Personal Injury Law Round-Up #17

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog presents the week that was:

In doing these round-ups I like to start with risky conduct before delving into the litigation, for that is what brings on the injuries and attorneys. So let’s start here:

Headlining the arena of risk this week: Doctor Anonymous reports on a 15-year old that performed a C-section “under his parents watch” (via Kevin, M.D.);

Defective toys made in China were big news this week, including the use of lead paint on Thomas the Train toys. The Gun Toting Liberal was unsparing in his commentary of who to blame;

We’ve seen a lot of food poisoning stories lately. Wonder how it happens? Bill Marler tells us that slaughtering a goat in the kitchen may be the source in one case;

And the Vatican (!) sees danger and risk too, and has issued some new commandments regarding driving (via California Personal Injury and Insurnace Blog);

The New Jersey Law Journal sees that Electronic Health Records Raise New Risks of Malpractice Liability, the coming of which I discussed briefly on December 15, 2006;

The Cavalcade of Risk, with the latest edition by the Workers’ Comp Insider, has made my job easier this week, by covering numerous risky issues at the insurance-related blog carnival;

Let’s head to the courthouse now and see what we find:

Sheila B. Scheuerman from TortsProf gives us the latest obesity lawsuit, but it might not be quite what you think;

Howard Erichson from MassTorts reports that it was a good week for the paint industry as two state high courts knocked out lead paint nuisance claims;

Sometimes judges turn into litigants. Anyone come to mind? Anthony Sebok at his FindLaw Writ column discusses: Judges Behaving Badly: Their Ill-Considered Suits Against a Dry Cleaner, and Against the Yale Club. For a few more badly behaving judges, see: Judges Gone Wild;

And from the discovery department: Law firms Wiley Rein and Coughlin Duffy learned the hard way about discovery issues when walloped with $1.25M in sanctions by Southern District of New York Judge Alvin Hellerstein (New York Law Journal) due to document destruction and misleading statements that added years and millions of dollars to the cost of prosecuting suits on behalf of people who died or were injured or suffered property loss in the September 11 attacks;

(And since I went to Wiley Rein and Coughlin Duffy‘s websites for the links above, I might as well add that both firms are in violation of New York’s new ethics rules by failing to note on their home pages that their websites are “attorney advertising.” Doh!)

It’s not just defense lawyers that acted badly this week, but plaintiff’s too, as the New Jersey Law Journal reports today on two lawyers indicted for staging phony car accidents;

Returning to discovery, if you need some documents from the FDA to help your case, I hope you asked for them a loooooong time ago. Ed Silverman at Pharmalot reports there are some Freedom of Information Act requests pending for three years;

Sometimes trying a case can involve moments of great drama, but as Howard Zimmerle from Quad Cities Injury Lawyers reminds us, sometimes it is simply nuts-and-bolts lawyering to resolve things like How to get the chiropractor bills paid that is required. I like this this new blog as it addresses actual issues, as opposed to the trap so many personal injury attorneys fall into of reporting on the latest accident…And then writing if you were hurt, call us at blah, blah, blah…

In sorting through the viable claims, Day on Tort’s John Day reports that the Kentucky Supreme Court has rules there can be no recovery for pre-impact fear in a wrongful death case, a decision that doesn’t make any sense to this New Yorker;

Some fodder for the weekend:

Enjoy the weekend.
(Submissions for next week’s edition may be made to blog[at]TurkewitzLaw.com) xxx

Tags:


The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.