Maryland Injury and Disability Law : Washington DC Metro Injury & Disability Lawyer & Attorney : Greenberg & Bederman : Accidents, Falls, Medical Malpractice : Maryland, DC, Virginia

 Yaz Stroke Lawyers MD, DC, VA

One of the biggest selling products of the pharmaceutical company Bayer are a line of birth control pills that go by the names of Yaz and Yasmin. Key elements of the marketing strategy of these pills are what could be billed as peripheral benefits. Aside from the obvious purpose of the pill (avoiding pregnancy,) Bayer is also claiming that the pill helps prevent acne, and even helps users deal with some of the more emotionally charged aspects of the menstrual cycle:

“Can the pill be good for you? Can you feel OK when you're on it? Is it doing anything positive for you besides preventing an unwanted pregnancy? The answer to all these questions is yes! Discover it for yourself.”

If Yaz and Yasmine worked perfectly and had no potentially dangerous side effects, then we would have no problems whatsoever with Bayer touting these other aspects of the pill. But the fact is that there have been some quite serious allegations of very real danger to the users of these pills, and ignoring these while touting other minor aspects of the products to increase the customer base strikes us as the height of irresponsibility.

It also strikes us as very sadly familiar. There is a long history of corporate irresponsibility when it comes to women and birth control, and the Yaz line of pills are simply the latest examples.

In the early 1970’s, a company named A.H. Robbins began an aggressive marketing campaign for a new product called the Dalkon Shield. The Shield was an intra-uterine device (IUD) that was presented as the safest and most effective way for women to avoid getting pregnant. There wasn’t a pill that you had to take every day. There wasn’t anything that you had to remember to do. In fact, the strongest marketing aspect for this device was that a woman could simply have it inserted and then could practically forget it was there.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Insurance Rules in the Metropolitan D.C. Area

Life in Washington, D.C. is different than other parts of the country, and that’s not just because of our proximity to Government. What’s different about our area is that there are essentially three different states within a ten minute drive of each other. There is Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, each separated by a few miles and each with separate governments, rules, regulations and requirements. We know that it doesn’t seem that way sometimes, but things are actually done differently in Maryland than they are in Virginia and vice-versa. And the District is essentially an enclave under the auspices of the U.S. Government. So if you decide to move across the Potomac at the 14^th Street Bridge the rules governing your car insurance requirements change, just as they do when you cross the Woodrow Wilson Bridge or the Cabin John Bridge. This doesn’t happen to people who live in, say, Central Illinois or Wyoming.

One of the main differences in the rules is the insurance minimums. These are the amounts that all drivers are required to have by law in Maryland and the District, but not necessarily Virginia (more on this later.)

In Maryland, drivers are required to have $20,000 worth of coverage to handle the bodily injury or death of another driver. They are also required to have $40,000 worth of coverage for the bodily injury or death of multiple people, be it the other driver and/or passengers. There is also a property damage requirement of $15,000, which is supposed to cover any damages to other cars or buildings or anything else that happens to be damaged in the event of an accident.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 Understanding Negligence

Laws are supposed to be universal. If you take a look at the U.S. Constitution or the laws on the books of any particular state, you won’t find any disclaimers or asterisks. There won’t be any fine print on laws regarding theft, murder, or even jaywalking for that matter. The most important premise of every single law that exists in the United States is that they apply to everybody.

This is why we were pleased about the judgment that was handed down on Thursday to the family of a University of Maryland student who was killed when an off-duty police officer slammed into his car at 50 mph.

Bear in mind that this accident didn’t happen on the highway. This occurred on a placid suburban street where the speed limit was 25 mph. Brian Gray, the driver of the car that was hit, was pronounced dead at a hospital five hours later.

What made this tragedy even worse was that the victim’s mother was a few car lengths behind her son, and was essentially a witness to his death.

The attorneys for Cpl. Mario Chavez of the Prince Georges County Police Department were attempting to make the argument that the reason the accident happened was because Brian Gray did not properly yield at a stop sign before making a left turn, but according to witnesses Mr. Gray had come to a complete stop before going out into the intersection. The strategy of Cpl. Chavez’ attorneys was to introduce the idea of contributory negligence, which essentially means that the Mr. Gray was at least partially responsible for the harm that he suffered because he did not yield at a stop sign.  (To learn about negligence law, please read our negligence page.)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The President Speaks Wisely on Medical Malpractice

Many tort reform advocates (in other words, insurance companies and the politicians that they help fund) had reason for optimism during President Obama’s speech to Congress on September 9^th. There was what appeared to be a concession towards malpractice reform in the text of the speech:

“Finally, many in this chamber – particularly on the Republican side of the aisle – have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It's a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.”

This might have made ears perk up over in the tort reform section of Congress and K Street, but the holy grail of tort reform (that is, caps on all sorts of damages from punitive to non-economic to even economic damages) is actually not something that the Obama administration thinks is a good idea. This was re-iterated in an interview on 60 Minutes on Sunday.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When you get injured due to the negligence of a doctor or other medical professional, it is often difficult for people to know exactly what the next step should be. The vast majority of us did not go to medical school after all.

While your primary concern after an incident of medical malpractice should be getting better, your secondary response should be to contact an experienced medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible. Because once you have been injured, the clock starts ticking.

As attorneys in the D.C. metropolitan area, we are in the unique position of practicing law in three separate jurisdictions. Maryland has a different way of doing things, as does Virginia, as does the District of Columbia. And this means that each jurisdiction has differing standards for medical malpractice, and that includes the statute of limitations.

A statute of limitations is the maximum period of time in which legal proceedings can be initiated. For instance, if at the age of 38 you admit to having shoplifted a candy bar from a store when you were 10, the owner of the store cannot order you to be arrested and the state in which you stole the candy bar cannot prosecute you. A statute of limitations exists for every legal scenario except murder. So if you get injured due to the actions of a doctor, surgeon or nurse, you have a limited window of opportunity in which to act.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On Wednesday night, President Obama gave a speech to a joint session of Congress in which he discussed the importance of overhauling our health care system. The timing of the speech couldn’t have been better, especially considering how contentious the debate has been over the previous month. August has been loaded with screaming at town hall meetings, protests where people are carrying guns, violent and frightening rhetoric and some pretty wild claims.

The President’s speech was a fairly concise one, at least in terms of outlining what he expected this plan to do and how much he expected it to cost. There are a few details that need to be hammered out, but the President made it clear that he is open to suggestions and negotiations.

As is the custom, the opposing party was given the opportunity to deliver a response to the President’s speech, and to deliver their side of things they chose Louisiana Congressman Charles Boustany, who offered a speech that was fairly measured in comparison to some of the protestors out there this summer, or even in comparison to some of his compatriots who were in the audience during Obama’s speech.

But what we found indicative of the Republican’s stance on health care reform was that the man they chose to deliver their rebuttal is a heart surgeon who has been sued for malpractice three times. After all, who better to articulate the Republican platform of “tort reform, tort reform and more tort reform” more than someone who would benefit greatly from it?

Dr. Boustany said during his response, “We’re grateful the president mentioned medical liability reform and we hope he’s serious,” adding: “we need to establish tough liability reform standards” and discourage “junk lawsuits.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We understand completely the idea of incentives in the workplace. If an employee does his job particularly well, we think a reward system of some kind makes perfect sense. Such a system is good for both the employee and the employer, as it encourages the employee to work harder while the employer reaps the benefits of those labors.

Performance based initiatives are great if you happen to be selling cars, or making donuts or tires. But we have a real problem with the idea of rewarding employees for denying crucial and needed services. And this is exactly what is happening with health care in California, and possibly all over the country.

A recent article in the Los Angeles Times details the inner workings of Blue Cross of California, in which employees are rewarded not for providing medical care, but rather for denying it.

“The documents show, for instance, that one Blue Cross employee earned a perfect score of "5" for "exceptional performance" on an evaluation that noted the employee's role in dropping thousands of policyholders and avoiding nearly $10 million worth of medical care.”

Bear in mind that this employee was not rewarded for selling more policies, or cutting delays of payment, or even having a sunny disposition with customers. This employee was rewarded for cutting policyholders who might have actually cost Blue Cross money. This employee was rewarded for denying insurance claims. This employee was rewarded for leaving sick people in serious financial trouble.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It’s quite possible that you might be the safest driver in the United States. You might always obey the speed limit, you might always drive defensively, you might never talk on your cell phone while you are behind the wheel, you might always be aware of your surroundings and you might have never gotten so much as a parking ticket in your entire life.

All of that would be fine if it weren’t for the fact that you happen to share the road with other drivers, many of whom don’t even take the bare minimum of precautions when they get behind the wheel. As attorneys who help car accident victims in the D.C. area, we can tell you with great certainty that while safe driving helps, it’s no guarantee that you won’t get into an accident.

This is why we are not only advocates of safe driving, but also safe cars. An automobile that is built specifically for safety could be the difference between an accident that you walk away from and an accident that changes your life completely. It’s for that reason that we think safety ratings should be a priority when you are in the market for a new car.

Every year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tests every new model of car that is sold on the American market, and by “test,” we mean that they wreck them in every conceivable way. They slam them into brick walls, they hit them with other cars, and they drive them at high speeds with the sole intention of forcing them to roll over.

What follows is a list compiled by Forbes Magazine of the some of the least safe cars of 2009. It is our hope that you will keep this list in mind when you go out to buy a car.

Chevrolet Aveo: We’re big fans of cars that get good mileage, and at 34 mpg on the highway the Aveo certainly qualifies. But saving money at the gas pump won’t keep you from getting hurt in a side or rear collision. And apparently, neither will the Aveo. The NHTSA rated its side collision protection “marginal” and its rear collision “poor.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks