Along with the investigation of the business practices of these corporations, Attorneys General in states all around this country have begun to look into the same business practices within their respective states.

As reported by Danny Weil, reporter for Truthout, on February 2, 2012, one of the Country’s largest unions, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) sponsored a webinar titled “Good for Wall Street – Bad for Students”.

The purpose of this webinar was to study and discuss the growing problems associated with for-profits.

The webinar attracted a diverse group of speakers which included several former employees of EDMC (Education Management Corporation), the second largest of the for-profits, behind only Apollo Group (which owns the University of Phoenix).

The webinar opened with the panel first defining the differences which exist between public higher education institutions, non-profit higher Ed institutions, and for-profit higher Ed institutions, and then proving a historical background of how federal law changes set the stage for the creation and growth of for-profits.

Despite the creation of for-profit institutions, it wasn’t until Ron Paige, President Bush’s Education Secretary, that many of the regulations which restricted certain business practices of the for-profits were removed and for-profit institutions began their tremendous growth.

One of the most compelling of the speakers was Kathleen Bittel, former EDMC recruiter and career service employee.

Ms. Bittel detailed the “sales pitches” and sales tactics and techniques that she was instructed to employ in attempting to enroll students.

Former EDMC instructor Jeremy Dehn discussed the inner workings of the educational institutions, noting that none of the faculty were tenured and often taught more classes than would be traditionally taught by a professor in a state college or university.

Professor Dehn also spoke about a “corporate culture” at for-profits, a culture which emphasized attendance rather than instruction. While it was the job of the recruiter to get the “asses in the classes”, it was the job of the teacher to keep the “meat in the seat”. If a student dropped out too soon, the for-profit would lose the federal funds associated with that student.

Dehn also noted that in order to keep costs down, curriculum was standardized, meaning that teachers were instructed to teach only what was on paper. Their input was not required or requested.

Kevin Kinser, associate professor in the Department of Educational Administration and Policy Studies at SUNY-Albany talked about how many of the “adjunct” utilized by for-profits never had learned HOW to teach and were simply technicians in their field or occupation. These adjuncts had no commitment to either the school or students, as many were simply “moonlighting”.

Jose Cruz, Vice President for Higher Education Policy and Practice and the Education Trust discussed the difference in cost between public and non-profit institutions and for-profit institutions, noting that the cost of an undergrad degree at for-profits ranged from $35,000 to more than $80,000. He also noted that non-profits and public colleges and universities spend upwards of 35 times more money on instruction than for-profits.

Graduation rates were also discussed, with many of the panelists describing how rates were manipulated, and how for-profits would change their attendance policy so as to make it more difficult for students to drop classes, thereby resulting in the student being charged in full for the class and continuing to be listed as enrolled.

Mike DiGiacomo, a former student at EDMC’s New England Institute of Art told his story of how his attempts to drop classes were thwarted by school policy. He also stated that most students had no idea about the amount of debt they would incur nor did they understand the obligations that came with the debt.

The question of how and if credits earned at the for-profits could transfer was also raised during this webinar.

While no solutions came from this webinar, it is critical that discussions, like what occurred at this webinar, continue to occur and litigation, if necessary, also occur until such time as the for-profit college and university industry is cleaned up.

Today, Representative Gaetz filed a “Strike-All” amendment. A strike-all amendment removes all language of the bill after the title and replaces it with new language.

The new language in the strike-all removes all language relating to emergency room sovereign immunity, and replaces it with language which adds two provisions aimed at placing further restrictions on a person’s ability to bring a claim for medical malpractice.

The first part of the amendment changes the standard or burden of proof in a malpractice claim against a provider for failing to order a diagnostic test that he/she should have ordered.

The current law provides for a “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof.

A preponderance of the evidence standard means a person alleging malpractice must prove that there is just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the facts the person seeks to prove are true.

Rep. Gaetz’ proposed amendment changes the burden of proof to “clear and convincing”. US Legal.com defines a “clear and convincing” standard of proof as

“more than a mere preponderance but something just short of conclusive.”

It goes on to state that

““clear and convincing” burden of proof generally requires proof which leaves no reasonable doubt concerning the truth of the matters at issue.” (emphasis added)

The impact of this amendment means that in order to prove that a doctor was negligent in failing to order a test, the claimant will have to prove that the doctor purposely did not order the test. That the doctor acted in bad faith by not ordering the test. Because if the doctor acted in good faith by not ordering the test currently, he or she has not acted negligently. This creates a very high burden of proof on the claimant.

The second part of the amendment creates the ability for the defendant or defense counsel (the Defendant’s attorney) to interview the claimant’s treating health care providers without the presence of the claimant or claimant’s legal counsel (ex parte communications).

Claimant’s counsel would not be afforded the same opportunity to meet with the defendant’s medical expert witnesses in an ex parte fashion.

Additionally, without the claimant’s attorney being present, there would be nothing preventing defense counsel for coercing, threatening, or otherwise trying to intimidate the health care provider from testifying on behalf of the claimant.

While this amendment does one thing good – in removing the language creating sovereign immunity for ER doctors, it is still bad, in that in changes the claimant’s burden of proof and allows for ex parte communications.

For those who are already victims of medical malpractice, you know how difficult it is to bring a medical malpractice claim here in Florida. Let’s not make it even harder.

The first crash, which occurred around 3:10 a.m., involved a Ford Expedition. The Expedition was headed north on U.S. 41 when the driver apparently lost control of the vehicle causing the vehicle to leave the road and overturn.

None of the three men in the vehicle were wearing their seatbelt, which might have prevent their ejection from the vehicle.

The three men, identified by Florida Highway Patrol as 29 year old Jesus Jaime, 27 year old Abdiel Cruz, and 29 year old Erick Venegas-Zuniga, all of Gibsonton, died at the scene of the accident. All three were fathers to young children.

Eight hours later, on S.R. 54 near Ernest Drive, a vehicle being driven by 22 year old Dustin Andrew Diaz failed to stop for traffic, resulting in a collision between his 2000 two-door Toyota and a 2008 four-door Volkswagen.

Unfortunately, Mr. Diaz’s vehicle, which, prior to the accident, had been traveling west on SR54, then veered into oncoming traffic where it collided with a 2002 four-door Toyota.

FHP indicated that all three people inside the 2002 Toyota – 90 year old Lavon Lakin Hartman of Zephyrhills, and 78 year old Charles W. Anken and his 77 year old wife, Georgianna L. Anken, of Holland Patent, NY, died at the scene of the accident.

Troopers reported that none of the three were wearing seat belts.

Mr. Diaz and the driver and passenger of the 2008 Volkswagen were all transported to area hospitals for treatment of injuries they sustained in the accident.

Over the years, Florida law regarding the use of seat belts has been significantly strengthened. What used to be a secondary violation (which means that the police could not stop you solely because you failed to wear your seat belt) has now become a primary violation (meaning the police can stop you solely because of your failure to wear a seat belt).

Florida Statute 316.614 says

“(4) It is unlawful for any person:

(a) To operate a motor vehicle in this state unless each passenger and the operator of the vehicle under the age of 18 years are restrained by a safety belt or by a child restraint device pursuant to s.316.613, if applicable; or

(b) To operate a motor vehicle in this state unless the person is restrained by a safety belt.

(5) It is unlawful for any person 18 years of age or older to be a passenger in the front seat of a motor vehicle unless such person is restrained by a safety belt when the vehicle is in motion.”

A violation of this statute constitutes a nonmoving violation.

Equally important, if you are ever involved in an auto accident in which you were injured and were not at fault, and you failed to wear your seatbelt at the time of the accident, your failure can be used against you in Court or for settlement purposes.

FS 316.614 Section 10 says that a violation of the provisions of this statute

“may be considered as evidence of comparative negligence, in any civil action.”

As such, a jury may reduce its verdict by whatever percentage it feels your injuries would have been reduced HAD you been wearing a seat belt.

Oh yea, one other thing. You stand a better chance of surviving the accident.

With the invention of “smart phones”, everybody isn’t just talking while on the phone. Now we see them texting, emailing, taking pictures, videos, surfing the internet or utilizing their phones as GPS’s.

While the benefits of this new technology are indisputable, there are some negatives which have accompanied this technology.

Because of this technology, we have seen a deterioration in the quality of and quantity of interpersonal communications.

We have also seen a dramatic rise in auto accidents caused by driver distraction resulting from cell phone use and the gamut of available smart phone uses.

In an effort to address the growing concern over accidents resulting from cell phone use while driving, several bills have been filed for this legislative session which, in their own manner, attempt to deal with this growing problem.

HB 39 by Representative John Patrick Julian, seeks to create a moving violation for using a “handheld mobile telecommunications device”. It allows a law enforcement officer to cite a person for using a handheld device while the officer observed that person committing a moving violation.

The bill defines a handheld mobile telecommunications device as a “wireless telephone or other device used to access the services of a commercial mobile radio service for the purpose of sending or receiving voice, text, or other data, including, but not limited to, computer data, electronic mail, electronic messages, games, music, images, and video.”

Finally, the bill provides for an enhanced penalty if the moving violation occurred within a school zone.

This bill was assigned to three House committees, and to date, has not received a hearing in any of the three committees.

The second bill filed was HB 187 by Representative Irv Slosberg. This bill does several things. First, it prohibits a person under the age of 18, from using any type of hand-held cellular telephone or other hand-held electronic communications device while in physical control of a motor vehicle.

The bill further provides that a person “in actual physical control of a school bus transporting any student” is prohibited from using any type of hand-held cellular telephone or other hand-held electronic communication device”

There are two exceptions to these two provisions. The first exception is if the device used is designed for hands-free use and the person is using it in that manner. The second exceptions occurs if the use occurs when the vehicle is stopped and the engine is not running.

Another significant portion of this bill requires minors to display a DOT issued placard, visible from the front and rear of the vehicle which bears a warning that the person must display the placard at all times while operating the motor vehicle.

Lastly, the bill prohibits a person under the age of 18 from operating a motor vehicle with more than one passenger under 18, unless those passengers are siblings or children of the driver.

This bill also was assigned to three House committees. To date, it too has not been heard in any of the assigned committees.

The last of the three bills addressing this issue was HB 299. This bill was sponsored by Representative Pilon. It contained the catchy title “Florida Ban on Texting While Driving Law.”

The bill included language clearly stating its intent to “improve roadway safety”, “prevent crashes”, and “Reduce Injuries”.

It prohibited persons from operating a motor vehicle while “manually typing or entering multiple letters, numbers, symbols, or other characters into a wireless communication device or while sending or reading data in such a device for the purpose of non-voice interpersonal communications..”

The bill defined a “wireless communications device” as “any device that is designed or intended to receive or transmit text or character based messages, access or store data, or connect to the Internet….”

A motor vehicle parked and not being operated was not subject to this prohibition.
Additionally, this bill would not apply to a motor vehicle operator who was; performing official duties as an operator of an authorized emergency vehicle; reporting an emergency or criminal or suspicious activity; receiving messages that are related to the operation or navigation of the vehicle; safety related information; data used primarily by the vehicle; or radio broadcasts.

It authorized law enforcement officers to stop a motor vehicle and issue a citation as a secondary offense for persons texting while driving.

A user’s billing records can be admitted as evidence to determine whether a violation occurred.

Like the previous two bills, this bill was also referred to three committees and has not received a hearing in any of the referred committees.

As much as texting or talking without a hands-free device continues to be a safety issue here in Florida, it does not appear that any of these bills will become law during this legislative session.

I asked her if she knew what was causing the traffic delay. She indicated that there had been an accident somewhere north of where she was, and that traffic had been at a virtual standstill for hours.

After looking into the cause of the traffic backup, I learned that the accident in question was not merely some ordinary, run of the mill accident. No, this accident was much worse.

It occurred on a stretch of roadway that is normally serene, near the Paynes Prairie State Preserve.

This accident involved more than a dozen cars and six tractor trailers. It was clearly not a serene scene that afternoon.

This accident, which will go down in Florida history as one of the worst traffic accidents, took the lives of 10 people, with another 18 being hospitalized for their injuries.

According to reports by the Florida Highway Patrol, the multiple vehicle accident took place somewhere around four in the morning.

Officials blamed fog and smoke which had apparently reduced visibility on the road to practically nothing, for causing the massive pileup and loss of life.

According to the Tampa Bay Times, visibility before the accident had been so bad that the highway patrol had temporarily closed the road to traffic, but, sometime just prior to the accident, reopened the road.

Rescuers who first arrived at the scene of the accident indicated that they could not even see their own hands.

The northbound lanes of I-75 were not reopened until approximately 5:40 p.m.

When an accident this horrific occurs, people want to point the finger at someone. Someone had to be at fault for this accident.

Was it the Florida Highway Patrol, who reopened the road after closing it because of visibility problems?

Was it one or many of the drivers involved in the accident, for failing to pull off the road until the conditions improved?

Does the law help clarify who might have been at fault for causing the loss of lives and multiple injuries?

Let’s look at what Florida law says to see if it provides any clarification.

We start with Florida Statute 316.1925 – Careless Driving. This is a kind of catch-all statute that provides instruction when no specific statute applies. It says that

“(1) Any person operating a vehicle upon the streets or highways within the state shall drive the same in a careful and prudent manner, having regard for the width, grade, curves, corners, traffic, and all other attendant circumstances, so as not to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person. Failure to drive in such manner shall constitute careless driving and a violation of this section.”

The key language in this section which could be applied to this accident is the part that says “in a careful and prudent manner, having regard ….for all other attendant circumstances.”

Now I want you to think about this. It’s one thing to slow a car down when the conditions of the road quickly change. It’s a whole other ballgame to slow a semi-truck down quickly when road conditions suddenly change.

So under this statute, an argument could be made that in conditions which were as bad as these appeared to be, merely continuing to drive a truck might constitute careless driving.

Did all the vehicles on the road in the early morning hours have their lights on so that they could be seen? That is a fair question to ask. Florida Statute 316.217 defines when lighted lamps are required. Section (1) says that

“Every vehicle operated upon a highway within this state shall display lighted lamps and illuminating devices as herein respectively required for different classes of vehicles, subject to exceptions with respect to parked vehicles, under the following conditions;

(b) During any rain, smoke, or fog.”

Even if the sun had begun to come out that early morning, in conditions that included smoke AND fog, headlights should have been on each and every vehicle on the road. Failure to engage the headlights during these conditions could have contributed to the occurrence of the accident.

Then there’s Florida Statute 316.185, Special Hazards. This little known statute states that even if you are driving your car lower than the prescribed limits (meaning, on a 70 mph road, you are driving at 55 mph), this fact alone does not relieve you of your duty to further decrease your speed

“….when special hazards exist or may exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or other roadway conditions, and speed shall be decreased as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle, or other conveyance on or entering the street in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care.”

Therefore, under this statute, for those drivers who decided they were going to continue driving despite the conditions which existed, those drivers were required to reduce their speed down until they could continue on without causing or being involved in an accident.

So, based on these cited statutes, an argument can be made that some of the drivers involved in this accident may have caused or contributed to the accident’s occurrence.

But what about the Florida Highway Patrol? Do they have any responsibility for this accident, and if so, what are they obligated to pay?

Florida Statute 768.28 – waiver of sovereign immunity in tort actions, is the statute which governs governmental entities and their liability.

Specifically, this statute provides that the state, for itself and its agencies (like FHP), waives its sovereign immunity for liability for torts caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the agency while acting within the scope of the employee’s office.

Therefore, under this statute, if one of the persons injured in this accident were able to prove that the Deputy who made the decision to reopen the roadway prior to the accident did so wrongfully or negligently, then an action could be brought against the agency the Deputy worked for (in this case, the FHP).

BUT, that same statute SIGNIFICANTLY limits the amount that can be recovered by an injured party against the agency. Section 5 of FS 768.28 says:

“ Neither the state nor its agencies or subdivisions shall be liable to pay a claim or a judgment by any one person which exceeds the sum of $200,000 or any claim or judgment, or portions thereof, which, when totaled with all other claims or judgments paid by the state or its agencies or subdivisions arising out of the same incident or occurrence, exceeds the sum of $300,000.”

This means that IF an action is brought against FHP, and IF a jury were to determine that the Deputy was, in fact, negligent in reopening the road, the MAXIMUM all of the Plaintiffs could recover from the state is $300,000.00. The only way to recover an amount in excess of $300,000.00 would be if the jury awarded a verdict in excess of that amount and the Legislature appropriate the excess judgment to the Plaintiffs.

Under this same statute, no action can be brought against the individual Deputy unless he/she acted in bad faith or with “malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard for human rights, safety, or property”. A high burden to prove.

For those who were injured or who lost a loved one in this tragic accident, our thoughts and prayers go out to them, as they deal with their pain, suffering and grief while they wait for the full results of the investigation.

Most provide quality health care. Unfortunately, not ALL do. There are those hospitals and ER physicians who, for whatever reason, do not provide the level or quality of care that falls within the acceptable medical standards.

Dr. Frank Lender is involved in an accident and sustains serious injuries. As a result of this injuries, he is transported from the scene of the accident to the emergency room at Parott General Hospital for treatment of his injuries.

Upon Dr. Lender’s arrival at the emergency room of Parott General Hospital, he is met by a nurse who places him in an room, closes the door to the room, and tells him that someone will be in to see him momentarily.

Little does Dr. Lender know that on the day and time of his arrival at the hospital,, the emergency room at Parott General is understaffed, as several doctors and nurses are out with illnesses.

After waiting for an hour in excruciating pain, someone finally comes in to examine Dr. Lender. Despite his complaints about the pain in his neck and back, because the ER was so busy, x-rays were only taken of Dr. Lender’s neck, not his lower back.

Because the x-rays of Dr. Lender’s neck came back negative, he was discharged with a recommendation to rest and follow up with his primary care physician.

His wife, who by now had arrived at the ER, drove Dr. Lender home where he attempted to follow ER orders by resting. Unfortunately, while simply sitting on his couch resting, his left leg started to go numb. The numbness got increasingly worse to the point where he could no longer even walk.

His wife immediately drove him back to the ER, this time, at Central Hospital. After x-rays of his low back are taken, Dr. Lender learns that he has a lumbar disc which has completely blown, and worse, the physicians have told him that his failure to receive treatment at Parott General has caused the paralysis he is experiencing, and that the paralysis will become permanent.

What are Dr. Lender’s legal rights in this circumstances? Does he have the right to file suit against Parott General Hospital and the doctors and nurses who treated him, and if so, are there any limitations on those rights?

The answer is yes, Dr. Lender does have the right to file suit.

However, in order to bring an action against the doctor and hospital, Dr. Lender will have to prove that they acted with “a reckless disregard for the consequences so as to affect the life or health of another.” That is a VERY difficult burden to prove and to meet.

Assuming Dr. Lender is able to prove that the ER physician acted with reckless disregard, Florida law will limit the amount he can recover in noneconomic damages to $150,000.00 per claimant, $300,000.00 per incident (noneconomic damages are damages for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, etc.) is $150,000.00.

At least, under current law, Dr. Lender will still be entitled to recover all of his medical bills, which totaled $350,000.00 and are expected, over his lifetime, to cost him an additional $2,500,000.00, and the loss of income he will sustain because he is no longer able to work, which is estimated at $5,000.000.00 over his lifetime..

So how could things possibly get worse if something in the ER goes wrong?

Because of HB385. This bill, filed by Representative Matt Gaetz, makes a formal legislative finding that ER physicians are agents of the government performing a government duty. By making this formal finding, ER physicians will have state sovereign immunity.

Sovereign immunity protects governments from being sued without their consent and imposes a $200,000.00 limit on the government’s liability to a single person ($300,000.00 total liability on claims from a single incident). That limitation isn’t just for non-economic damages, it is a cap on ALL damages.

So in the case of Dr. Lender, if he received the negligent care at Parott General after Rep. Gaetz’ bill passed, the maximum recovery Dr. Lender would receive for his injuries, for his medical bills (current and future), for his lost wages (current and future), and for his pain and suffering is $200,000.00. That’s it.

It doesn’t matter that over his lifetime he will lose $5,000,000.00 in lost wages because he can’t work due to his injuries. It doesn’t matter that his medical bills totaled more than $350,000.00 and are expected, over his lifetime, to exceed $2,000,000.00.

HB385 will limit his recover to $200,000.00. Period.

Better hope that no mistakes happen if you’re ever in the ER.

What do you do? Whose going to pay for any medical care you need if you were injured. Is leaving the scene of an accident with injuries illegal?

Unfortunately for Mr. Mosby, of Port Richey, these are questions that he probably never thought nor wished he would be asking.

Early Thursday morning, on January 19, 2012, Mr. Mosby was riding his bike headed south on Little Road, just south of Rancho del Rio Drive, when he was hit from behind. According to the Florida Highway Patrol, the vehicle which struck Mr. Mosby immediately left the scene of the accident. The vehicle was described as a silver or gray newer model two door passenger car. Not surprisingly, the vehicle sustained significant damage to its windshield and front end.

Trooper Evans of FHP has requested that anyone with information about this accident contact him, as Mr. Mosby ended up being transported to Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point for treatment of serious injuries.

So what exactly does the law say about leaving the scene of an accident, is it different if the accident is between a car and a bike, a car and a pedestrian, or a car and another car?

Who pays for the medical bills in an accident between a car and a bike, a car and a pedestrian, or a car and another car?

Let’s first look at the law relating to crashes involving personal injury or death.

Florida Statute 316.027 is the statute which addresses the obligations of drivers when they are involved in an accident involving an injury of death.

Specifically, when a person is injured in an accident, Section 1(a), says

“The driver of any vehicle involved in a crash occurring on public or private property that results in injury of any person must immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the crash, or as close thereto as possible, and must remain at the scene of the crash until he or she has fulfilled the requirements of s. 316.062.”

For those who die as a result of their injuries, we look to Section 1(b), which says

“The driver of any vehicle involved in a crash occurring on public or private property that results in the death of any person must immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the crash, or as close thereto as possible, and must remain at the scene of the crash until he or she has fulfilled the requirements of s. 316.062.”

As you will notice, both of these sections indicate that the driver of the vehicle must remain at the scene until he or she has fulfilled their duties under 316.62, which is a section entitled “Duty to Give Information and Render Aid”.

As you will also notice, FS 316.027 does not differentiate between accidents involving a car and a bike, a pedestrian or another car. It simply states that the driver of ANY vehicle involved in a crash must immediately stop at the scene.

So in Mr. Mosby’s case, the fact that he was on a bike didn’t affect the obligation of the driver who hit him to immediately stop her vehicle and remain at the scene until she complied with the requirements of FS 316.062.

Great, so now Mr. Mosby knows what the other driver was required to do and didn’t do, that doesn’t help him with getting his medical bills paid. Who’s going to pay his bills?

To answer that question, we need to answer two additional questions – 1) does Mr. Mosby own a car and if so, does he have auto insurance on that car; and 2) if he does not own a car, does Mr. Mosby live with a family member who owns a car with an auto insurance policy

The answers to these questions are important because of Florida Statute 617.736, which clearly states the circumstances in which coverage will apply.

It is Section 4(e) of FS 627.736 which defines who is eligible for medical coverage under a Personal Injury Protection policy of insurance in Florida and under what circumstances.

For Mr. Mosby, whether he was riding his bike, was a pedestrian, or was driving his car would make no difference, IF Mr. Mosby owns an insured car, the fact that he was injured when he was struck by another car satisfies the requirements of 4(e)(1), which says

“Accidental bodily injury sustained in this state by the owner while occupying a motor vehicle, or while not an occupant of a self-propelled vehicle if the injury is caused by physical contact with a motor vehicle.” (emphasis added)

What if Mr. Mosby didn’t own a car, and was riding his bike because that was his only means of transportation. Would this same section apply? No. Section 4(e)(1) would not apply because he was not the owner of an insured motor vehicle.

However, if at the time of the accident, he was living with a relative who owned a car, under section 4(e)(3), that relative’s auto insurance would pay his medical bills. Again, even if he was riding a bike or walking.

Section 4(e)(3) says

“Accidental bodily injury sustained by a relative of the owner residing in the same household, under the circumstances described in subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2., provided the relative at the time of the accident is domiciled in the owner’s household and is not himself or herself the owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required…”

So if Mr. Mosby is going to get his medical bills paid in this matter, he either has to own an insured car himself, or live with a relative who owns an insured car.

If neither of those two options apply to his case, his only other hope is that law enforcement is able to track down the person that hit him, and if they do, hope that person has the required auto insurance. If they do, Mr. Mosby’s medical bills will be paid under Section 4(e)(4), which says

“ Accidental bodily injury sustained in this state by any other person while occupying the owner’s motor vehicle or, if a resident of this state, while not an occupant of a self-propelled vehicle, if the injury is caused by physical contact with such motor vehicle,….”

Let’s hope, for Mr. Mosby’s sake, that he recovers from his injuries, and that one of the sections cited which provide coverage, ends up applying to his situation.

While there are many of these Universities who provide a good, quality education, for too many of the For-Profit Universities, the driving force of their existence isn’t a commitment to providing a well-rounded education. Rather, it’s a profit-driven motive. The more students that are enrolled in the school, the more revenue for the school.

Lower admission standards, and enrollment increases. Who cares whether graduation rates plummet. Promise “high paying jobs” after graduation, and enrollment increases. Who care if the “high paying jobs” promised never materialize.

The largest for-profit institution, the University of Phoenix, owned by the Apollo Group, Inc., has a student body of more than 440,000 students. That’s more than all of the universities in the Big Ten combined.

Next on the list of players is EDMC, Education Management Corporation. This company, which is 40% owned by Goldman Sachs, runs four for-profit schools – The Art Institute, Argosy University, South University, and Brown-Mackie University. Other large for-profit players are ITT Educational Services, Inc., Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, and Corinthian Colleges, Inc.

The explosive growth of the for-profit industry hasn’t gone unnoticed. Because nearly 90% of the revenue at some for-profits colleges comes solely from federal student loan programs, the federal government has begun looking into the practices at many for-profit schools.

Leading the investigation into these practices is Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. As the Chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Senator Harkin’s committee has interviewed hundreds of former students, teachers, and employees of for-profit schools, and what they have documented is that many of these schools are deliberately misleading potential students into enrolling in programs that they will never graduate from, and incurring loans that they will never be able to repay.

Sen. Harkin’s committee found that for-profits tend to charge more for tuition than comparable public schools, spend a large share of revenues on expenses unrelated to teaching, and experience high drop-out rates.

Here are just a few statistics from Sen. Harkin’s committee that are worth noting.

1. While almost 90% of total revenues came directly from the federal government, 57% of the students enrolled between 2008 – 2009 have departed without a diploma.

2. Data from the Dept. of Ed stated that in 2008-2009, for-profits enrolled more than 1.8 million students, which was less than 10% of all Higher Ed. students, yet, they received 23% of all federal aid dollars and accounted for 44% of the loan defaults.

3. Profits at 16 of the largest for-profit schools totaled 2.7 BILLION dollars in 2009. Between fiscal year 2009 and 2010, one school alone saw its profits grow from $235 million to $411 million.

4. The cost to attend a for-profit school in comparison to a community college or public university is considerably higher, and students at for-profit colleges are 8x more likely to graduate with a debt larger than $20,000.00.

Which is precisely why some view For-profit colleges as the next federal financing bubble to burst.

So why should we be concerned about this? Why should we care about what happens to these students who incur thousands in student loans and have no degree to show for it?

First, because it’s wrong.

Second, as taxpayers, we should be incensed. At a time when we are facing budget deficits, when programs which help the middle class, small businesses, the elderly, children, and those with disabilities are being slashed, many of these for-profits are taking advantage of government assistance and making billions in profits on the back of taxpayers.

And lastly, we should care because this issue and the future of for-profit universities has reared its head in the 2012 Presidential campaign.

Now, this is not a democrat vs. republican thing, nor am I writing about this for political reasons or because I favor one candidate over another, I am writing about this out of concern for the thousands of students who have already been victimized by the for-profit system, and because there is a real possibility that under the leadership of some of the Presidential candidates, we could see an even greater expansion, and with it, victimization, in the for-profit college arena.

In a story which appeared in the Boston Globe on January 15, 2012, it was reported that at a New Hampshire town-hall style meeting, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney told the audience that his solution to the rising cost of higher education was for students to consider for-profit colleges.

A week later in Iowa, the Globe reported Romney stated that by increasing competition among colleges, for-profit institutions “hold down the cost of education and help students get jobs without saddling them with excessive debt.”

We are still trying to get over the burst in the housing bubble, are we really ready for the next bubble to burst?

In spite of the notoriety surrounding the vaginal mesh implants, 300,000 medical devices were implanted in women during 2010. According to Business Week, “The Food and Drug Administration wrote J&J, C.R. Bard and 31 other manufacturers, telling them to conduct three years of trials on safety and effectiveness, the agency’s William Maisel said yesterday in a telephone interview. An FDA report in July found a fivefold jump in deaths, injuries or malfunctions tied to the products. Almost 300,000 synthetic meshes were implanted in U.S. women in 2010 to treat incontinence or shore up pelvic muscles, the agency estimates. The devices’ alleged failures have spurred more than 650 lawsuits against manufacturers and heightened scrutiny of the FDA program that cleared the products for sale without human testing.”

“Now these companies are going to have to tell the truth,” said Lana Keeton, a mesh recipient and patient advocate from Austin, Texas. While companies say implants are safe, “up until now, there’s been no data,” she said. “It’s all been marketing.”

Raftery produced a 3-part documentary entitled “States of Fear” that exposed these schools for the crimes they perpetrated against Irish children for the better part of the 20th century. According to the NY Times, “In examining the state child-care system in Ireland, the series brought to light a Dickensian network of reformatories and residential schools for poor, neglected and abandoned children known as industrial schools. The schools, which were financed and supervised by the government and managed largely by religious orders, mainly Roman Catholic, served about 30,000 children from the 1930s to the 1990s, according to a government report in 2009. The films, making poignant use of interviews with victims, focused on the system in midcentury and presented a horrifying litany of torments the young people suffered at the schools: beatings, semi-starvation, insufficient clothing, filthy living conditions, overwork, emotional abuse and sexual assault.”

In order to appreciate the magnitude and importance of “States of Fear” one must understand the power and influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland. It took a great deal of courage and journalistic integrity for Raftery to embark upon such a project.

“What television can do, if you get it right, is it can concentrate and focus a story at a particular time, and make people face it and make people furious,” Ms. Raftery said in a television interview in 2010. “So it was a question of constructing a series of programs that wouldn’t allow people to go back into denial again, in other words that the body of evidence would be so overwhelming that it could not be denied anymore.”

“The documentary series and the public outcry it engendered prompted the Irish prime minister, Bertie Ahern, to apologize publicly. “The government wishes to make a sincere and long overdue apology to the victims of childhood abuse for our collective failure to intervene, to detect their pain, to come to their rescue,” he said, speaking before the Irish Parliament on May 11, 1999.”

May she rest in peace knowing she helped countless sexual abuse survivors tell their story and reclaim their dignity.