than the state average. The same holds true for Tioga and Bradford counties in Pennsylvania.

Geriatric health and accommodations are a big business in our area. Just consider the large number of nursing homes in this part of New York state:

In Steuben County: Absolut Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation at Three Rivers, Founders Pavilion, Hornell Gardens, Ira Davenport Memorial Hospital, Mcauley Manor at Mercycare and the Steuben County Infirmary.

In Chemung County, we have the Arnot-Ogden Medical Center Residential Health Care Facility, Bethany Nursing Home & Health Related Facility, Chemung County Health Center-Nursing Facility, Elcor, and the Skilled Nursing Facility at St. Joseph’s Hospital.

Schuyler County: Schuyler Hospital’s Long Term Care Unit.

Yates County: Penn Yan Manor Nursing Home and Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Hospital Extended Care Unit.

Tompkins County: Beechtree Care Center, Groton Community Health Care Center Residential Care Facility, Kendal at Ithaca, Lakeside Nursing Home and Oak Hill Manor Nursing Home.

I found all these nursing homes in a just a few minutes spent on the New York State Department of Health website, http://nursinghomes.nyhealth.gov. The Department of Health offers quality and cost comparisons of nursing homes for every New York state county; the Pennsylvania Department of Health offers a similar service at http://app2.health.state.pa.us/commonpoc/NHLocatorIE.asp.

Given that the Twin Tiers has so many facilities for elder care, the Ziff Law Firm feels that it is important for people to know about this recent change in the law. It’s a powerful new tool in finding a legal remedy if a loved one in a nursing home is subjected to neglect or abuse that results in significant injury or damage.

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