Archive for the ‘ Brain Injury ’ Category

0
17
Jan

Remember To Follow The Rules Of The Road When Riding A Bike In Pennsylvania

Many people forget to always obey the Rules of the Road when riding a bicycle in Pennsylvania. These rules are contained in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code.

There are two types of bike/car accidents that are more common than others. The first is a when a vehicle going in the opposite direction turns directly into your path. The second is a right hand turn in front of you where the vehicle passes you on the left and makes a right turn directly into your path.

Always call the police following a bicycle accident, if for no other reason than to recover for the damage to your bicycle; it could end up being your biggest single loss.

Always go for a physical exam following an accident. Many times, aches and pains do not show up until days after the accident.

In Pennsylvania, your medical bills will be paid by the first-party coverage under your automobile insurance. In Pennsylvania, all automobile insurance owners are required to buy a minimum of $5,000 in medical coverage. If you do not own an automobile, then you may be eligible to collect medical benefits from the policy of the driver that hit you. Once your automobile insurance medical limits are exhausted, then the next level would be your private health insurance.

Also realize that insurance claims adjusters typically are not as knowledgeable about bikes as you are, so when you are in an accident and expecting to file a claim for your damaged bike, make sure that you have more than enough information to get fair value for it. You may have to educate your adjuster on how much your bike is really worth. Try services such as Craigslist to get an idea of the value range for your bike. If the bike is one that is not commonly sold, go to your bike shop and talk to the owner.

Always wear your helmet and be safe!

If you have been injured in a car wreck or accident involving a car and bicycle in Central Pennsylvania or anywhere else in Pennsylvania contact Chuck Schmidt and Gerry Kramer at SchmidtKramer Injury lawyers.

Scott B. Cooper
Schmidt Kramer PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300 – Telephone
(717) 232-6467 – Facsimile
scooper@schmidtkramer.com
Facebook.com/SchmidtKramer
Twitter.com/TalkToALawyer

0
8
Nov

Police Still Investigating Adams County Crash

Police in Adams County, Pennsylvania are still investigating a November 4, 2011 car crash which killed a 19 year old Hanover man.  According to reports, Ian C. Baker was pronounced dead at Gettysburg Hospital by Adams County Coroner Francis Dutrow after being a passenger in a single vehicle crash in the 100 block of Town Hill Road.

The crash appears to have occurred after a black 2003 Ford Explorer operated by Ian R. Brown, 18, of York Springs, was traveling south on Town Hill Road when it crossed over to the left side of the roadway and struck a mailbox and then ultimately overturned.  Three other passengers were also  in the car at the time of the incident.  They were 18-year-old Catlin Smith, of Dillsburg, a female juvenile from Wellsville, and a male juvenile from Reading Township.  All were injured.

The crash is still under investigation by Latimore Township Police and the State Police Troop H Collision Reconstruction Team.

The Hanover Evening Sun reports that anyone who has information in regards to the crash, or who witnessed it, is asked to contact Latimore Township Police Dept. at 717-528-4121.

For more see the Evening Sun website below:

http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_19277778

Scott B. Cooper

Schmidt Kramer PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300 – Telephone
(717) 232-6467 – Facsimile
scooper@schmidtkramer.com
Facebook.com/SchmidtKramer
Twitter.com/TalkToALawyer

0
12
Aug

Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Hospital In Carlisle Alleged SERIOUS PROBLEMS.

Three days ago, a story broke, that Carlisle Regional Medical Center (“CRMC”) had been taken to task by the Pennsylvania Department of Health. The article said two deaths in the Emergency Department may be blamed on dangerous understaffing.

I read the survey results on the DOH website, and it doesn’t look good for CRMC. Below are the lowlights, because I’m certain CRMC would not call them highlights.

The hospital did not, “provide high quality health care to ensure care was provided in a safe setting.” On a specific day, May 23, 2011, the ED had allowed at least one patient to wait sixteen hours before being taken to the med-surg service or the ICU. In this period, it was found the ED was down a nurse. Nurses in the ED complained to their supervisor, but no remedy was found. The following day, a similar situation occurred, again when the ED was one nurse short. The supervisor did not fix the staffing problem. The problems continued through June 3, 2011.

Despite the days of problems, the facility’s Emergency Department continued to accept patients, and did not send seriously ill people to a hospital that could provide appropriate care.

CRMC appears to have violated its own policy of moving patients to the proper service within thirty minutes of the order having been written.

In an interview, an unnamed source said, “When we tell administration they say we are out of control and troublemakers.” The doctors, who are temporarily hired in, do not know how to use the computer system and slow the work of the nurses. When a cardiac patient codes, requiring the full attention of the staff, there is a single nurse left to watch the trauma patients, and some of the cardiac monitors don’t work.

An unnamed employee stated, “The patients have a delay in treatment because of lack of staffing.” Part of the problem is that CRMC is not hiring. There were only two part-time nursing positions open in the other parts of the hospital. If the ICU nurses or the med-surg nurses are overwhelmed, and that is causing long hold times in the ED, it appears CRMC is doing nothing to fix the problem. Another quote from the survey: “Insufficient staff causing a backup in the ED.”

Hospital management was aware of serious understaffing, and “told the ED nurses to be more creative.” It appears the ED director was fired because of attempting to fix the understaffing problem.

Now to the specific cases that ended in patient deaths.

The Department of Health Survey says, “…the facility failed to ensure that the Emergency Department services were provided to meet the emergency needs of patients in accordance with acceptable standards of practice for two of two serious events reviewed.” Keep in mind, these are not my words, these are not the reporters words, these are words I’m copying from the survey done by Pennsylvania.

Incident: June 5, 2011. A patient triaged from the Emergency Department to Intensive Care Unit, taken to CT Scan from the ED, on the way back to ED, coded and died. Evidently, the patient went to the CT Scan without a nurse, as no nurses were available. When he became unresponsive, he was brought back to the ED for resuscitation. The patient coded after being in the ED for six hours. An unnamed employee said that at the time of the incident, the ED was full and the waiting room was full. It appears that the ED was short one RN and was at less than minimal staffing.

Incident: June 11, 2011. A cardiac patient was seen by a doctor who intended he would be transferred to another facility. The patient was diagnosed with critical aortic stenosis. He arrived at CRMC at approximately 11:14a.m., and still in the ED, passed away at 6:37p.m. A man with a serious heart problem and dramatic symptoms, stayed in the ED for almost seven hours. A doctor’s note, said the patient remained “in the emergency room due to staffing issues…” No order was ever written for a transfer to an outside facility. Department of Health officials reviewed a medical record, which they report said the following: “The ED was overwhelmed. Nurse patient ratio was 9:1, 6:1, and 7:1. The triage nurse was taking patients and unable to answer call bells. IV pumps were unavailable. There were delays in getting beds and delays in patients being evaluated by MD. A code occurred and the patient died.” On the day of the incident, the ICU was full and management was aware of the situation.

After these events, the hospital did not even follow the simple duty of reporting the serious incident to the state, as required by law. An unnamed employee told the state investigators that death on the way back from the CT scanner met the facility’s own definition of a serious event, which should have been reported. No kidding. CRMC’s patient safety officer was not informed of the event. Similarly, unnamed employees, speaking about the death of the cardiac patient, said the incident was not reported to the patient safety authority. Another person said that “there were unsafe staffing in the Emergency Department that may have contributed to the death of the patient and this was not reported to the Patient Safety Authority.”

Two hindered thirty three RN shifts were not filled from June 21, 2011 through July 23, 2011. The ED had insufficient staff to cover all shifts.

From May 22 through June 8, 2011, the Emergency Department was used for inpatient care, which is not allowed. The ED was not designed, equipped, and staffed for inpatient care. This is a violation of patient-limit regulations in the Pa. Code. Beds in the ED were used as inpatient beds for up to eighteen hours. CRMC knew that these patients were considered “inpatient” as the billing confirmed it. Two hundred people were held in this manner in violation of regulations. Sadly, this was a repeat deficiency which had been raised in March of 2009.

Joe Chapman
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300

http://blog.schmidtkramer.com/ for all things injury law.

Facebook.com/SchmidtKramer

Twitter.com/TalkToALawyer

0
15
Feb

Parents of 4 children are both recovering – Lancaster Intelligencer Journal

By TOM MURSE, Staff Writer
A Reamstown-area woman who was seriously injured in an accident Saturday is the mother of four young children. Her husband suffered serious brain injuries in a summer motorcycle crash and is still unable to speak or walk.

The accidents, which took place just seven months and a couple of miles apart, have devastated the young family, but friends and relatives have rushed to their aid and are caring for the children as the couple recuperates in separate facilities.

“It’s unbelievable. We don’t know what to think anymore,” said Darla Leid, a family member. “We don’t know why this has happened.”

Rosie Leid, 30, sustained a shattered hip and fractured pelvis when an SUV collided with her minivan on Hahnstown Road in East Cocalico Township just before noon Saturday morning.

Her 7-month-old son, Elliot, suffered a fractured skull and a broken leg. Two other children in the minivan had minor bumps and bruises, and were treated at Ephrata Community Hospital and released.

Rosie Leid is recovering at Lancaster General Hospital, where she is expected to remain for a short time until being transferred to a rehabilitation facility. Her injuries, however, have left her unable to visit her husband, Eugene, who is recovering at a York rehabilitation center.

The 30-year-old general contractor, who owns a small construction business, is still recovering from a July 2 collision on Greenville Road in West Cocalico Township. A car turned into his lane of travel and struck his motorcycle head-on. Eugene Leid had to be revived by rescue crews at the scene, relatives said.

His recovery has been slow.

“He is not able to speak. He can look around and sometimes squeeze your hand,” said Darla Leid.

Eugene Leid was expected to leave the rehab center and return to the family’s home on the 300 block of East Church St., south of Reamstown, but the crash that injured his wife has changed their plans.

“She is not able to care for him, so he will continue to stay in the facility,” Darla Leid said.

The Leids, who began dating after they met at the Green Dragon market in Ephrata, celebrated their 10th wedding anniversary in September. Their four children range in ages from seven months to 8 years.

The youngest, Elliot, was born after his father’s motorcycle accident. Their other children are Haley, 4; Merle, 6; and Hannah, 8.

Rosie Leid has spent a good portion of her time on the road in recent months traveling to visit her husband.

“She was going every other day, sometimes every day,” said Darla Leid, who lives in Mohnton.

Rosie Leid was driving to a family gathering Saturday morning when she was injured in the crash. In the minivan with her were Elliot, Hannah and 6-year-old niece Cheyanne.

An emergency responder told a newspaper reporter that an SUV struck the driver’s side of Rosie Leid’s minivan in the 400 block of Hahnstown Road.

Reamstown and Denver firefighters cut the roof off the minivan to get her out. The roadway was closed for hours as the two vehicles were towed and police investigated the crash.

Elliot was expected to be released from the hospital Monday; doctors said his skull fracture and broken leg will heal on their own. For the time being, the Leid children are living with and being cared for by friends of the family.

Rosie Leid will not be able to walk for at least 12 weeks, and is in a lot of pain, Darla Leid said.

“She’s very strong. She’s really trusting God. We don’t know why this has happened,” she said. “They do want whatever comes of this to glorify God, and for his name to be lifted up.”

•••

Contributions to the Leid family are being accepted by Light of Hope Ministries, Attn: Eugene Leid family fund; P.O. Box 567, Ephrata, PA 17522. Questions can be addressed to Darla and Lester Leid at lesterleidconstruction@yahoo.com.

tmurse@lnpnews.com

Comments Off
24
May

Elliottsburg boy taken to hospital after being thrown from car in Perry County crash

By CHRIS A. COUROGEN, The Patriot-News
May 24, 2010, 7:38AM
CHRIS A. COUROGEN, Of The Patriot-NewsA 17-year-old from Elliottsburg, Perry County, suffered major injuries when he was ejected from his car in a one-vehicle accident Saturday evening on Pine Hill Road in Spring Township, Perry County, state police said.

The driver, whose name has not been released, was transported by Shermans Dale EMS ambulance to Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center following the crash, which happened around 5:40 p.m., just south of Saint Peters Church Road. No details were available on his condition.

Police said the driver was speeding when his 2004 Chevrolet Cavalier left the road , struck an embankment and rolled over twice before coming to rest on its roof. The driver was not wearing a seat belt, police said. A 17-year-old male passenger from Womelsdorf, Berks County, was wearing a seat belt and was not injured, police said.

© 2010 PennLive.com. All rights reserved.

Comments Off
6
Jul

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Allows Nurse’s Testimony on Causation When Nurse Defendant Failed to Meet Standard of Care in Medical Malpractice Case.

Below are links to the majority and the dissenting opinion of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the recent decision, Freed v. Geisinger Medical Center, ____ A.2d ____ (Pa. June 15, 2009). Justice Todd wrote the opinion for the majority and the dissent was authored by Justice Eakin.

The medical malpractice suit was based on allegations that the nursing staff at a rehabilitation hospital did not meet the standard of care in preventing and treating pressure sores Mr. Freed developed.

In a medical malpractice case, the Plaintiff, Mr. Freed, must have an expert give an opinion that the treatment fell below the standard of care and that the negligence caused the injury alleged. For an expert, Mr. Freed’s lawyer presented a registered nurse to testify at trial. Geisinger objected when the testimony was offered, and the trial court held the RN was not qualified to give a medical diagnosis. Without this testimony, Mr. Freed’s case failed because he could not prove the substandard treatment was the cause of his injury.

In the Court of Common Pleas, a motion for compulsory non-suit was granted and the Plaintiff’s case was lost. The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed. Here, the Supreme Court affirmed and held the Plaintiff’s expert may testify, and the case was remanded for trial.

Legal Reasoning

The Court began by defining “expert” as someone with more than an ordinary range of training, knowledge, intelligence, or experience, who has specialized knowledge in the subject under investigation and cited to Miller v. Brass Rail Tavern. Next, Justice Todd explained why the Supreme Court’s decision in, Flanagan v. Labe, needed to be overturned and therefore was not binding on the Freed case. Flanagan held that the Professional Nursing Law says a nurse may not make a medical diagnosis. That being the case, a nurse cannot give expert testimony in court which requires a medical diagnosis. Therefore a nurse cannot testify to causation in a medical malpractice case. Here, the Supreme Court holds that testifying as an expert considers past events or hypotheticals, and there is no implication of “the practice of nursing,” in which a patient is involved. The testimony is outside of what was considered by the statute, and it qualifies for what the court has already defined as expert.

Where the medical negligence is a breach of the standard of nursing care, and that failure caused the injury, a nurse can testify to what caused the injury.

A question remains whether the Court’s holding in Freed will be the standard applied to non-physician health care providers, or whether the increased threshold for who can be an expert created by the MCARE Act will apply. Question raised in the majority’s footnote 8.

The dissent would uphold Flanagan and reverse the Pennsylvania Superior Court here, because its opinion is in conflict with Flanagan. The opinion is based on the Professional Nursing Statute and the MCARE Act, and extends restrictions on a nurse’s ability to opine on medical diagnosis to the court room.

A medical malpractice attorney from SCHMIDT KRAMER will choose the right expert for your case, based on the current state of the law in Pennsylvania.

Majority: http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-87-2008mo.pdf

Minority: http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-87-2008do.pdf

D. Joseph Chapman, Esquire

jchapman@schmidtkramer.com

717-232-6300

Comments Off
2
Jun

Superior Court Reverses Trial Court Decision Which Allowed Non-Use of Seatbelt To Be Admitted

Attached is the link to the Superior Court decision from June 1, 2009 in Gaudio v Ford Motor Company, — A.2d — (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009). The Superior Court the grants a new trial from a defense verdict based on several erroneous trial court evidentiary rulings. The primary issue stemmed from the trial court’s denial of Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to preclude evidence that the Plaintiff was not wearing his seat belt. The trial court had admitted evidence of seatbelt non-use on the issue of causation. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed the trial judge’s ruling and held that the clear and unambiguous language of 75 Pa.C.S.A §4581 precluded the admission of non-use of seatbelts into evidence for any purpose.

Superior Court also reversed the trial court’s ruling that allowed Ford’s experts to testify that the F-150 complied with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In reversing, Superior Court reaffirmed that evidence of compliance with FMVSS standards is inadmissible in products liability actions.

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a12046_08.pdf

Scott B. Cooper

scooper@schmidtkramer.com

717-232-6300

Comments Off
4
May

District Court For Eastern District Of Pennsylvania Allows Amendment Of Medical Malpractice Complaint Finding That Language Barrier May Delay Discovery Of Medical Error

Following is the link to the recent memorandum decision of the Federal Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Ramos v. Quien, 09D0403P (E.D. Pa. April 2, 2009, Baylson, J.)

The court allowed an amendment to Mr. Ramos’ Complaint, when his medical malpractice lawsuit may have been affected by a language barrier and poor drafting of the original Complaint by his attorney. The language barrier may have slowed his discovery of the medical error, thereby tolling the statute of limitations. The court determined the Defendant doctor was not prejudiced, because his Answer to the Complaint raised a defense based on the statute of limitations.

Mr. Ramos’ lawyer filed a Complaint in November 2007. He then filed an Amended Complaint which alleged he did not become aware that he had cancer until November 2005. After Defendant’s Answer and New Matter alleged the statute had run before the action was put into suit, Plaintiff replied that the discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations until November of 2005, when he discovered he had cancer. The court found allegations in the original Complaint and the Amended Complaint to be very similar. Though there was evidence which showed Mr. Ramos may have known of his cancer before November 2005, what weight should be given the evidence was not to be determined as a matter of law. His original Complaint alleged he did not know about the cancer in January, 2006.

Where the defendant recognized a statute of limitations defense, and preserved it in their Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, there is no prejudice in allowing an amendment which clarifies an allegation which was already in the original Complaint.

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/09D0403P.pdf

D. Joseph Chapman

Attorney at Law

jchapman@schmidtkramer.com

717-232-6300

Comments Off
5
Mar

NEW U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION HOLDS STATE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LAW IS NOT PREEMPTED WHEN DRUG WARNING WAS INSUFFICIENT; A WIN FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION.

Below is a link to the opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court issued on March 4, 2009, in Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. _____ (2009). One of the products liability or medical malpractice attorneys at Schmidt Kramer PC, in Harrisburg, PA, can explain the application of the decision to your case.

Wyeth is a company that manufactures a drug called Phenergan. The drug is corrosive and causes irreversible gangrene if it enters a patient’s arteries. On April 7, 2000, the drug was introduced into Diane Levine’s body through the IV-push injection method. This is where the drug is injected directly into her vein, rather than being dripped in through a saline solution. During the injection, the drug somehow encountered an artery, causing gangrene and eventual amputation of her right forearm. This ended her career as a professional musician.

After settling her medical malpractice case, Ms. Levine’s product liability case against the manufacturer went to a jury in Vermont. She won, and was awarded compensation for medical bills, loss of income and future earning capacity, and pain and suffering in excess of six million dollars.

The case was appealed through Vermont’s high court, and was before the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the following issue: When the manufacturer’s label failed to provide adequate warning of the risks of using a particular method of introducing the drug into the body, should the judgment be overturned because the label was approved by the Food and Drug Administration, preempting a jury award based on state tort law? The court considered this narrow question, because the record in the lower courts was conclusive that had a stronger warning been present, the drug would not have been administered as it was, and that the warning for IV-Push administration was insufficient. The Supreme Court viewed these facts with the understanding that Congressional purpose determines preemption and federal law will only preempt the traditional police powers retained by the state when its purpose was clear and manifest.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided, the FDA’s approval of the label is not a complete defense to a state law tort claim. Wyeth was found to be able to comply with both duties imposed on it by the state tort law jury verdict and the federal labeling approvals. The court also found that subjecting Wyeth to a state tort law duty would not obstruct the purposes and objectives of federal drug labeling regulations. Ms. Levine’s claim was not preempted by federal law. The judgment from the jury in Vermont was allowed to stand.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/06-1249.pdf

Joe Chapman

Attorney at Law

Comments Off
27
Feb

NEW PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT DECISION HOLDS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE PRESENTS QUESTION FOR JURY ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

Below is a link to the opinion from Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court decided on February 19, 2009, in Wilson v. El-Daief, ____ A.2d ____ (Pa. 2009). Please contact the medical malpractice attorneys at Schmidt Kramer PC, in Harrisburg, PA, for an explanation. A lawyer will explain the application of the decision to your case.

Mary Elizabeth Wilson had an operation on her wrist. After the operation, her hand clinched into a fist, her elbow turned inward, and her shoulder drew upward. For these problems, she continued to see the physician who performed the operation. For more than one year, he told Ms. Wilson, she would be fine. She was referred to an orthopedic surgeon who, for more than a year, was unable to tell what was wrong or how it had happened. Finally, after bouncing back and forth between the two doctors Ms. Wilson said she knew something was wrong and that she had not been treated appropriately by her surgeon. She said this in September 2001.

The question before the court was only whether Ms. Wilson’s claim was barred by time limitations. She had two years from when her claim accrued to file a lawsuit. Ms. Wilson’s Writ of Summons and subsequent Complaint, alleging the doctor who performed her surgery had lacerated the radial nerve in her wrist, were not filed within two years of the surgery, nor within two years of the date she stated she knew something was wrong. Without more, her claim would not have been allowed to proceed. But here, whether the claim was time-barred, hinged on the court’s application of the discovery rule.

The court ruled there was potential for Ms. Wilson to be confused about whether she was injured and its cause, because her surgeon told her she would be fine, and the orthopedic surgeon did not explain all the possible diagnoses he was considering. The court stated that a person with a high school education, cannot be held to a higher standard of knowledge than two medical doctors – if the physicians were unable or unwilling to tell her what was wrong, then she may not have known. Her efforts to find out what was wrong were considered to present a genuine issue of material fact, when she continued to meet with her surgeon and the orthopedic surgeon, as well as seeking out the opinion of a third doctor. A definitive medical diagnosis was not needed to begin the running of the statute of limitations, but a mere loss of confidence in her doctor was not sufficient to begin the running of the time in which she had to file her lawsuit.

The posture of the case was on appeal from a grant of summary judgment to the defendant-doctor based on the claim being time-barred by the statute of limitations. The Pa. Supreme Court reversed, but did not state as a matter of law that the discovery rule allowed the claim to proceed. Against strong protests of the concurring/dissenting justices, the Supreme Court said a jury needed to decide whether Ms. Wilson had used reasonable diligence in discovering her injury and its cause.

http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-148-2008mo.pdf

Joe Chapman

Attorney at Law