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.

Despite the clear negligence on the part of the Corning Hospital staff nurses, the medical malpractice insurance carriers for the Hospital and the Guthrie Clinic (Guthrie now owns the Corning Hospital), stubbornly refused to settle the case. It was not until 2007, more than NINE years after the baby’s birth in August, 1998, that the lawyers for the malpractice insurance companies finally made any offer to settle the case. And it was not until after Steuben County Supreme Court Judge Joseph Latham actually set a firm trial date, that the carriers finally offered a present value amount of $2,400,000 to settle the case. By very sophisticated use of annuities, life insurance planning and a Supplemental Needs Trust, the expected payout of benefits to this little girl over her projected lifetime will be more than $20,000,000. It sounds like a lot of money but given the high cost of medical care and the 24/7/365 medical needs of this child over her lifetime, each and every penny will be necessary for her care.

As experienced medical malpractice attorneys know, there is no such thing as an “easy” medical negligence case. No matter how strong your case, the doctors, hospitals and their medical malpractice insurance carriers, defend these cases tooth and nail. They force you to spend year upon year and tens of thousands of dollars (we have invested more than $80,000 in some cases) prosecuting your case. Consequently, there is nothing more satisfying than to resolve a case in a manner that you know will benefit your deserving client for the rest of their lives…

No related posts.

We wanted to come up with a program that would show some of our appreciation for the bravery local veterans have shown and the sacrifices they have made in the service of our country.

Veteran of the Game will give four tickets to a local veteran for each Elmira Jackals home game the rest of the season. In addition to a great view of the game for the veteran and his or her guests, the honoree will be featured in a special announcement at the beginning of the game.

Star-Gazette columnist and veteran Roger Neumann recently wrote about our effort in his Roger That blog post “Ziff Law Firm will honor veterans at Jackals’ games.” Thanks, Roger!

YOU CAN HELP us make Veteran of the Game a successful program! We need your nominations of area veterans. To nominate a veteran for this special recognition, just contact us (by e-mail or through our website are the best and quickest means). Visit www.zifflaw.com/veterans, e-mail veterans@zifflaw.com or call (800) ZIFFLAW (943−3529).

Veterans of the Game – so far

Two area veterans have already received Jackals tickets through our plan. The Ziff Law Firm was honored to recognize Brett York and Matthew Fogarty.

Adam Gee and Brett York.

Brett is a member of the National Guard Reserves, which he joined in February 2008.

Christina Sonsire and Matt Fogarty.

Matt is currently a member of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard.

He plans to live in the Elmira area until January, when he will begin pursuing an MBA degree at Kutztown University of Pennsylvania.

We are very thankful to Brett, Matt, and all of the veterans who have served our nation so bravely! And with your help and nominations, we hope to extend our thanks – and hockey tickets – to additional local veterans.

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.

No related posts.

At long, long, last. A new documentary may reveal the TRUTH about a tragic case. One personal injury case in the early ’90s has been held up as the epitome of a “frivolous” lawsuit. In 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck was severely burned by spilling a cup of McDonald’s coffee onto her lap.

After a long struggle with the McDonald’s legal forces, Stella was awarded $2.9 million in damages by a New Mexico jury. The story became a national lightning rod for controversy over personal responsibility and bogus litigation. Poor injured Stella was lampooned for stupidity, clumsiness and greed. The term “Stella Award” was even coined to refer to any lawsuit or victim award viewed as preposterous.

New documentary presents radically different view of coffee case

“Hot Coffee,” slated to be released in 2011 according to IMDB.com, returns to the principals in the case to find out the REAL details. In many of the most important, basic details, Stella’s hot coffee case was very different from what was reported in the media.

One thing that is mentioned in the trailer (check it out above) that is not usually emphasized is the fact that the courts drastically reduced the jury’s verdict. Despite that reduction, the tort reformers NEVER mention that fact and ALWAYS refer to this as the multi-million dollar McDonald’s case! Very dishonest.

Also in the brief trailer you can see participants reflecting on the case and the amount of disinformation that was spread. The reason, suggested by some experts: McDonald’s objective to embarrass Stella Liebeck, ridicule her legitimate claim and foster a public climate in which injured claimants were reluctant to press for justice.

Thanks to the filmmakers for all their hard work on this important story. Hopefully it will change the reigning public opinion about Stella Liebeck’s intentions and claims.

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

No related posts.

That is always a tough question to answer as every case is totally different. I have had many cases settle within a few months and I had one medical malpractice case take almost 7 full years (granted, that was a case I wanted to take a long time because it involved an injured baby and we knew we would not be able to know the full outcome of her injuries until she was 4-5 years old).

Cases of multiple injuries, the value of which clearly exceed the limits of the defendant’s insurance coverage, can often be settled in months.

The majority of my cases fall in the 2+/- year range.

In most cases the entire first year is devoted to performing the initial case investigation and then waiting to see the outcome of my client’s injuries. The single most important factor in determining the ultimate value of any personal injury case is the extent to which the injured party has suffered a “permanent” injury — an injury you will live with for the rest of your life.

Doctors need time to make determination

Because “permanency” is such an important factor, I am usually reluctant to undertake any serious settlement negotiations until I have obtained a “permanency opinion” from my client’s treating doctor. A permanency opinion is simply a letter from a doctor, to the effect of “it is my opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that my patient has suffered the following permanent injuries and limitations as a result of the collision: permanent limp, decreased range of motion in the right hip and leg, permanent surgical scar, etc.”

Most doctors are unwilling to provide a permanency opinion until their patient’s condition has “stabilized” – the patient is not getting better nor getting worse and “what you see is what you’ve got”. Most doctors use one year post-injury as the general rule of thumb for determining permanency and accordingly most of the time I am waiting until one year post-injury to request this very important permanency opinion letter.

Finding a balanced pace to proceed

Please appreciate that these are general time frames only and it is ALWAYS my goal to resolve cases as quickly as possible. As I always tell my clients: “I don’t get paid until you get paid, and with three college-bound teens, you can be sure I am not going to drag my feet on your case!”

With that said, I always caution my client’s that it can be HUGE mistake to try to rush your case because “you only get one bite at the apple” meaning that once you settle your case, it is settled ALWAYS AND FOREVER, so you better make as sure as possible that you know the full extent of your permanent limitations BEFORE you settle your case.

Finally, I also urge clients to NOT try to rush their cases because if the insurance company gets one whiff of the fact that you are eager to settle, it is the kiss of death and the insurance company will exploit your eagerness by low-balling their settlement offer in your case. This is a very common tactic that many insurance companies are using to take advantage of unrepresented people — they waive $500, $1,000, $3,000 of “quick settlement” money under a person’s nose with the hope that that person will quickly sign off on a case worth 10 times, 50 times, 100 times, more… The key is to resist the temptation of quick money to ensure that you get every penny to which you are entitled.

Sorry for this long-winded explanation but I think it is important for people to understand why taking the time to CORRECTLY pursue your case is so important. If you have any questions about this issue, feel free to let me know and I will be happy to explain further.

Thanks,
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

No related posts.

According to the Elmira Star Gazette, health officials from Chemung County conferenced with New York State Health Department representatives this morning as they continue to test water at Elmira’s Edward Flannery Towers. In addition, Chemung County officials conformed two additional cases of Legionnaires’ disease, bringing the reported total number of cases to eight.

Ziff Law continues to be contacted by families affected by the outbreak. We have been working dilligently all weekend to launch an independent investigation, and are working hard to gather all of the facts about the cases. We will share more information with the public as soon as we are able to do so.

Thanks for reading,

Christina Bruner Sonsire, Esq. csonsire@zifflaw.com 607-733-8866

No related posts.

Shortly after I joined Ziff Law, Jim Reed, the firm’s managing partner (and frequent poster on this blog,) told me to sign myself up for the two-week National Session on Building Trial Skills offered by the National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA). “And by the way,” he remarked, “the program is located just outside Boulder, Colorado.”

‘Nuff said. As a former resident of Denver and Missoula, Montana, I am a true lover of the mountains and was ecstatic about the chance to spend some time savoring mountain life. Oh, NITA looked pretty cool as well.

I had no idea at the time that I was about to embark upon a career changing — if not life changing — voyage. Seriously. Two weeks at NITA equaled, for me and I suspect most of my classmates, at least five years of real world trial experience. Unfortunately, as most practitioners recognize, cases are not tried nearly as often today as they were fifty years ago. Increased pressures to settle matters quickly or engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution — such as mediation or arbitration — has created a professional atmosphere in which young attorneys wait years or even decades before ever getting a chance to see a case through to verdict. (The one notable exception is in the area of criminal law, where cases are tried on a somewhat more frequent basis.) (Watch an interview with The Honorable Jim R. Carrigan, one if NITA’s founders.)

I was fortunate to have tried a number of cases as a prosecutor before participating in NITA’s National Session. However, the skills and confidence I gained from NITA are unparalleled. I had an opportunity to test myself against some of the best up-and-coming attorneys in the country — and even the world! The faculty was comprised of seasoned practioners with practical, focused advice on how to become the very best trial lawyer possible, and the lecturers offered insight into cutting edge legal trends and technology emerging from all ends of the globe. (Read NITA’s Blog.)

The session itself was broken down into two mini week-long programs, each culminating with full jury trials performed in front of live mock jurors. Throughout the entire two week period the group of almost ninety participants was broken into three smaller groups, and each group was assigned a team leader and assistant. I had the absolute pleasure of working in a group lead by Temple University’s Beasley School of Law Professor Lou Natali and White Collar Criminal Defense Attorney Hayes Hunt of Cozen O’Connor. Attorneys Natali and Hunt are both no-nonsense, savvy litigators with seemingly endless knowledge and wisdom to share.

Each day of the first week began with warm-up execises led by communications specialist Brian Johnson. These were some of my favorite segments of the entire session. Brian is not a lawyer, but has been teaching lawyers to speak like REAL PEOPLE for the past thirty years. Brian spent an nearly an entire two hour lecture one afternoon teaching us what to do with our hands. Our hands. Where should we place them when asking questions on direct examination? What should we do with them while arguing during summation? What about our feet? Our voice inflection? How can we best use our core muscles to project strength? How to we best appear powerful?

The session focused greatly on critique — from the instructors, our peers, and, ultimately, ourselves. Every day at NITA was game day, and it was crucial to come prepared and ready to perform. Our presentations of various stages of trial — voir dire through summation — were videotaped and reviewed by a rotating crew of instructors, none of whom were afraid or hesitant to tell us EXACTLY what needed to change.

The results were stunning. I was assigned to try my first NITA case with Sydwell Shangisa, an advocate from South Africa who practices criminal prosecution. (Read about one of Shangisa’s recent verdicts,) the second case with Tomas Rodriquez, the Marshalltown, Iowa public defender. NITA invited dozens of local residents to sit in on the trial, and set up closed captioned television monitors which allowed us to watch the jury deliberate. Both cases were document intensive — giving me an opportunity practice using PowerPoint throughout in order to publish exhibits to the jury.

The bottom line is NITA is a must for all practitioners. Period. NITA’s philosophy is fairly straightforward — communicate simply, be entertaining and take risks. The results for me were nothings short of stunning. Two days after returning I began my first civil trial. It lasted eight days, and though 10 witnesses were called and over hundred exhibits admitted, it only took the jury nine minutes to return a verdict — in our favor. But that, I am afraid, is a topic for another post…

Thanks for reading!!

Christina Bruner Sonsire, Esq.

No related posts.

Legionnaires' Outbreak at the Flannery Towers

The Elmira Star Gazette is reporting a possible outbreak of Legionnaires Disease at the Ed Flannery Towers senior housing complex in the City of Elmira. Legionnaires’ Disease is a type of pneumonia caused by Legionella, a bacterium found primarily in warm water environments. The United States’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention descibes the symptoms of Legionnaires’ Disease — such as high fever, chills, coughing, muscle aches and headaches — as being similar to many other forms of pneumonia, making it difficult to diagnose at first. The CDC states Legionnaires’ Disease is a very serious illness and causes death in up to 30% of cases. The good news is many cases of Legionnaires’ Disease can be treated successfully — if diagnosed early and properly treated.

According to the Star Gazette, the Chemung County and New York State Health Departments are investigating the outbreak, but have not yet determined the number of people potentially affected by the disease.

Thanks for reading,

Christina Bruner Sonsire, Esq.

No related posts.

As a personal injury attorney in the Elmira/Corning, New York area, I have now come to understand the true wisdom behind those words, especially when it comes to automobile maintenance. Accidents certainly do happen, but general awareness of basic automobile maintenance can go a long way toward preventing personal injuries and saving lives. Although I do not profess to be an expert mechanic in any way, I have decided to post basic auto tips periodically this summer to inform – or more likely, remind – readers of simple steps you can take to protect your families from injuries sustained in automobile accidents.To many people summer is synonymous with road trips and family vacation, and I hope my tips will help readers stay safe when hitting the roads.

Tip #1 – Check your Tires

Today is my parents’ 40th wedding anniversary. My father, ever the romantic, decided to take my mother to the Sherwood Inn in Skaneateles, New York for a little getaway. Alas, as my parents pulled out of Horseheads to begin their journey, they got a flat tire. Luckily neither was injured and my dad had the tools to change the tire, though they may have been “spared” (I couldn’t resist) a short delay if only my dad had followed his own advice and checked car before getting on the road.

Tires are crucial to vehicle’s handling, traction, and stability, and can cause an automobile to loose alignment if they are not in proper working order. In general, you should check each of tire periodically, or about once a month.

When checking your tires, first look for obvious defects and damage, and visit a professional if anything looks seriously amiss.

It is very wise to carry a tire gauge in your automobile at all times, and you should check the pressure in each of your tires every time you check them. Tire pressure changes due to a variety of factors, though they are most commonly affected by changes in weather or air temperature. A decrease in air temperature often causes a loss in tire pressure, while an increase in air temperature often causes a gain.

Each vehicle has its own recommended air pressure, and information about it can likely be found in your vehicle’s owners manual. Although a tire’s maximum pressure is listed on its in fine print, you should never use max pressure as a guide when filling your tires because over-inflation allows tires to puncture more easily and can create instability for your automobile.

As an avid bicycle rider, I realize the importance of checking the pressure of my bike’s tires before every ride I take to avoid an accident (and make the ride more enjoyable!) Although checking a vehicle’s tires before every trip may be a bit overly onerous, it is something all of us could do a bit more frequently in order to stay safe.

Thanks for reading,

Christina Bruner Sonsire

No related posts.

Calling all Constitutional Law Junkies: June 26, 2008 was a monumental day.

It is not often (yet more frequent these days than is perhaps appropriate) that the U.S. Supreme Court authors a decision in which it offers — in nearly 150 pages of disparate, arguably subjective detail — overtly telepathic insight into the minds and hearts of the framers cast under a thin, unimpressive veil of stare decisis. A day to celebrate? Perhaps, as it was for the N.R.A. supporters and the libertarian crowd who view the District of Columbia, et. al. v. Heller through a narrow pragmatic lense as a promotion of individual liberties (and security that they can keep their guns.) A day for outrage? Apparently for a “frightened” Mayor Daley, as he trumpeted the call to fight for the right to ban guns in his hometown and plans were made to challenge similar laws in megapolises across the country.

I felt something in between. I feel scholastic excitement, to be sure. Heller , like Bush v. Gore, will certainly endure as a landmark case in Constitutional Law 101 for centuries to come. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy, is bursting with interesting (if somewhat trivial given Scalia’s general predisposition against extra-four corners constitutional analysis) historical references — James Madison’s inclusion of a conscientious-objector clause in his original draft of the Second Amendment; E. de Vattel’s 1792 “The Law of Nations, or, Principals of the Law of Nature”; England’s 1671 “Game Act”; and, of course, the mighty and ever-persuasive Federalist Papers. (As a reverent admirer of the Papers, I write this tongue-and-cheek to respectfully mock Scalia’s apparently selective use and disuse of the great Hamilton/Madison cryptic debate depending whether it supports a case’s end result.) Further, Justices Breyer and Stevens each offer 40+ page dissents, allowing all of us to catch a glimpse of what it must have felt like to be in the back room on this one.

At the same time, however, I feel disappointed. To have such a monumental decision — one where the highest court in our land determined the parameters of what I suppose should now be referred to as an “individual right” by a 5-4 vote along ideologic [i.e...(dare I suggest it) political] lines — is a tough reality check for a struggling idealist to bear. I am still trying to hold on to the red, white and blue notion that judges are impartial and justice is politically blind, but decisions like this make me feel more foolish than enlightened or proud. Do I believe in a “living constitution”? Not really, but I firmly believe our nation ’s judiciary desperately needs to develop a set a norms by which to interpret constitutional doctrine that is not so fraught with explicit contradictions as to make monumental decisions such as Heller appear disingenuous at best.

(Bear in mind my worldview has been shaped by an outlandish cast of global characters who boast extremely divergent philosophies. From peace makers in Missoula singing Kum Ba Yah in the foothills to my hometown husband who spends every possible minute each fall in a tree stand, I feel lucky to be able to appreciate the widely debated social issue at stake in Heller — whether individuals should bear arms — from many different angles. How I actually come down on that debate is a subject for another post, because, in my opinion, it is wholly removed from the doctrinal mishaps displayed by the Supreme Court yesterday.)

Worst of all, the decision left me feeling a little lighter in the pocketbook — at least in my personal future’s market. When the Supreme Court granted cert on this case, I bet my brother-in-law dinner at one of Elmira’s finest dining establishments that there was no way the court would strike down D.C.’s law. “Scalia is an originalist,” I argued, “but even he won’t stretch so far as to breath individualism into the Second Amendment.” Guess who got a text yesterday reminding me it is now time to pay up…

After posting this I was approached by a few folks who asked, “So, what do YOU think of the opinion?” Though I initially tried to remain neutral, this is what I think:

I think the Supreme Court got it wrong. Forgetting the legal and constitutional context for a moment, I feel bearing arms (at least in our neck of the woods) is a good thing. Most people around here have them for sport, and so long as they are well regulated it does not seem to be a bad thing.

In legal terms, however, I think the majority opinion – authored by Justice Scalia – is off-base. Purporting to use pre-colonial history to support the notion that our founders envisioned an unfettered right for an individual to bear arms for any purpose, Scalia, in my opinion, ignores the black and white text of the Second Amendment – “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Instead I tend to adopt the viewpoints set forth by Justice Breyer in his dissent. Breyer accepts the Second Amendment guarantees some sort of an individual right, but argues (1) the Amendment protects militia-related, not defense-related, interests, (a position for fully developed in Justice Stevens’ dissent); and (2) the protections provided by the Amendment are not absolute, but rather, like other constitutionally protected rights such as the right to be free from search-and-seizure, can be regulated or curtailed by the government so long as the government’s purpose for doing so bears, at a minimum, a “rational relationship” to a “legitimate governmental purpose.”)

Thanks for reading (and putting up with a bit of pontification),

Christina

No related posts.

Image via Wikipedia

It’s the time of year when your nearly grown son or daughter is graduating from high school, and you know what that means: Graduation Parties! Remembering all the fun you had back in the day, and wanting to be a “cool” parent, you may be considering throwing a party for your son or daughter and their friends that includes alcohol. After all, you reason, as long as I take the keys and they all spend the night, what’s the harm? If I don’t do it, these kids will just be off drinking AND driving somewhere else anyway.

If you are even considering a scenario like the one I outlined above, think again! These sorts of parties have a tendency to get out of control, and the noise alone may be enough make your neighbors call the police. Kids who aren’t experienced drinking alcohol have a tendency to over-indulge, with obnoxious, messy, and sometimes life threatening results. How are you going to explain a midnight trip to the emergency room to get some kid’s stomach pumped to his mother or father the next day?

As if you needed more reasons, consider this: you could go to jail! Don’t believe me? Just ask John Gurtler, Jr. Don’t recognize that name? I bet you would recognize his voice! He is the Public Address Announcer at Buffalo Bills games. It seems that Mr. Gurtler was having thoughts along the lines of the scenario I outlined above for his son’s post-prom party. All his son’s friends, more than 80 in all, were invited back to the Gurtler residence for a night of merriment and booze. All was going great until the police arrived at their Orchard Park, NY home, observed scores of obviously under age-and over-dressed teens pouring beers from multiple kegs scattered about the yard, and decided to intervene. Mr. Gurtler, Mrs. Gurtler and their teenage son have all been arrested and charged with Unlawfully Dealing With A Child for providing alcohol to minors. They will face one count for each of the kids present (at least the ones the police could catch). Each count carries a potential penalty of up one year in jail AND a $1,000.00 fine.

This is a case where jail time could very easily be imposed, too. Because Mr. Gurtler is a prominent individual, and because we are on the verge of graduation season, the judge may very well want to send a message to the community that this type of behavior will not be tolerated and will face stiff punishment. It would be the judge’s hope that the publicity associated with this case and the penalty doled out would dissuade any one else from doing something similar. Legally, this is known as general deterrance.

Let Mr. Gurtler’s mistake be a lesson to all of us here in the Twin Tiers.

For those of you interested in all the gory details of what the police found upon their arrival, I have attached a link from The Buffalo News story covering the arrest below.

Thanks for reading,

Adam M. Gee, Esq.
New York and Pennsylvania Personal Injury and Malpractice Attorney
Ziff, Weiermiller, Hayden & Mustico, LLP
303 William Street
Elmira, NY 14901
Phone: (607)733-8866
Fax: (607)732-6062
Email: agee@zifflaw.com
www.zifflaw.com

http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/southernsuburbs/story/366740.html

No related posts.