Cherry Hill, New Jersey Personal Injury Lawyer

How Safe is Your Car? IIHS Top Safety Picks for 2010

Mike Ferrara — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:25:03 GMT

Every year, the Insurance Institute For Highway Safety performance-tests the various vehicles on the market to see how each fares in accidents.

After performing high-speed front and side crash tests, a rollover test, and an evaluation of seat and head restraint protection against neck injuries in rear-impact accidents, the IIHS awards each vehicle a rating of good, acceptable, marginal, or poor for each test. Top Safety Picks must earn ratings of good on every single test, in addition to offering electronic stability control.

Here are the IIHS Top Safety Picks for 2010.

Small Cars

Honda Civic 4-door models (except Si) with optional ESC

Kia Soul

Nissan Cube

Subaru Impreza (except WRX)

Volkswagen Golf 4-door models

Midsize Cars

Audi A3

Chevrolet Malibu built after October 2009

Chrysler Sebring 4-door models with optional ESC

Dodge Avenger with optional ESC

Mercedes C class

Subaru Legacy

Subaru Outback

Volkswagen Jetta sedan

Volkswagen Passat sedan

Volvo C30

Large Cars

Buick LaCrosse

Ford Taurus

Lincoln MKS

Volvo S80

Small SUVs

Honda Element

Jeep Patriot with optional side torso airbags

Subaru Forester

Volkswagen Tiguan

Midsize SUVs

Dodge Journey

Subaru Tribeca

Volvo XC60

Volvo XC90

Please visit IIHS Testing 2010 and click on the name of each car model for more information. Let's keep safe cars like these on the road.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Uninsured Trauma Patients Almost Twice as Likely to Die – We Need a System that Works

Camryn Hansen — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:56:33 GMT

Legally, it’s not supposed to matter whether emergency room patients have insurance or not. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, passed by Congress in 1986, guarantees that all people brought to the emergency room receive all the treatment they require, independent of their ability to pay.

And yet, a study just published in the Archives of Surgery found that patients lacking insurance are 80% more likely to die from traumatic injuries than those with private insurance, including commercial health plans, health maintenance organizations, and Medicaid.

Trauma physicians said they were surprised by the findings, even though a slew of studies had previously documented the ill effects of going without health coverage. Uninsured patients are less likely to be screened for certain cancers or to be admitted to specialty hospitals for procedures such as heart bypass surgery. Overall, about 18,000 deaths each year have been traced to a lack of health insurance. –LA Times

While the researchers from Harvard University and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston were expecting to find some disparity in risk between insured and uninsured trauma patients, they were shocked at just how large the disparity was.

The researchers offered several possible explanations for the findings. Despite the federal law, uninsured patients often wait longer to see doctors in emergency rooms and sometimes visit ERs at several hospitals before finding one that will treat them. Other studies show that, once they're admitted, uninsured patients receive fewer services, such as CT and MRI scans, and are less likely to be transferred to a rehabilitation facility. –LA Times

Whatever the explanation, findings like this make it clear that we need to do away with a health care system that effectively makes second class citizens out of the uninsured.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Camryn Hansen

Myth #5: Tort reform will lower insurance rates.

Mike Ferrara — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:13:15 GMT

The campaign to slip widespread tort reforms into America’s health care bill is gaining momentum it doesn’t deserve because people are blithely accepting its exaggerations, distortions, and outright lies as fact.

To combat this, the American Association for Justice has just released a report called “Five Myths About Medical Negligence,” which exposes the tort reformers’ media campaign as the propaganda it really is.

Myth #5: Tort reform will lower insurance rates.

Fact: It is absolutely not the case that doctor liability premiums will go down if national malpractice reforms are passed. States that have already passed caps on damages have shown that while insurance companies don’t have to pay out as much in these states, they don’t pass on the savings to doctors by lowering premiums. In 2009, premiums in capped states were actually more than $1,000 higher per year, on average, than premiums in states with no caps.

Tort reforms simply don’t translate to insurance price reductions for anybody—doctor or patient. The idea that malpractice lawsuits are unduly clogging the legal system while wasting American taxpayers’ money and driving doctors out of business is absolutely baseless. On the other hand, medical negligence is very real, and any responsible health care reform bill must find a way to meaningfully address issues of patient safety.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Myth #4: Malpractice Claims Drive up Doctors’ Premiums.

Mike Ferrara — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:31:27 GMT

Myth #4: Malpractice Claims Drive up Doctors’ Premiums.

Fact: Malpractice claims actually don’t have that much to do with the premiums doctors are paying. When Americans for Insurance Reform (AIR) conducted a study of the relationship between malpractice payouts and doctor premiums, it found that while doctor premiums have increased astronomically in the past few years, there has been no “explosion” in lawsuits, jury awards or legal fees to justify such an increase.

Rather, doctor premiums have been driven up by the economic situation of the insurance industry. When insurance company profits are suffering from declining interest rates and investments, they make up for it by charging more in premiums. This, and not malpractice lawsuits, is the reason doctor premiums have gone up so dramatically in recent years. (And by the way, according to a previous AAJ report, malpractice insurers earn more than 99% of Fortune 500 companies.)

The idea that malpractice lawsuits are unduly clogging the legal system while wasting American taxpayers’ money and driving doctors out of business is simply bogus. On the other hand, medical negligence is very real, and any responsible health care reform bill must find a way to meaningfully address issues of patient safety.

Stay tuned as the week goes on for more myths about tort reform.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Myth #3: Doctors are fleeing.

Mike Ferrara — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:55:47 GMT

Myth #3: Doctors are fleeing.

Fact: No they’re not. Compelling data from the American Medical Association shows that the number of practicing physicians in the U.S. has been steadily increasing ever since the 1960s—faster, moreover, than the population. While tort reformers will try to spin this statistic by claiming that states with no malpractice caps are driving doctors to states with malpractice caps, the truth is that doctor numbers have increased in every state except four. Which four? Alaska, Georgia, Montana and Utah, all states with malpractice caps.

Stay tuned as the week goes on for more myths about tort reform.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Myth #2: Malpractice claims drive up health care costs.

Mike Ferrara — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:06:03 GMT

Myth #2: Malpractice claims drive up health care costs.

Fact: Numerous studies have shown that malpractice claims have almost zero impact on the cost of health care in the U.S. As a good example, Americans for Insurance Reform released a study over the summer week showing that in recent years, doctor premiums and medical malpractice claims have overwhelmingly dropped, while the profits of the medical malpractice insurance industry have soared. Significantly, the study concludes that placing further limits on the liability of negligent doctors and unsafe hospitals would be unjustifiable, and would put almost no dent in our country’s health care costs.

The AIR study adds that because medical malpractice premiums amount to less than 0.5% of overall health care costs, with medical malpractice claims amounting to 0.2% (yes, these are tiny decimals) of health care costs, limiting liability any more will simply not have a significant effect on these health care costs. “If Congress completely eliminated every single medical malpractice lawsuit,” it says, “including all legitimate cases, as part of health care reform, overall health care costs would hardly change, but the costs of medical error and hospital-induced injury would remain and someone else would have to pay.”

The idea that malpractice lawsuits are unduly clogging the legal system while wasting American taxpayers’ time and money is simply bogus. On the other hand, medical negligence is very real, and any responsible health care reform bill must find a way to meaningfully address issues of patient safety.

Stay tuned as the week goes on for more myths about tort reform.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Myth #1: There are too many “frivolous” malpractice lawsuits.

Mike Ferrara — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:32:23 GMT

Myth #1: There are too many “frivolous” malpractice lawsuits.

Fact: The Institute of Medicine has found that 98,000 people die and hundreds of thousands more are injured in hospitals each year due to preventable medical errors. These errors cost the health care system an $29 billion a year they wouldn’t have to spend if better prevention strategies were in place.

Despite these overwhelming numbers, only one in eight people injured by medical negligence ever files a malpractice suit. Moreover, the number of malpractice suits has actually decreased by eight percent over the past ten years, and amounts to less than one percent of the whole civil docket. Of the suits that do get filed, a 2006 Harvard study found that on average, 97 percent are meritorious, with a full 80 percent involving death or serious injury. “[P]ortraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation,” the authors stated, “are overblown."

The idea that frivolous malpractice lawsuits are unduly clogging the legal system and wasting American taxpayers’ time and money is simply bogus. On the other hand, medical negligence is very real, and any responsible health care reform bill must find a way to meaningfully address issues of patient safety.

Stay tuned as the week goes on for more myths about tort reform.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Ensuring Patient Safety Would Cost Fewer Lives AND Less Money

Mike Ferrara — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:12:56 GMT

Despite laws in New Jersey and Pennsylvania requiring hospitals to report major medical errors, unanticipated complications, and near misses to state agencies for the purpose of reducing medical mistakes, experts say that hospitals in both states are neglecting to report these kinds of incidents.

In 2007, major medical errors in Pennsylvania included accidentally leaving surgical equipment inside two separate patients at Fox Chase Cancer Center. At Abington Memorial Hospital in 2005, a woman recovering from hip surgery developed open bed sores after being left lying on a bedpan for several hours. In a total violation of state law, none of these incidents was reported by the hospitals responsible.

When serious medical errors don’t lead to a patient’s death, they require additional health care spending—often tens of thousands of dollars per patient—to correct.

"Anybody that is supposed to report close calls and has zero reports is clueless," said James Bagian, head of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ National Center for Patient Safety. "Management is asleep at the switch and just waiting until they kill someone." Josh Goldstein, Philadelphia Inquirer

Since 2003, though the health department has cited four hospitals in Southeastern Pennsylvania for failing to report serious medical errors, none of these hospitals has been fined.

In the current climate of sloppy enforcement, medical malpractice lawsuits are one of the only ways to protect patients against medical errors. They are also the only way to ensure that hospitals and doctors are held responsible if and when they do cause serious patient harm.

Rather than threaten patient safety and take away the patient’s right to compensation by limiting malpractice claims, health care reform needs to focus on ways to make patients safer. Insisting on better monitoring of hospital errors would be an excellent start.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Ruby Tuesday Sexual Harassment Suit Settles for $225,000

Camryn Hansen — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:04:52 GMT

The Ruby Tuesday restaurant in Stroudsburg, PA has agreed to pay a total of $225,000 to five female employees who were allegedly sexually harassed by their male supervisors.

The harassment included making crude sexual propositions to women, frequently making sexually explicit and graphic remarks to them about their appearance, and making lewd comments in their presence about female customers, the suit said. The EEOC said that some of the women harassed were teenagers.

"Sexual harassment is always unacceptable, but when some of the victims are vulnerable teenagers, it is especially unconscionable," EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru said in a released statement. –The Morning Call

The EEOC filed the lawsuit against Ruby Tuesday’s general manager, Christopher Mendoza, and other supervisors in August 2008. More than a dozen female employees were involved in the suit, but only five were ultimately paid in the settlement, in amounts ranging from $5,000 to $101,000.

In addition to the monetary settlement, Ruby Tuesday has promised to offer annual sexual harassment training to its Stroudsburg management team.

Having worked in numerous restaurants, I can readily vouch for the ubiquity of sexual harassment in every single one of them. It’s gratifying to see our legal system command meaningful consequences for such unprofessional behavior.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Camryn Hansen

E. Coli Ground Beef Death Toll Reaches 2

Mike Ferrara — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:38:26 GMT

An outbreak of E. coli in ground beef products has sickened more than two dozen people and killed at least two—one in New Hampshire and another in upstate New York.

Now, Fairbanks Farms, the New York State company suspected of producing the tainted beef, has issued a recall of 545,699 pounds of ground beef products.

E. coli is a dangerous bacterium which can cause bloody diarrhea, dehydration, and kidney failure, especially in young children, the elderly, and those with weak immune systems. It was recently found in contaminated beef from Illinois producer Valley Meats; hundreds of consumers became sick from the E-coli in these products.

The products in question are ground beef or packaged beef patties that were made from Sept. 14 to Sept. 16 and distributed mostly in the Northeast. All are stamped “EST 492,” either within the Department of Agriculture’s mark of inspection or near the nutrition facts.

The products went to retailers in eight states: Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The stores receiving them included Trader Joe’s, Giant, Price Chopper, Wild Harvest and Shaw’s.

Donna Rosenbaum, executive director of Safe Tables Our Priority, a food safety organization, said…that the nation’s food inspection system needed reform.

“To this day,” she said, “contamination problems are not found by any checks on the products by companies. They’re found when people get sick, and that’s a failure in the system.”–New York Times

As of today, since all of the recalled products are at least three weeks past their sell-by dates, none should still be on store shelves.

If you have ground beef at home with an EST 492 stamp, please do not eat it, and either dispose of it immediately without opening it, or return it to the store for a refund. Even if you cook the beef thoroughly, which can kill the bacteria, preparing it in the kitchen can contaminate utensils and surfaces. Even tiny doses can cause harm.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara