Injury Attorney NYC

Lawyer Jokes

2008-06-09T13:57:52-04:00

*T**he following are quotations from a book called Disorder in the American Courts. These are things people actually said in court, word for word, duly recorded and now published by court reporters** **who** **had the torment of staying calm and not howling with laughter while these exchanges took place.**

** ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?**
WITNESS: No, I just lie there. ** ____________________________________*
*
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
_____________________________________*
*
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?'
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!
______________________________________*
*
ATTORNEY: Now doctor** **isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, * * **he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
____________________________________

ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you kidding me?
______________________________________*
*
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Uh.... I was getting laid!
______________________________________*
*
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Are you shittin' me? Your Honour, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
______________________________________*
*
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Now whose death do you suppose terminated it?
______________________________________*
*
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Guess.
_____________________________________*
*
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead people. Would you like to rephrase that?
______________________________________*
*
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
______________________________________*
*
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy on him!
____________________________________________*
*
ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Huh....are you qualified to ask that question?
______________________________________*
*
And the best for last:

ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.*

THEY SAID IT

2008-05-13T10:32:17-04:00

The following exchange between an attorney and a witness actually took place in a courtroom.

*Attorney:* Officer, when you stopped the defendant, were your red and blue lights flashing?

*Witness: *Yes.

*Attorney:* Did the defendant say anything to you when she got out of her car?

*Witness: *Yes sir.

*Attorney:* What did she say to you?

*Witness: *She said, "What disco am I at?"

GOVERNMENTAL NEGLIGENCE

2008-04-25T13:19:14-04:00

With the government involved more and more in our lives, there is an increased chance that you could be injured because of the government's negligence. Since the Middle Ages, the law of England has followed the edict that the "king can do no wrong," and, thus, if you have been hurt by the king or his agents, that is your own bad luck. Although the United States has no king, we do follow English law, including this idea of "sovereign immunity." In its modern form, sovereign immunity prevents people from suing the government unless the government gives them permission to do so.

Because sovereign immunity can unfairly result in injured persons not being compensated for their injuries, most states and the federal government have passed laws called Tort Claims Acts. These laws give citizens advance permission to sue for certain kinds of injuries caused by the negligence of government employees. If a claim is subject to the Act, the government is liable in much the same way a private person can be liable.

However, the kinds of claims permitted by the Act are fewer than the kinds of claims that can be brought against a private person. For example, a citizen may be able to sue for injuries caused by a police officer's negligent driving but probably not for the police department's negligent failure to catch the thief who robbed him or her. Additionally, claims against the government may be subject to special rules and special time limits that differ from those in a normal lawsuit.

Don't despair because your injury was caused by the government. You do have rights, and we will help you protect them.

SUV ROLLOVERS: A SERIOUS PROBLEM

2008-04-17T16:48:00-04:00

The perception among drivers is that bigger is better, and therefore SUVs--which are bigger than other cars--must be safer. Unfortunately, this perception is not correct. SUVs, which are not only bigger but taller than other kinds of cars and trucks, have a disturbing tendency to roll over, which results in more serious accidents. Almost every make and model of SUVs have this problem.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, SUVs roll over at more than twice the rate of other vehicles. As a result, the government requires SUVs to bear a warning label telling drivers that they are in danger of rolling over if they make a sharp turn, which they may have to do to avoid a collision. Of course, the problem is that merely warning a driver that this is the case does nothing to change the basic bad design, and, when a driver is faced with the choice of either plowing into another car or making a potentially dangerous sharp turn, most drivers will make the turn, resulting in many rollover accidents.

SUVs tend to be taller than cars, tend to have a higher ground clearance, and tend to have a narrower distance between their wheels, all of which combine to give SUVs a higher center of gravity that makes it easier for them to tip over. The size of SUVs means that they can be (and often are) heavily loaded, and extra weight actually makes it more likely that the SUV will roll over in a crash. The fact that most people use their SUVs as a family car rather than as an off-road vehicle has led most SUV manufacturers to remove roll bars from their SUVs--roll bars that would provide some protection in the event of a rollover.

Many SUV manufacturers tout the steps that they have taken to increase safety, but none of these steps involves any fundamental redesign of SUVs to make them safer. Instead, manufacturers claim that they have tested their SUVs and have found them difficult to roll over, but what they do not tell you is that these tests were conducted with lightly loaded SUVs driven by professional drivers, and the reactions of these drivers have very little to do with how an ordinary driver with three kids and a car full of groceries would react in the same situation. Also, don't be fooled by the number of "stars" that an SUV has received--statistics show that even an SUV that has a five-star crash rating still has a 10% chance of rolling over in a single-vehicle crash.

The proof of the danger presented by SUV rollovers is shown in accident statistics. In the real world, rollover accidents are far more likely to result in death than are other kinds of accidents, and SUVs are involved in more rollover accidents than are other kinds of passenger vehicles. The propensity of SUVs to roll over means that while single-vehicle rollover accidents accounted for only 19% of passenger deaths in cars, they caused more than half (53%) of the passenger deaths in SUVs.

Litigating SUV rollover cases can be complex and usually requires proving that a maneuver that is commonly performed by drivers and that would not have caused a car to roll over did cause the SUV to roll over, and that, after it rolled over, its design was not enough to protect the occupants from injury. This involves knowledge of not only state laws governing negligence, but also federal safety regulations and the law of corporate liability and products liability.

If you or someone you love has been involved in an SUV rollover accident, you may have a claim against the manufacturer and others for any injuries that have been suffered. Do not settle for less than what you are due. Contact our firm. We will be happy to discuss your case with you.

DAY-CARE DANGERS

2008-04-03T11:03:07-04:00

It is an unfortunate fact that those most vulnerable and least able to protect themselves are often those at the highest risk for abuse or neglect. Elderly persons confined to nursing homes, the mentally ill and the retarded, and the very ill are often vulnerable targets for abuse or the victims of neglect. To this list, we can add one more group: children in day care. While the vast majority of day-care facilities and day-care providers are trustworthy and responsible, cases of abuse or neglect, while rare, do occur. *Preventive Measures*

The good news is that such abuse or neglect is usually preventable. Before enrolling a child in day care, be sure to visit the facility. It can be a good idea to drop by without an appointment, so that you can see how the center operates when it is not expecting outside visitors. Make sure the facility welcomes parents in all areas, and that it does not have any "no-go" areas. Ask if the center performs criminal background checks on all of its employees and volunteers, and inquire if the center screens for other, noncriminal issues such as drug abuse or emotional problems.

Ask the day-care facility how it handles discipline--when children may be disciplined, by whom, and how. Make sure that the children being cared for appear to be relaxed, happy, and engaged in constructive activities such as learning or play.

You may also want to take steps to guard your child against dangers that could occur outside the facility itself. If the facility takes the children on field trips, check to see if the transportation is safe and determine how many adults will accompany the children to ensure that everyone returns unharmed.

Find out what the day-care center's policies are about having children picked up at the end of the day, and who will be allowed to claim your child. Make sure to identify, in writing, who is allowed to take your child from the facility. Find out what will be done if your child becomes seriously ill while at the day-care facility, and what steps will be taken if the facility cannot get in touch with you immediately. *Avoid Abuse*

Additional steps should be taken to ensure that your child is not the victim of intentional abuse (as opposed to neglect) while he or she is at the day-care facility. When you visit, check to see that the bathrooms do not contain areas where children can be isolated, and find out how the facility handles toileting issues. Most of the cases of child sexual abuse at day-care facilities occur in the bathroom. Also make sure that children are well supervised during naptime. Day-care providers will sometimes leave the room when the children are sleeping, increasing the opportunities for someone to abuse a child.

It is important that any contact between the children and those not working at the facility is strictly supervised. Abuse often is not the work of the day-care teacher but of those not directly involved in caring for the children, such as bus drivers, janitors, and relatives of those who operate the day-care center. One study suggests that as much as one-third of reported abuse occurs in the hands of the day-care provider's family members who do not actually work for the day-care center.

Keep your eyes open for signs of abuse or neglect. If you suspect that your child has been abused or neglected at a day-care facility, it is important to act promptly. If your child is old enough, try talking with him or her to find out what happened, keeping in mind that children are sometimes not entirely reliable sources of information. You might also contact other parents who use the same day-care facility and ask if they have noticed any of the same signs of abuse or neglect in their children as you have seen in yours. If you still suspect something is wrong, contact the local authorities or, if the matter is very serious and places your child or others in immediate danger, contact the police.

If the investigation reveals that abuse or neglect has occurred, call our office. We know how important your children are. We will go to work for you to get you everything you deserve under the law, AND to prevent the same problem from happening to someone else.

THE VALUE OF A LAWYER

2008-03-26T14:44:26-04:00

Many insurance claims are settled between the person making the claim and the insurance company without the involvement of a lawyer. But, every once in a while, we are reminded that a fair settlement cannot always happen unless you have a lawyer to represent you to the insurance company and, if necessary, to the judge and jury.

Allstate Insurance Company was sued because of a claims practice it uses where it does everything it can to discourage people from hiring an attorney. In this case, the victim of a collision caused by an Allstate-insured driver was told by the Allstate adjustor that she did not need an attorney. The adjustor also advised the victim to sign a release of her legal claims.

The court ruled that the adjustor had violated the duty she owed to the injured claimant. Because the adjustor acted like the victim's lawyer, she should be held to the same standard as a lawyer.

This case teaches a valuable lesson. It is very important to remember that insurance companies often do not have your best interests in mind. They frequently try to settle claims for as little money out of their pockets as possible. If you feel that an insurance company is treating you unfairly or you suspect that you are getting the "runaround," get legal help.

Sometimes a lawyer is just the thing you need.

ORTHO EVRA: CONVENIENCE OR DANGER?

2008-03-20T14:12:43-04:00

In 2002, the first contraceptive patch for women came on the market. This prescription drug, which is sold under the name "Ortho Evra," allows women to receive birth control medicine through a patch placed on their skin. One patch delivers its dosage over the course of a whole week, whereas birth control pills must be ingested daily. Since its introduction, over 5 million women have used the Ortho Evra patch. *FDA Warning*

This past November, the FDA warned that women who use the patch are being exposed to levels of estrogen far higher than women who use birth control pills--as much as 60% more. Exposure to high levels of estrogen has been linked to an increased danger of blood clots, and information obtained from the FDA shows that women who use the Ortho Evra patch are three times more likely to develop blood clots than women who use birth control pills.

The FDA information also discloses that 23 of the women using the patch died, and as many as 17 of the deaths may have been related to blood clots. This is cause for concern, because the FDA itself estimates that it receives reports in only 1% to 10% of cases involving adverse drug reactions, and so the number of clot-related problems and deaths could very well be much higher.

For the time being, the FDA has approved of a change in the warning labels placed on the Ortho Evra patch, making users aware of the risk, but it has not pulled the drug from the market. The maker of Ortho Evra has vowed to launch its own study of the incidence of so-called "thrombotic injuries"--which include blood clots and strokes--associated with the use of the patch. However, there are reports that crucial data relating to thrombotic injuries from the original clinical trials was downplayed in the marketing campaign that was launched after the drug was approved.

Symptoms of blood clots are varied and can include sharp chest pain and coughing of blood (caused by clots in the lungs), pain in the calves (caused by clots in the legs), sudden loss of vision (caused by clots in the eye), or sudden and severe headaches, vomiting, dizziness, falling, and problems with speech and eyesight (a stroke, possibly caused by clots in the brain). Of course, if you use the Ortho Evra patch and have any of these symptoms, go to a hospital immediately. If you have used the Ortho Evra patch and have been treated for clotting, call us to discuss your legal options.

Protecting and Promoting the Rights of those Injured by Medical Malpractice

2008-03-17T11:01:32-04:00

Protecting and Promoting the Rights of those Injured by Medical Malpractice

A lot has happened in the United States in the last five years, and much of it has happened in New York. As the economic capital of the nation, New York has been the scene of much of the economic upheaval that has so far defined the new millennium. After the longest sustained period of economic expansion in U.S. history, the overnight collapse of the technology boom in April 2000 was the first sign that the charmed success of the 1990s was slipping. This was followed quickly by the collapse of corporate accountability in hundreds of fly-by-night Internet startups, and also in prominent companies, banks and accounting firms across America.

As revelations of cooked books, wholesale embezzlement and consumer fraud surfaced as standard fare in corporate America, the steadiness of the U.S. economy quickly faltered, ushering in the first recession in nine years. Many of the heroes of 1990s Wall Street were hiring defense attorneys as the summer of 2000 began, preparing for pending appearances in the courts of New York to account for their active roles in picking retirement funds clean, perpetrating consumer fraud, and abetting embezzlement and the rip-offs of millions of consumers and investors.

Then came September 11 th, 2001. Determining the true cost of that day is an impossible task, especially when we reflect on the victims of the attacks. The human loss becomes incalculable when we recognize that many of the day's leading economic minds and architects of commerce, those who labored directly to strengthen and guide the U.S. economy, perished in the Twin Towers.

On a monetary level, the direct costs of 9/11 were some $40 billion, according to insurance industry estimates. As the reluctant underwriters of these difficult times, insurance companies and their investment portfolios have borne the brunt of the losses resulting from recession, economic volatility and the terrible toll of death and destruction that followed 9/11. But as trying as these times have been for many insurance companies, don't plan on any funerals for the insurance industry just yet. In fact, big insurance has found an easy way to survive and even thrive in post-9/11 America. All they have to do is strip Americans of their basic legal rights, and as they've recently discovered, that's not so hard to do. Insurance Companies and how they protect their profits

As the wealthiest industry in the United States, the insurance industry is also the most pervasive. Insurance companies are the nation's principal investors in the stock market, corporations, banks and financial institutions. Their executives sit on the boards of America's leading companies, and their profits fuel Wall Street investments. And most importantly, they contribute heavily to the coffers of political campaigns sympathetic to their views and goals.

In boom times, insurance companies always stand to gain the most. During a soft economy, full of scandal, low job-growth, falling stocks, lower interest rates and fears of more catastrophes like 9/11, their profits suffer. When the economy works against them, insurance companies look for any available means to save money. The easiest cost-saver is the American consumer, and by raising premiums of policyholders while working to deter their rights to pursue just compensation through the legal system, the insurance industry is able to maintain its extravagant profit margin. Exercising their Power: Legal victories of the Insurance Industry

Is human life worth less under a Republican administration? Recent political and legal victories of the insurance industry give every indication that this is so.

The tradition of insurance companies applying political clout and pressure to ensure that state and federal laws work for them in personal injury cases is nothing new. What is new is the unprecedented string of high-level successes they've achieved in recent years in curbing the rights of injured victims of personal injury and medical malpractice. With the open support of a pro-big business President in the White House, a Republican Congress, and a conservative Supreme Court, the insurance industries have been in an excellent position to press ahead with their self-serving agenda, and they've taken advantage of the times.

One of the biggest political and legal victories in the history of the insurance industry occurred very recently. On June 22nd, 2004 (see Supreme Court Limits HMO Malpractice Suits

, by Julie Davidow) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that patients have very limited rights in suing employer-sponsored health plans when their HMOs refuse to pay for recommended medical treatment. The ruling also limits the liability of negligent doctors and healthcare professionals in medical malpractice cases.

As much of an impact as that ruling has on the legal rights of medical malpractice victims, its arrival wasn't much of a surprise. President Bush has been a vocal advocate of medical malpractice reform throughout his first term, repeatedly calling on Congress to make the pursuit ofpunitive damages in medical malpractice cases a "non-option." Congress has put together several bills to establish federal laws severely limiting non-medical damages that medical malpractice victims can pursue. These bills have been narrowly defeated, but intense lobbying by the insurance companies ensures that new attempts are on the horizon.

On the state level, the insurance companies have induced many state legislatures to put caps on punitive damages that medical malpractice victims can obtain. For instance, in many states, someone who loses the ability to work for life due to a doctor's error can receive a maximum of 250,000 or less for pain and suffering. More subtle efforts by the insurance companies to limit the rights of medical malpractice victims have included heightening the burden of proof of medical malpractice, tightening the statutes of limitations on cases, and maintaining tighter regulation of attorney fees (again, to dissuade quality attorneys from taking on medical malpractice cases). "For Our Own Good"

According to the insurance industry, all of these new limitations on a medical malpractice victim's legal options are "for the good of the American consumer." By limiting the incentive and ability of "predatory" attorneys to pursue medical malpractice lawsuits, the insurance companies can charge doctors, surgeons and hospitals less to insure them. The medical establishment can then pass those savings on to the sick and injured, keeping the cost of quality medical treatment affordable. By taking trial attorneys out of the equation, quality healthcare costs would stabilize for everyone.

What's missing from this nice little equation is the fate of the hundreds of thousands of patients injured by medical negligence and malpractice every year. While the insurance company would like the public to believe that doctors are infallible and all malpractice cases involve fraud or natural weakness on the part of the victim, the facts show that an average of 80,000 deaths result each year from preventable medical errors. Hundreds of thousands more suffer debilitating injuries that will forever alter their quality and enjoyment of life. Under the insurance industry's ideal plan, is it simply the luck of the draw for these folks? Should Americans surrender their rights at the hospital doors, and simply pray their doctor had a good night's sleep?

This appears to be the ultimate goal of the insurance industry. By refusing to hold incompetent doctors and hospitals accountable for higher standards of care, they ignore the root of the problem. Instead, they choose the path of less resistance, steamrolling the rights of medical malpractice victims to obtain quality legal counsel and pursue justice. By working within the system to make the process of justice too arduous and complex to pursue, they believe they can drive true justice into extinction.

Pedestrian Accident Statistics

2008-03-17T10:55:14-04:00

There was a loss of 4,881 lives in pedestrian/motor vehicle crashes in 2005, almost thirteen people every day of the year (NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts). Though the number of pedestrian fatalities fell from 5,584 in 1995 to 4,881 in 2005, the fatalities in 2005 were the highest since 4,901 fatalities were recorded in 2001. Fortunately, the number of reported injuries involving pedestrians fell from 84,000 in 1995 to 64,000 in 2005. However, only a fraction of pedestrian crashes that cause injury are ever recorded by the police.

- Pedestrian Deaths in 1995: 5,584
Pedestrian Deaths in 2005: 4,881 (NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts)
Reduction in pedestrian deaths between 1995 and 2005: 13 percent
Pedestrian Injuries in 1995: 86,000
Pedestrian Injuries in 2005: 64,000 (NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts)
Reduction in pedestrian injuries between 1995 and 2005: 26 percent
The total cost of pedestrian death and injury among children ages 14
and younger is $5.2 billion per year (Safe Kids Worldwide).

A detailed breakdown of the age, gender, and location of pedestrian crash victims is available from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) fact sheets. Some of the more noteworthy trends or numbers are:

- 70 percent of pedestrian killed in 2005 were males.
Almost three out of every four pedestrian fatalities occur in urban
areas (74 percent).
The top four states for pedestrian fatalities are California, Florida,
Texas, and New York. These four states make up 42 percent of pedestrian
fatalities nationwide while only accounting for 29 percent of the total
traffic fatalities across the country.
Nearly half (48 percent) of pedestrian fatalities occurred on Friday,
Saturday, or Sunday.

Watch Your Step! Slip or Trip and Falls

2008-03-13T15:56:33-04:00

Watch your step! Slip and falls are the No. 1 cause of injuries to both supermarket customers and employees. According to the National Floor Safety Institute (NFSI) of Southlake, Texas, supermarkets pay out $450 million each year for legal expenses and to claimants for their injuries. By industry, supermarkets rank second for falls, behind restaurants. "The most likely victims are women over 60, and they typically suffer serious injuries," said NFSI executive director Russell Kendzior. The principal cause of falls are stepping on slippery surfaces and stepping onto material and debris. Shoppers rarely see wet spots or the proverbial banana peel because they are not looking for them. The problem is compounded by the fact that liquids are difficult to detect on the store's glossy polished floors. According to NFSI, falls happen most frequently at the entrance to the store. Water tracked in from outside causes slip and falls. Entry mats, poorly positioned (often moved out of position by carts) or with curled edges, cause trip and falls. Water that shoppers track in on a rainy day extends into the produce aisle, since it is usually close to the entrance. This aisle is the second most dangerous area is the supermarket. Water from produce displays and the produce itself contributes to the likelihood of slip and falls. We handle cases that occur at all major and independent supermarkets, stores, and restaurants including KMART, STARBUCKS, WALMART, DUANE READE, FOOD EMPORIUM, ASSOCIATED, PATHMARK, TARGET, METS, WHOLE FOODS, FAIRWAY, C-TOWN, WESTERN BEEF, TRADER JOE’S, RITE AIDE, CVS, LIQUOR STORES, APPLEBEE’S, RED LOBSTER, MCDONALDS, BURGER KING, WENDY’S, GUY AND GALLARD, POPEYE’S, CHINESE RESTAURANTS, BARS, DELIS, APPLE BANK, CHASE, CAPITAL ONE BANK, WACOVIA, WASHINGTON MUTUAL, WAMU, KINKOS, FEDEX, UPS, UNITED STATES POST OFFICE, VERIZON, CONED.