Do You Have The Right To Check Out Your Doctor?

Posted on September 22, 2011 by Greenberg & Bederman

 

The Department of Health and Human Services has shut down public access to the National Practitioner Data Bank. According to a story in the Kansas City Star, HHS has also removed any records of medical malpractice suits, judgments or settlements from public view.

We fail to understand the reasoning behind this. If you scour the internet for any conceivable product or service, no matter how important or inconsequential, you can get a pretty good idea as to whether this product or service is worth using. Everything from cars to movies to body washes to Blu-Ray players have ratings attached. Magazines like Consumer Reports and websites like Angie’s List exist solely to make sure that you are spending your money on something that is worth it. We would think that having information about a doctor or surgeon is certainly more important than having information about a cell phone, house painter or blender.

For those of you who don’t know, the National Practitioner Data Bank is a database that stores information about every doctor that is licensed to practice in the United States. This information includes where they went to school, what state they practice in, what their specialty is, and most importantly, if they have ever been sued by a patient or a patient’s family for medical malpractice or medical negligence. The Department of Health and Human Services has prohibited you or your family or anyone who isn’t a medical professional from having access to this information.

 

It is a sad state of affairs when you can find more information about the people you hire to hang your drywall than you can about the person who will be doing your bypass surgery. For one thing, the consequences of utilizing the wrong doctor can be life threatening. And when it comes to medical malpractice, it’s the repeat offenders that you have to watch out for.

Before they locked the public out of the NPDB, a group called Public Citizen took a look at the records and determined that of all the cases of medical malpractice that resulted in verdicts or settlements, about 50% of those instances of medical malpractice were committed by only about 5% of the doctors. In other words, there are a few bad doctors out there, but they happen to be really bad. Since 1990, about 4.8% of practicing doctors have had two or more medical malpractice cases go against them. 1.7% of those doctors have made three or more malpractice cases, and combined this 1.7% accounts for a little over a quarter of all medical malpractice payouts.

If your doctor or surgeon was part of the 1.7%, wouldn’t you want to know? If you had a surgery scheduled, wouldn’t you want to know if the person cutting you open had a history of medical malpractice, particularly if they had made three or more medical malpractice payouts? One malpractice payout can be considered an anomaly. Two would make us suspicious. Three or more is a sure sign of someone we would question before going under this person’s care.

Here are just a few of the doctors and surgeons whose records have been sealed from public view (all of these were taken directly from the Public Citizen report):

  • Physician Number 94358, licensed in New Jersey, settled or lost 33 medical malpractice suits involving improper diagnosis or treatment between 1988 and 1993, inflicting over $400,000 in disability costs to his patients. This doctor has not been disciplined by authorities in New Jersey.
  • Physician Number 64625, licensed in Pennsylvania, paid 24 medical malpractice claims involving improper performance of surgery between 1989 and 2001. Damages to this doctor’s patients exceeded $370,000. This doctor has never been disciplined by Pennsylvania authorities.
  • Physician Number 125457, while licensed in Nevada, paid 5 malpractice claims involving improper performance of surgery between 1995 and 1997, with damages totaling $2.3 million. Recent news accounts have reported that doctors are fleeing from Las Vegas to other states to avoid high malpractice insurance premiums. Physician 125457 was ahead of the curve in moving his practice to California. There he paid another 8 malpractice claims with damages exceeding $7.5 million. This doctor has never been disciplined by authorities in either Nevada or California.
  • Physician Number 37949, licensed in Texas, settled or lost 13 medical malpractice suits involving improper treatment or improper performance of surgery between 1990 and 1997. Two of the suits involved the same allegation—a foreign body left in the patient during surgery. Damages to this doctor’s patients exceeded $2 million. This doctor has never been disciplined by authorities in Texas.

What is sticking out at us here (aside from the obvious multiple cases of medical malpractice) is that none of these doctors were disciplined. Not by the American Medical Association, not by their state medical boards, not by anyone. Thanks to the Department of Health and Human Services for closing our eyes so we can’t tell if our doctor is one of the “fortunate” who has something to hide.

Tort reform organizations like to use the word “lawsuit lottery,” as if malpractice victims were actually quite lucky to be able to get injured by their doctor and sue them. We can tell you with great certainty that there is no such thing as a “lawsuit lottery,” as every single one of our medical malpractice clients would rather have their lives back to normal rather than fight through a multi-year malpractice trial. So no, there is not a “lawsuit lottery.” But because the National Practitioner Data Bank has been shuttered, there is now a “physician lottery.” Who knows who you might get when you book a surgery? Who knows what you might get when your doctor writes a prescription? Your doctor or surgeon might be the model of competence and professionalism, but then again, he might not be. As of right now, you have no way of knowing.

Greenberg and Bederman is a medical malpractice injury firm located in Silver Spring, Maryland. We are currently offering legal assistance to people in Maryland, Washington, D.C. or Virginia who have been injured due to the negligent actions of a doctor, surgeon or other medical professional. If you or a loved one has been injured because of medical malpractice, contact Greenberg & Bederman for a free consultation.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It Is Not Greedy To Be Injured and Seek Money

Posted on August 24, 2011 by Greenberg & Bederman

 

There is this idea among many Americans that everyone should just “walk it off” when something bad happens to them. As in, “You got injured, accidents happen, move on.” They believe that utilizing the court system in cases like this is primarily a sign of greed rather than a sense of restitution.  We’ve noticed that this mindset primarily exists in either those who have never been on the receiving end of an unfortunate event, or those who are directly responsible for an unfortunate event. However, once the tables are turned, that mindset changes dramatically. Some of the most ardent supporters of tort reform are usually the first ones at the courthouse when things aren’t going their way.

It is difficult to “walk it off” when, as a result of the actions of someone else, you can’t walk anymore. We consider that an injury. Tort reformers consider that “bad luck.”

 

People who get severely injured and experience a severe decrease in the quality of their lives are certainly unlucky, but as far as we’re concerned, they are only unlucky if the injury was the result of a random occurrence, or as insurance companies call it, an “Act of God.” If somebody gets severely injured due to the negligence of someone else, then that person is not “unlucky.” That person is a victim.

Here is an example:

Everybody knows Martha Stewart, right? Whether you like her or not, you know who she is. You’ve probably bought or cooked something that she designed or dreamed up without even realizing it. She is not just a person. She is a brand name. She has lent her name to everything from sweaters to pots and pans to dishes to furniture.

The furniture is where the injuries come in. Ms. Stewart’s company designed, built and marketed a line of patio furniture. The problem was with a certain brand of deckchair. The chair was built in such a way that the legs slip forward when you sit down, which means that if you happen to have your fingers underneath the chair, your fingers could very easily get sliced off by the hinges.

This isn’t conjecture on our part. This has actually happened to people. For at least one case, three people either lost or badly damaged the tips of their fingers, and this happened because they bought a specific type of deck chair. It wasn’t a power saw, or a belt sander, or a set of sharp steak knives, or a product where you can assume that there is some risk of injury. It was a deck chair, which shouldn’t be a dangerous product by any stretch of the imagination.

If you buy a belt sander, and you slip while using it and mangle your hand, that’s “bad luck.” If you buy a set of extra sharp knives and you cut your fingertips off while dicing an onion, that’s “bad luck.” If you buy a chair and use it exactly as you are supposed to, but end up losing the tips off of your fingers, that isn’t “bad luck.” That’s negligence.

To Ms. Stewart’s immense credit, she thought so too. Her company ended up settling with three injury victims for an undisclosed amount. But there are many corporations, insurers and tort-reform organizations who feel differently. Their advice for the three people who mangled their hands would be to walk it off. Let it go. Move on with your life. Sorry you lost three fingers, but hey, accidents happen, right?

We don’t buy that premise. If you get injured due to no fault of your own, and if the fault can be squarely placed on the actions of someone else, why is it considered “weak” or “greedy” to expect financial compensation for your medical bills? Or for money to make up for the pay that you lost when you had to recuperate in the hospital? Or to simply make up for the fact that you don’t have finger tips anymore? How is that an unreasonable set of expectations?

Do not let anyone tell you that seeking compensation for your injuries is the wrong thing to do. Nobody asks to get hit by a drunk driver, or to get injured due to medical malpractice. Nobody asks to be hospitalized because of a dangerous prescription drug or a faulty product. The day that medical treatment is free and the banks start adopting a “don’t worry about it” policy regarding your mortgage, then maybe we can start telling you to “walk it off.” But until then, we recommend contacting a lawyer.

Greenberg and Bederman is a Washington, D.C. injury law firm. We are currently offering legal counsel to those who have been injured due to no fault of their own. If you or a loved one has been hurt in a car or truck accident, or if you have been injured due to medical malpractice, contact Greenberg and Bederman for a free legal consultation today.

 

 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Are Lawsuits A Concern For Small Businesses?

Posted on July 7, 2011 by Greenberg & Bederman

 

How important are lawsuits in the grand scheme of things?

It depends on who you ask and when you ask them.

If you ask someone who has been injured due to the negligence of someone else, they would probably tell you that their particular lawsuit was quite important. If you asked one huge corporation that was suing another huge corporation, they would probably both consider that lawsuit to be important. Based on our experience, most people consider lawsuits the same way that they consider Congress. That is to say that just as they hate Congress but like their particular Congressman, they generally are against lawsuits right up to the point where they need to file one.

However, there are quite a few well funded organizations that seem to be convinced that lawsuits are incredibly important. They are convinced that lawsuits are nothing short of a plague of locusts on the economy and on American society in general. The American Tort Reform Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and all manner of other advocacy groups have done their best to further the premise that every single person, business, corporation and public entity in the United States is being crushed under and avalanche of litigation. They further claim that the chief victims of these lawsuits are “small businesses.”

We have a lot of problems with these assertions. In the first place, someone who is on the receiving end of a lawsuit is, legally speaking, the exact opposite of a victim. In fact, in any tort case, it is the contention of the plaintiff that he or she has been victimized. To put it in perspective, consider Union Carbide. When their chemical plant leaked deadly poisonous gas in Bhopal, India and killed just fewer than 4,000 people, would it be fair to say that Union Carbide was a “victim of lawsuits” when the survivors went to the courts? Or, on a smaller scale, if a doctor makes an easily preventable mistake that damages a patient permanently, would you say that the doctor was the “victim” in the scenario if the patient files a lawsuit? If a delivery driver is allowed to go on his route after his supervisor catches him drinking, and that driver hurts someone, is the business supervisor a “victim?” What about the person who got hurt by the driver?

 

We’re pretty sure that the ATRA and the Chamber of Commerce have plenty of lawyers themselves, and we are willing to bet that they understand the definitions of “plaintiff” and “defendant.” The reassignment of the word “victim” is a clever juxtaposition of roles in a legal case, and if it gets hammered into the heads of the general public long enough, they will probably start to believe it.

We also have a problem with the idea that lawsuits are epidemic. They simply do not occur very often.  According to the Center for Justice and Democracy, only about ten percent of injury victims file a compensation claim, and only two percent of those that file a compensation claim go on to file a lawsuit. The National Center for State Courts states that tort lawsuits have declined 21 percent over a ten year period in 30 states, and they further mention that contract lawsuits (corporations suing corporations) have increased 25 percent in 13 states over that same period of time. Oddly enough, you never hear from tort reformers and the Chamber of Commerce complaining about the explosion in contract lawsuits. It appears those sorts of lawsuits are just fine and dandy.

What about the contention that lawsuits are the bane of the small businessman’s existence? The Chamber of Commerce claims to be the official spokesmen for businesses everywhere, both small and not so small. As far as the Chamber is concerned, every small business out there is terrified of lawsuits. But a recent poll suggests that they maybe they should ask the small businessmen themselves; mainly because it seems that fear of lawsuits is pretty far down on the list.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses surveyed a large group of small business owners in order to get an overall sense of their worries and concerns. The various problems faced by small businesses were ranked in order of concern, and to be sure, fear of lawsuits was on the list. However, it was listed at number 65 out of 75, with 36.7 percent of respondents claiming that it “was not a problem.” Above the “fear of lawsuits” was listed such concerns as “traffic,” “delinquent accounts,” “getting information on government assistance programs” and, “cost of health insurance,” which was solidly in first place.

Small businesses seem to be the watchword of the day over at the Chamber, along with “job-killing,” which is the term they hang in front of anything that they don’t like. As they push forward with more and more legislation on state and national levels, the rationale is that “caps” on damages and restrictions on who can go to court will “help small businesses”, but if the small businesses aren’t particularly worried about lawsuits, who benefits the most from these caps?

We suspect it would be the “non-small businesses.” Large corporations, chemical manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies, who interact with a much wider percentage of the populace, and therefore have more of a tendency to do more damage if they are negligent. If anything, these caps and restrictions could actually help prevent small businesses from receiving fair compensation if they are forced to go to court against a large corporation, to say nothing of the restrictions they already place on individual citizens.

Greenberg and Bederman is a personal injury law firm located in the Washington, D.C. area. We offer experienced and dedicated legal counsel to those who have been hurt due to no fault of their own. If you have suffered from a medical malpractice, been injured in a car accident, suffered an adverse effect from a pharmaceutical drug or medical device, or been hurt due to the negligence of someone else, contact Greenberg & Bederman for a free consultation.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Aggressive Driving in DC

Posted on February 15, 2011 by Greenberg & Bederman

 

We occasionally read the blog Greater Greater Washington,mainly because we agree with much of its overall premise. The contributors are all very much in favor of smart city planning and development. What this means is that rather than having a dysfunctional city center surrounded by increasingly sprawling and resource wasting suburbs, it would seem to be a better idea to develop cities that manage to have efficient public transportation and easy access for bicyclists and pedestrians. Generally speaking, if there is an issue that involves urban planning in the D.C. area, Greater Greater Washington usually has a pretty smart take on it.

But it isn’t always the nuts and bolts of zoning board meetings or whether or not streetcars in D.C. would be a good idea. Occasionally you get something that is a lot more commonplace and every day, but goes a long way towards reminding you how easy it is to make your life and the lives of those around you safer.

For instance, a reader recently sent in an e-mail to the blog, and the gist of it was that a construction project in Northwest is occasionally blocking traffic in the area of E Street and 20th. This block in the flow of traffic is not constant, but it happens often enough during the course of the day that those who live and work nearby are noticing a fairly high rate of honking horns and yelling drivers and drivers behaving aggressively. Granted, this is Washington, D.C, and punctuality means a great deal here. But what this e-mail brought home to us as car accident attorneys is that being somewhere on time is not worth your life. Nor is the road the place to settle minor and temporary grievances, particularly when you are behind the wheel of a vehicle that weighs thousands of pounds.

 

Since we have been practicing injury law in D.C, Maryland and Virginia, we have had more than a few cases where somebody got hurt due to somebody losing their cool behind the wheel. The media takes the more dramatic examples of these cases and calls them “road rage,” but actually, a lot of these cases stem from something minor. A driver is behind another car that isn’t going fast enough. Someone doesn’t go immediately after the light turns green. A driver thinks, “Oh, you cut me off? Well, let’s see if you like it when I cut you off!”

It is very easy to think of your car as not being connected to the real world, especially nowadays. What with cruise control, immaculate suspension, anti-lock brakes, windows that filter out practically all outside noise, GPS devices, iPods, television screens and satellite radio, it is quite easy to forget that you are travelling at a high rate of speed in a vehicle that can weigh anywhere from 2500 pound to a half ton. If everything about your car is easy and convenient, it isn’t that much of a stretch for you to imagine that the world outside of your car should be that way too. But the real world is very rarely easy and convenient.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, aggressive driving leads to deaths in all 50 states every year. Of the 6,800,000 crashes that occur every year, a “substantial number” are believed to be caused by aggressive and angry driving. So if you happen to be in a situation on the road where your patience is being tested, try to imagine what your life would be like if you decide to make up for lost time and get somebody hurt, or worse. Or if you decided that you have had about enough of that person driving slowly in front of you and did something to cause an accident? Believe us; we have represented enough car accident injury victims to tell you that aggressive driving is not worth it.

Greenberg and Bederman is a car accident injury law firm located in Silver Spring, Maryland. We have offered legal assistance to those in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C. who have been hurt in car crashes due to no fault of their own. If you or a loved one has been injured due to the aggressive or negligent actions of another driver, contact Greenberg and Bederman for a free legal consultation today.

 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Medical Malpractice Database Errors

Posted on January 12, 2011 by Greenberg & Bederman

Most reasonable people would not make an important decision without having all the facts. It’s one of the reasons simply getting a job is so difficult these days. Potential employers don’t just want to know your work history. They also want to know your criminal record, and in some cases they want to know your credit score. That might seem like an unnecessary intrusion, but if you happen to be applying for a job as an accountant, your perspective employers might want to know if you are thousands of dollars in debt. Or, if you happen to be applying for a job as a day care worker, the people who run the place would want to know if you happen to have a criminal history of child abuse.

If you were buying a car, you would want to know if the company making it has a history of putting out defective products. If you were entrusting a financial advisor, you would want to know if he had a history of fraud or shady dealings. If you are investing your time or money into something, or if you are entrusting your safety or your children’s safety with someone, having as much information as you can about this person is not just important; it is crucial.

 

As or right now, people in Connecticut are not able to make informed decisions about their health care; specifically because the state’s online medical database is omitting medical malpractice information:

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — The Connecticut Public Health Department's online doctor database frequently omits information about past malpractice payments, making it difficult for patients to make informed decisions.

The Hartford Courant reports Monday that there are more than 100 doctors on the site whose malpractice cases are missing. That's about one out of every six who have made payments in recent years for harming or killing patients who appear to have clean records.

If you happen to live in Connecticut, and you happen to be choosing a doctor or a surgeon, wouldn’t you want to know if this person has made a certain number of mistakes? Particularly if the number of doctors who have made serious or life-ending mistakes is one out of every six doctors? Those are about the same odds that you get with Russian roulette.

To be sure, you shouldn’t make the assumption that if your doctor has one malpractice payout in a twenty year career that he is a bad doctor. In fact, if a doctor had that kind of record we would be the first in line to make an appointment with him. But if a doctor has a seriously spotty record, with multiple lawsuits and multiple mistakes and multiple unnecessary patient deaths, wouldn’t you want to know that before you selected him to do the surgery? Wouldn’t you find that to be a crucial piece of information? We certainly would.

We aren’t sure why this information is being left off the new website. When they made the initial switch to the new website, they estimated that the profiles would be complete and updated (meaning that the medical malpractice information would be posted) by April of 2010, but then that date switched to June, then August, then October, and they finally just gave up giving an estimated date. We would hope that at some point in the near future they would update the site with all of the relevant information, because in the meantime, there are some doctors on the list who are having their professional histories whitewashed quite thoroughly.

For instance, there is one surgeon in Connecticut who failed to control bleeding in a patient who was known to have difficulties with blood clotting. There was also one doctor who had lost or settled four medical malpractice suits in the past seven years. Not to mention a doctor who was hit with a $36 million verdict due to a botched Caesarian section birth which led to the child having cerebral palsy.

Again, we think these are the sort of things that patients should know about before selecting a doctor. It’s a pity that Connecticut doesn’t feel the same way.

Greenberg and Bederman is a medical malpractice injury law firm located in Silver Spring, Maryland, and we offer legal assistance to victims of medical malpractice in Washington, D.C, Virginia and Maryland. We have helped victims of surgical errors, wrong diagnosis, prescription errors, hospital infections and injuries due to unnecessary delay of treatment.  If you or a loved one has been injured due to the negligence of a doctor, surgeon or other medical professional, contact Greenberg & Bederman for a free legal consultation today.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Were WMATA Negligent in Escalator Maintenance?

Posted on November 19, 2010 by Greenberg & Bederman

 

One of the crucial elements of proving a negligence case is being able to show that the defendants had prior knowledge of the potential dangers of a product, service or place, but did nothing to warn people or fix the problem.

An example of this can be made with something as simple as a wet floor in a supermarket. If an employee mops the floor in an area and doesn’t put out a sign or markers telling people that the floor is wet, and if a person slips and breaks his leg, that employee could be considered negligent. The employee knows wet floors are dangerous, and he knows there is a spot in the supermarket where the floor is wet. A customer would also know that a wet floor is dangerous and would avoid it if he could, but the problem is that he doesn’t know if the floor is wet or not because the employee didn’t visibly mark the spot. If the customer sees the signs yet trudges on regardless, and then falls and breaks his leg, it could be argued that the employee did everything reasonable to warn the customer of the dangers, so there would not be negligence there.

 

In a nutshell, that’s the difference between a run-of-the-mill accident and an accident caused by negligence. We think it’s an important distinction. While an accident can be an “act of God,” negligence accidents are “acts of man.”

On October 30, the escalator at the L’Enfant Plaza metro station suffered a system failure. According to the Washington Post, the escalator started speeding uncontrollably, which essentially flung all the riders to the ground at the bottom. The entire Metro system was extremely crowded due to the Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert rally that was taking place on the mall. Just under a million people were riding the trains that day. If anything positive can be taken out of this, it can be that it was a lucky thing that only four people were hurt. Can you imagine what could have happened if the main escalator at Bethesda metro station suddenly sped up? Or the escalator at DuPont Circle? On the most crowded day Metro has had since the Inauguration?

The escalators in the DC Metro systems are notorious for being broken. It is a rare day where a regular commuter can get to work without having to climb up one broken escalator or another. But there is a difference between an escalator not working and an escalator actively malfunctioning while passengers are on it. And what should be mentioned here is that the escalator malfunction at L’Enfant Plaza wasn’t a random occurrence, nor was it unexpected.

A report performed by an independent firm weeks ago concluded that the escalators are dangerous, unstable and in need of repair or replacement. Among some of the more relevant passages:

  • Major amounts of oil and lubricant on step treads and risers. Symptomatic of major leak at drive motor / reducer coupling.
  • Significant accumulation of metal shavings around hand rail newel areas from worn newel wheels.
  • Brake pads worn beyond usable life expectancy and out of adjustment allowing unit to freewheel to stop.
  • Numerous switches in safety circuits were dirty, out of adjustment, and ineffective.
  • Skirt panels were adjusted too tightly to the steps, creating metal shavings along the step roller tracks in the interior of the unit.
  • Hoist ropes severely rouged [corroded] and worn beyond acceptable life expectancy.
  • Sheet plastic being used to protect equipment from water intrusion. This is a critical life safety issue.

Metro authorities had this draft in their hands on September 30th, which was a full month before the accident happened. So how can they make the standard defense against negligence, which is “We simply didn’t know?” They can’t make the claim that the escalator malfunction was a surprise to them when an independent report commissioned by them on the state of their escalators specifically warned that an incident like the October 30th disaster was likely to happen. The argument could easily be made that WMATA was negligent in maintaining its escalators, and that they knew about the danger that these escalators posed to riders for a full month before the incident took place.

Greenberg and Bederman is a personal injury law firm located in Silver Spring, Maryland, and we are currently offering legal assistance to injury victims all over the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore areas. If you have been injured due to reasons that were not your fault, contact Greenberg & Bederman for a free legal consultation.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Understanding Negligence With Metro Escalators Accident

Posted on November 18, 2010 by Greenberg & Bederman

One of the crucial elements of proving a negligence case is being able to show that the defendants had prior knowledge of the potential dangers of a product, service or place, but did nothing to warn people or fix the problem.

An example of this can be made with something as simple as a wet floor in a supermarket. If an employee mops the floor in an area and doesn’t put out a sign or markers telling people that the floor is wet, and if a person slips and breaks his leg, that supermarket could be considered negligent. The employee knows wet floors are dangerous, and he knows there is a spot in the supermarket where the floor is wet, so he has a duty as an employee to the supermarket to keep his job, and to the public for safety, to put up a hazardous sign.  A customer shopping in the supermarket knows that a wet floor is dangerous and would avoid it if he could, but if the customer doesn’t know if the floor is wet because the employee didn’t visibly mark the spot, there could be negligence on behalf of the employee and the supermarket. If the customer sees a warning sign yet trudges on regardless and then falls and breaks his leg, it could be argued that the employee did everything reasonable to warn the customer of the dangers, so there would not be negligence there.

 

In a nutshell, that’s the difference between a run-of-the-mill accident and an accident caused by negligence. We think it’s an important distinction. While an accident can be an “act of God,” negligence accidents are “acts of man.”

On October 30, the escalator at the L’Enfant Plaza metro station suffered a system failure. According to the Washington Post, the escalator started speeding uncontrollably, which essentially flung all the riders to the ground at the bottom. The entire Metro system was extremely crowded due to the Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert rally that was taking place on the mall. Just under a million people were riding the trains that day. If anything positive can be taken out of this, it can be that it was a lucky thing that only four people were hurt. Can you imagine what could have happened if the main escalator at Bethesda metro station suddenly sped up? Or the escalator at DuPont Circle? On the most crowded day Metro has had since the Inauguration?

The escalators in the DC Metro systems are notorious for being broken. It is a rare day where a regular commuter can get to work without having to climb up one broken escalator or another. But there is a difference between an escalator not working and an escalator actively malfunctioning while passengers are on it. And what should be mentioned here is that the escalator malfunction at L’Enfant Plaza wasn’t a random occurrence, nor was it unexpected.

A report performed by an independent firm weeks ago concluded that the escalators are dangerous, unstable and in need of repair or replacement. Among some of the more relevant passages:

  • Major amounts of oil and lubricant on step treads and risers. Symptomatic of major leak at drive motor / reducer coupling.
  • Significant accumulation of metal shavings around hand rail newel areas from worn newel wheels.
  • Brake pads worn beyond usable life expectancy and out of adjustment allowing unit to freewheel to stop.
  • Numerous switches in safety circuits were dirty, out of adjustment, and ineffective.
  • Skirt panels were adjusted too tightly to the steps, creating metal shavings along the step roller tracks in the interior of the unit.
  • Hoist ropes severely rouged [corroded] and worn beyond acceptable life expectancy.
  • Sheet plastic being used to protect equipment from water intrusion. This is a critical life safety issue.

Metro authorities had this draft in their hands on September 30th, which was a full month before the accident happened. So they can’t make the standard defense against negligence, which is “We simply didn’t know.” They can’t make the claim that the escalator malfunction was a surprise to them when an independent report commissioned by them on the state of their escalators specifically warned that an incident like the October 30th disaster was likely to happen. The argument could be made that WMATA was negligent in maintaining its escalators, and that they knew about the danger that these escalators posed to riders for a full month before the incident took place.

To understand a little about negligence law, please read our understanding negligence page.

Greenberg and Bederman is a personal injury law firm located in Silver Spring, Maryland, and we are currently offering legal assistance to injury victims all over the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore areas. If you have been injured due to reasons that were not your fault, contact Greenberg & Bederman for a free consultation.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Former Toyota Attorney Can Provide Evidence For Lawsuits

Posted on September 15, 2010 by Greenberg & Bederman

There has been an important development in the ongoing Toyota recall story. According to ABC News:

An arbitrator has ruled that a former top Toyota attorney turned whistleblower can submit internal Toyota documents in court in order to prove his claim that the company asked him to hide evidence of product defects from the public. Dimitrios Biller, former managing counsel for Toyota, handled product liability suits for the automaker, and claims it regularly hid evidence of safety defects from regulators and the public. As part of a "civil racketeering" suit against Toyota, Biller had sought to place into evidence what he claims are four boxes full of internal Toyota documents that will show he was asked to hide facts from plaintiffs during product liability lawsuits.

This is incredibly significant. As we have learned from reports of various plaintiffs’ attorneys who have been attempting to read the data off of the so-called “black boxes” that exist in Toyota vehicles, this corporation makes every effort to hide behind trade secrecy laws. In other words, they are often allowed to claim that providing crucial evidence would somehow allow others to view and co-opt their technology, which keeps attorneys for the injured from getting crucial evidence needed to prove their case. Toyota’s resistance to Mr. Biller’s requests to provide these documents to the court serves as a perfect example.

The arbitrator’s ruling means that Mr. Biller can offer proof to his claims that Toyota asked him to hide evidence regarding the many faults of Toyota vehicles, such as accelerator pedals that stuck, brakes that didn’t work, and steering that failed. The reason that this is important is because Mr. Biller’s contention shifts the premise from negligence to criminal negligence. It’s one thing if there were defects in Toyotas and the people at Toyota were unaware of them. But it is a different matter entirely if Toyota knew about these defects and actively tried to suppress other people finding out about them.

These defects weren’t minor in nature. It wasn’t a faulty radio knob or a glove compartment latch. Toyota’s defects put the lives of drivers, passengers and anyone in the vicinity of these malfunctions in serious danger. Thousands of Toyotas had defective floor mats that made the accelerator stick to the floor. Thousands more had accelerator pedals which stuck to the floor regardless of the floor mat. Thousands more had steering that momentarily gave out. These would all be bad enough if Toyota simply didn’t know. But Mr. Biller is claiming that they did know, and chose to cover these defects up rather than act to fix them, all while Toyota drivers were losing control of their cars. Again, this goes beyond negligence and into criminal behavior, and it is a positive development that Toyota will not be able to hide behind any corporate privilege or trade secrecy laws.

Greenberg and Bederman is a personal injury law firm based in the Washington, D.C. area. We are currently offering legal assistance to those who have been injured incar accidents caused by faulty and malfunctioning Toyota vehicles. If you or a loved one has been injured due to a Toyota crash, contact Greenberg and Bederman for a free legal consultation today.

 
Tags: , , , , , , ,

DC Metro Escalator Safety

Posted on July 23, 2010 by Greenberg & Bederman

WMATA seems to be gambling with the safety of its passengers. That might seem like a  heavy handed statement, but right now it is one that we feel comfortable making.

The first and most obvious problem is its antiquated and outdated sensor equipment on the subway tracks. This is supposed to act as a failsafe that prevents collisions between trains. As we all learned last year, it isn’t working properly. Last June there was a terrible accident on the Red Line where one train slammed directly into the back of another. 9 people died and 76 were injured.

Since the accident has occurred, the National Transportation Safety Board has made several recommendations to fix some of the more glaring errors, but according to an article in The Washington Post, not much has been done:

"There are significant deficiencies in their safety culture," said Deborah A.P. Hersman, chairman of the NTSB. "We do not see the frequency of accidents on other properties that we are seeing on Metro.

"The most disappointing . . . is when we issue recommendations and those issues do not get corrected. For us, that is a big concern about Metro," she said. Nine NTSB recommendations issued to Metro in July and September, in the aftermath of the accident, remain open, according to NTSB records.

We aren’t exactly sure why Metro is dragging its feet about making these corrections. It might be money. It might be politics. It might be a combination of the two. State politicians in Annapolis and Richmond might have a problem with paying state funds for a transit system that their immediate constituents never use. We can certainly imagine that a state delegate from Lynchburg, Virginia or Havre de Grace, Maryland would fail to see the urgency.

Whatever the reason, WMATA has continued on as if that horrible train accident never happened. We can absolutely assure them that it did. In fact, we have a few injured clients who can verify that on that day in June, there was a catastrophic system failure that resulted in 9 deaths and 76 injuries.

The second serious safety hazard doesn’t involve the trains, but instead involves escalators that allow passengers to safely get in and out of the stations. Specifically speaking, they don’t work, and the scope and size of both the number of breakdowns and the escalators themselves makes this state of affairs an accident waiting to happen.

The Washington, D.C. subway system has 570 escalators. This is more than any other subway system in the world. Due to the fact that this area was built on what was essentially marshland, our subway system has to go very deep underground. The escalator at Wheaton, for instance, goes down 230 feet. Believe it or not, this is actually the longest escalator in the Western Hemisphere. The escalators at Bethesda, DuPont Circle and Woodley Park are also incredibly long. And while the escalators at Rosslyn and Clarendon don’t necessarily set records, they still are long enough to eat up over a full minute to get from the street to the station.

The way we see it, there are two potential dangers with broken escalators. The first would be the hazards involved with these escalators suddenly stopping. The stop wouldn’t even have to be a particularly jarring one for disaster to strike. One person falling down an escalator of that size and length would be catastrophic, not just for the person falling but also for anyone who happens to be on the escalator below the person falling. People can get badly hurt by falling off of a five inch curb on the side of the road, so the idea of someone falling down a crowded 230 foot escalator is so grim that it’s terrifying to think about.

The second danger is not going down, but going up. Metro might not have noticed, but not everyone who rides the subway is spry and athletic. Many of the passengers are elderly and infirm. Making them climb up 230 feet, particularly in heat that reaches upwards of 90 degrees, is something that could adversely affect their health. And if the elevators are broken (as they often are,) many passengers have no choice but to trudge up that enormous incline.

As of this writing, the escalator report for the entire WMATA system lists 62 escalators as being out of service, as well as 8 separate elevators. This reflects very poorly on WMATA. It is inconvenient, stressful, disrespectful of passengers and extremely dangerous. Among the many faults of the DC Metro system, this one is particularly galling.

Greenberg and Bederman is aninjury law firm based in Washington, D.C. We are currently offering legal help to anyone who has been injured due to negligence or poor management by the WMATA. This includes anyone who was injured while riding the subway, or anyone who was injured due to an escalator-related accident. If you or a loved one was injured on the Washington, D.C. subway system in Maryland, Washington, D.C. or Virginia, contact Greenberg & Bederman for a free accident legal consultation.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

DC Metro Wants Wrongful Death Lawsuit Dismissed

Posted on June 25, 2010 by Greenberg & Bederman

 

It’s been exactly one year and one day since the Red Line Metro accident that killed nine people and injured seventy.  Due to faulty signaling systems and a host of other systematic safety failures, one red line train slammed into the back of another.

Like many Washingtonians, this accident hit particularly close to home for us. The offices of Greenberg and Bederman are right next to the Silver Spring Metro station on the red line, which many of us here ride into work every day.  It could have very easily been one of the people in our office who got injured or killed.

This accident was more than a personal tragedy for the families of the victims.  In fact, it could hardly be categorized an “accident.” The safety systems of the entire Metro subway system in the D.C. area were so neglected and out of date that any “accident” should have been called“inevitability.”

The National Transportation Safety Board initiated a study on how WMATA operates, and in their final report they determined that there were over 100 serious problems in our Metro system that have yet to be addressed, even as we are reaching the one year anniversary of the deadliest crash in the history of WMATA.

What makes matters even worse is that WMATA has decided to avoid culpability in this case by filing a motion to dismiss awrongful death andnegligence lawsuit filed by most of the victims’ families.  It’s as if they are pretending that these deaths and injuries were just some random, freak occurrence rather than the result of a system wide failure of technology and personnel.

According to Metro Spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein, this motion to dismiss the case was “partial” and “routine:”

“Even if granted, this would not deprive anyone of their day in court or their right to a jury trial. Neither of our motions separately or together seeks dismissal of the suit against Metro in its entirety."

Why bother to file a motion to dismiss at all? What about this lawsuit does WMATA find unfair or excessive? There are nine people who are no longer living because WMATA had not bothered to do proper maintenance on their outdated sensor system. There are sons and daughters, mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters who have lost someone due to utter negligence. Which “part” of that does WMATA not understand?

Judging by the progress that they have made in terms of making safety improvements, we suspect that there is a great deal that they don’t understand. They seem to be looking at this disaster not in terms of human life and human suffering, but rather in dollars and cents. It appears to be too expensive to make necessary safety improvements. It appears to be too expensive to compensate the families of the victims fairly. So put off the improvements and repairs. File those motions to dismiss. Just roll the dice and see if you can avoid responsibility altogether.

Call us crazy, but we’re pretty sure that’s not the attitude that a public transportation agency is supposed to take. We’re also pretty sure that anything that involves getting members of the public from one place to another should be as safe as humanly possible. Safety inspections and improvements should not be put off or deliberated. They should be done early and often. The consequences for not doing so became tragically evident exactly one year ago today.

Greenberg and Bederman is an injury law firm based in Washington, D.C. We are currently representing injury victims from the Red Line Metro crash, and are also offering legal help to anyone who has been injured while riding any form of public transportation in the D.C. area. If you or a loved one has been injured on a bus, streetcar or subway in Maryland, Virginia or D.C, contact Greenberg and Bederman for a free legal consultation today.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BP Oil Spill Crushing Local Businesses

Posted on June 22, 2010 by Greenberg & Bederman

We’ve all seen the BP oil spill footage by now. We’ve seen the boats frantically trying to douse the flames that erupted on the Deepwater Horizon as it burst into flames, killing eleven oil workers. We saw a parade of British Petroleum executives claim that they had everything under control, when in fact they most certainly did not. We’ve seen so-called “top hats” and “junk shots” fail to stop the thousands of gallons of oil that is gushing uncontrollably into the Gulf Coast. We’ve seen the government take private enterprise at its word, if only to placate those in the same government who would howl bloody murder about communist takeovers of private enterprise, and then have those same people howl bloody murder about the government not doing enough. We have seen the results of the entirely too cozy relationship between the oil companies and the Minerals and Management Service. We have seen lax or non-existent oil rig inspections, “meetings” that were simply parties, and an institutional policy of “Do Whatever You Want” put into place. The “emergency measures” that BP had in place were simply cardboard cutouts that were outdated and unsuited to the monumental task. This catastrophic oil leak is the result of years of letting the oil companies do what they want, when they want and how they want, with barely any thought to the consequences.

 In all probability, an entire way of life down in the Gulf Coast is gone. People who run fishing and shrimp boats and the crews who man them will be out of work. People who offer tours into our now ruined marshlands will have to find another line of business. Restaurants all over the country that specialize in that wonderful regional seafood will have to either drastically alter their menus or go out of business. So will the wholesalers who deliver the seafood to them. Those who specialize in the tourist trade will be taking a beating, too. We can’t imagine that anyone would want to take their families to beaches that are covered in crude oil. So you can say goodbye to beachfront resorts in Alabama and Texas, as well as the smaller hotels and motels. Plus the rental home market is probably going to be nonexistent for the next few years.

The Federal Government recently secured a promise of $20 billion dollars from British Petroleum in order to help expedite the claims process for workers, business owners and property owners who will be adversely affected by the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. But if the spill continues (and there is no indication that it will stop any time soon,) $20 billion could be a mere fraction of what the overall damages could be. And we have a sneaking suspicion that getting fair value for your damaged property or ruined business will require a lot of paperwork and legal acumen. It is because of this that Greenberg and Bederman is currently offering legal assistance to people who live in the Maryland, Washington, D.C. and Virginia areas who have legitimate claims of damages down in the Gulf Coast.

Greenberg and Bederman is an injury law firm based in Silver Spring, Maryland. We have helped injury victims and people who have suffered real financial damages due to the negligence or incompetence of others. Over the next few months, we will be reaching out to victims all over the country to see if we can help them receive the sort of compensation that they both deserve and are entitled to. The explosion of the Deepwater Horizon and the subsequent oil blowout certainly qualifies as negligence and incompetence on the grandest scale imaginable.

If you or a loved one has suffered a serious financial loss due to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent oil leak, contact Greenberg & Bederman for a free consultation.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Toyota Engineers On The Job?

Posted on April 16, 2010 by Greenberg & Bederman

 

Believe it or not, there used to be a time when Toyota had a reputation for manufacturing safe and reliable cars. That certainly seems like a long time ago, what with all of the crashes and deaths and injuries. But there was a time when people used to get into Toyota model cars without having to worry about dangerous floor mats, bad brakes, stuck accelerators and faulty steering.

To be sure, the crash ratings for these cars were mostly average. But in fairness, they were no better or no worse than many of the other cars that were out on the market. Toyotas in the 90s and in most of the first decade of the twentieth century were no better or worse than Hondas, Chevys, Chryslers or Nissans in terms of safety.

So while they weren’t exactly up to the high safety standards of say, Saab or Volvo, they were at least well within established safety requirements.

 

 

We aren’t sure what went wrong with Toyota. Every car manufacturer has safety recalls, some major and some minor, but we have never seen so many things go so drastically wrong on so many models from the same company at the same time. It wasn’t just that one model had problems with floor mats jamming the accelerator pedal in one model. Or it wasn’t that just one model had a few accelerator pedals stick in the down position. This was a systematic failure of multiple cars. It was as if the entire Toyota Corporation all took a vacation at the same time and missed some very important meetings.

It was a failure of the engineering developers to not notice that the accelerator pedal was sticking. It was a failure of the design team to not notice that the floor mats were causing the pedals in other models to stick. It was another failure of the engineering team to not notice that there was an inconsistency in braking and steering when the Prius shifted between the electric and gas motor.

It was a failure of the company to “negotiate” a lesser recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which might have saved Toyota millions in costs, but cost hundreds of people pain, money, time, and in some cases, their lives.

It was only a matter of time before all of these failures caught up with Toyota. There were too many bizarre and high profile accidents involving Toyota for the government to ignore. One recall came after another, and the Capitol Hill testimony of both crash victims and the President of Toyota itself did practically irreparable damage to the Toyota brand.

So you would think that after all of this, the Toyota Corporation has learned its lesson, right?

Apr 15, 2010: Toyota now says it will investigate its entire SUV lineup for safety problems uncovered by Consumer Reports earlier this week. 

The automaker announced Tuesday it would stop selling the 2010 Lexus GX 460 temporarily as it looks into handling problems that could make it unsafe.

Consumer Reports said the Lexus GX 460 slides around too much when drivers lift their foot off the gas pedal while negotiating around a tight curve. The vehicle can actually slide sideways, Consumer Reports says, which could result in the SUV hitting a curb or leaving the road.

Right on the heels of the worst year in Toyota’s history, yet another completely unsafe vehicle is put out on the market. It is a bad sign when the staff at Consumer Reports catches a potential major safety hazard before the engineering department at a major automobile manufacturer does. It appears that whatever overhauls that were promised by Toyota during the recalls and hearings on Capitol Hill have yet to take place.

Greenberg and Bederman is a Washington, D.C. area injury law firm that helps those who have been hurt due to no fault, or negligence,  of their own. The recent Toyota malfunctions have injured thousands of people all over the country, including people in Washington, Virginia and Maryland. If you or a loved one has been injured due to a Toyota that did not work as it should have, contact Greenberg & Bederman for a free toyota injury legal consultation today.

To learn more about personal injury law, please read our personal injury lawyer page, or watch our personal injury lawyer videos.

 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Beware of Contributory Negligence

Posted on June 30, 2008 by Paula Strand

WARNING!
Beware of Contributory Negligence

Auto accidents happen daily on our roads, and as the number of drivers increase, so do the odds of being involved in an accident. After getting past the initial shock of a car accident, the question becomes who is responsible for causing the accident, and who is liable for paying the damages. Expenses may be significant from medical bills, to lifetime care, to loss of income. Where will the funds to restore your life come from? It depends on who is at fault that determines who will pay for the damages caused by the accident.
If you live in the mid-Atlantic region, you are likely to encounter something called ‘contributory negligence.’ This is a 400-year-old English principle, adopted in many American jurisdictions in the 19th century. It was abolished in all but 5 states, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama and the District of Columbia. This concept transcends the simple ‘who is at fault’ factor, an inquiry is made into whether the injured party is partially to blame for the accident. Even if the negligent driver is 95% at fault, and you are 5% at fault, you may recover nothing under the doctrine of contributory negligence.

 

Most states follow a fairer system of ‘comparative negligence,’ which allows for reduced recovery, taking into account any negligence on the part of the injured party, and subtracting it from the final award. If you live in Maryland, D.C. or Virginia, you should be aware of the defense that contributory negligence may raise by the insurance company against those bringing a claim for personal injury. If the defendant is successful in raising this defense, the injured party is barred from any recovery. For example, if one did not exercise reasonable care, such as looking both ways before crossing the street and was subsequently hit by a car, they may not recover.
Many criticize this approach for its unfairness and inflexibility towards the plaintiffs. Despite the continuous lobbying efforts in an attempt to abolish the antiquated system, it remains in place due to support from insurance and business lobbyists. Insurance companies who want to take a chance in convincing a jury that the victim was partially at fault, instead of paying for injuries, may be willing to take a chance in litigating the case, because they may end up paying nothing. You should consider contacting an experienced personal injury attorney if you encounter reluctance on the part of the other driver’s insurer to compensate you for your injuries and/or damages. You should not communicate with the other driver’s insurance company without first contacting an attorney, as any statements made by you regarding your fault may serve as the basis for contributory negligence defense in court. Be wary when attempting to navigate the system on your own, as there are many avenues of harm that may bar you from recovering. Contributory negligence is one of them.
 

To learn more about personal injury issues, please see our website at G&B website and click on the personal injury tab.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,