Honolulu Personal Injury Lawyer

Is A Social Networking Website Like MySpace Responsible For a Rape That Occurs Between Users? A California Court Says "No"!

Wayne Parsons — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:57:29 GMT

The San Francisco Chronicle (7/2, B3, Egelko) reports, "Girls who were sexually assaulted by men they first contacted on MySpace cannot seek damages from the social-networking Web site, which is protected from liability by federal law, a state appeals court has ruled. The decision by the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles rejected claims by the parents of four girls who were 13 to 15 years old when they posted their profiles on MySpace." The parents "argued that the girls could have been protected if MySpace had used age-verification software or had taken other steps to shield their accounts from sexual predators. But the court said Tuesday that the 1996 federal Communications Decency Act prohibits suits against any interactive computer site that merely posts messages written by others."

Section 230 of The 1996 federal Communications Decency Act provides:

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by this provision, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:

The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."

The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must "treat" the defendant "as the publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.

The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.

Is this right? Do you agree or do you think that the social media companies share responsibility for bringing evil and vulnerable together? If it was club in your town that brought young women into contact with potential rapists would you say that is okay? My example looks a lot like many singles bars that are perfectly acceptable in our society.

One final note. The purpose of the Act is listed at the beginning:

To promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.

It seems that the purpose was to make more money for the social technology companies. This ruling will help accomplish that goal.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Does Obama Want A Public Plan for Health Care Reform? Or an Insurance Plan? At a Town Hall Event, He Says That Malpractice Caps Are Bad.

Wayne Parsons — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:30:06 GMT

President Obama's town hall meeting on healthcare reform generated extensive media coverage. USA Today (7/2, Page) reports that the event "lacked the energetic free-for-all quality of the town hall sessions Obama held during the campaign. The questions posed from social media networks were selected by White House staffers, and the three people he called on from the audience all were affiliated with advocacy groups that support Obama."

The Politico (7/1, Brown) reported, "The White House chose a YouTube video from Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), a physician and a critic of the president's plan who said limits on medical malpractice awards would bring down health care costs – a position the president doesn't hold. Strangely, however, Burgess didn't identify himself as a sitting member of Congress."

The AP (7/1) reported, "President Barack Obama is standing by his opposition to caps on jury awards to people who successfully sue for medical malpractice. But Obama also told a town hall meeting on health policy that he is sensitive to the complaints of doctors and other health care professionals that the threat of lawsuits is harming the profession and driving up costs. The president said Wednesday that the specter of lawsuits has forced many in the medical community to practice 'defensive medicine,' saying doctors often order up excessive tests just to cover themselves."

Of course the facts dispute the connection between health care costs and lawsuits against negligent doctors who injure patients.

Tort Reform Myth: The Legal System Causes High Malpractice Insurance Premiums

The truth is that what needs reforming is the insurance industry and HMO's. The public wants insurance companies out of their doctors offices. As long as the greedy tentacles of America's lowest esteemed industry _ Insurance _ are in the health care system, the patients (who are also voters) and their doctors (who are also voters) are going to get screwed. My only question is why in the world President Obama who campaigned against insurance company abuses, is now compromising to satisfy them? And why is Congress wavering on a public plan?

Business as usual is the reason. They all think that we voted and then went brain dead. They think we aren't smart enough to figure it out. They think that we will buy whatever false advertising they put out about health care. They underestimate us. Will you add your voice to this mess?

The Washington Post (7/2, Shear, Vargas), the Los Angeles Times (7/2, Levey), the New York Times (7/2, A12, Zeleny) and the Washington Times (7/2, Ward) also cover the story.

McCain calls for caps. The Arizona Republic (7/2, Alltucker, Kelly) reports, "As President Barack Obama pressed his case for an overhaul of the nation's health-care system, Sen. John McCain on Wednesday urged caution and warned that the plan would lead to a single-payer health-care system with rationed and lower-quality care." McCain "called for curbs to medical-malpractice awards, citing Texas and California as examples where such reforms helped contain costs. He estimated that 10 percent to 20 percent of medical bills are padded due to extra tests ordered by doctors practicing 'defensive medicine' because they fear being sued for malpractice."

What are these people talking about? They write these articles without ever opening up a book or investigating the facts. Take a look at what Public Citizen says:

The Great Medical Malpractice Hoax: NPDB Data Continue to Show Medical Liability System Produces Rational Outcomes

The Washington Times is nothing more than a political action committee for the insurance industry. They don't care about the fact that there is a huge crisis of doctors causing serious injury and death to their patients (I must always note this is only a "few" doctors and that most doctors are not hurting their patients). They just want to protect the bank accounts of the insurance executives like those at AIG who partied with $900 hotel rooms on bailout money. Here is what the Washington Times says:

Obama must fix liability system. The Washington Times (7/1) editorialized, "President Obama can't fix health care without taking on trial lawyers." Obama "won't address one major cause of the high costs of medical care: There are too many lawsuits, and they are too lucrative." If Obama "is serious about making health care less expensive, he will have to fix the liability system. That means taking on his own kind - the lawyers. That's not a very likely remedy."

If you wonder why newspapers are failing look no farther than these quotes. The newspaper industry used to be part of a profession called "journalism"> We laughed at the Soviet Union where Pravda was a political arm of the communist party. Well we now have that system in our conventional media. Fox is the arm of the neo-conservatives, Karl Rove and Grover Norquist and puts out political dogma just like Pravda. Newspapers have become more and more the play things of their elite owners. The media in this country sold out when 9-11 happened. There is no coming back.

Markos Moulitsas Zúñiga changed the way we get information in the aftermath of the tragedy of the Twin Towers. The Daily Kos was born. Its called the Groundswell and it is about people and it is about communication and it is about accountability.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Jim Dean and Democracy For America Identify Democrats in Congress Who are Cutting Deals With The Insurance Industry

Wayne Parsons — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:28:17 GMT

Meaningful Health Care Reform is being sabotaged by democrats who have close ties to the insurance industry. I have written about this before as have others and I encourage all Americans to look closely at what is happening in Congress and to speak up. Here is what the public wants:

72% support a government-administered public plan, according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll. The Employee Benefits Research Institute – a group funded by the likes of JPMorganChase, Wal-Mart, General Dynamics, Morgan Stanley, Blue Cross Blue Shield, CIGNA, and United Health – found 83% in support of the public plan option.

I am a fan of Jim Dean at Democracy for America and his recent email to those of us who support the Public Plan as opposed to the Insurance Plan really focused me on who is doing what in Congress. I am copying his message here so my readers can get the message. Today he focuses on Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Please get behind those who want President Obama and Congress to deliver a true Public Plan for health care reform, not a plan that leaves the insurance industry and its bonus happy CEO's at AIG and other huge corporations in charge of your health and with a stranglehold on doctors. Here is the message from Jim Dean at Democracy For America:

Yesterday, we asked you to help us escalate our campaign against roadblock Democrats like Senator Mary Landrieu in Louisiana and DFA members nationwide delivered.

We heard your message loud and clear: You want to turn up the heat on Insurance Industry Democrats who are trying to kill real reform.

WATCH THE AD AND FUND OUR CAMPAIGN AGAINST ROADBLOCK DEMOCRATS

From the Washington Post to the White House press pool, everyone is talking about this campaign and our hard hitting new ad. In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Landrieu spokesman Aaron Saunders refused to respond to the ads then reiterated whose side Sen. Landrieu is really on:

"She is currently reviewing all of the reform proposals, but does not believe that health care reform starts with a public option. Senator Landrieu supports a predominantly private system..."

In the New Orleans' leading paper, The Times-Picayune, President Obama had this to say in response to a question about our joint campaign with MoveOn-org and ChangeCongress-org:

"I can't answer for all the ads that are being run on both sides of the debate... some of the resistance here is the result of many years of panic-peddling when it comes to health care and gets caught up in old ideological debate..." But, Obama said, "If we know that the status quo is not working for the people of Louisiana, then the way to persuade the Louisiana delegation to support it is coming up with a plan that is going to be good for the people of Louisiana, and then my hope is that (the Louisiana delegation) is responsive to the needs of the people."

The President went on to make a strong case for a public healthcare option that is supported by 76% of America. It's up to us to make sure Insurance Industry Democrats feel the heat if they stand against the President and work to kill real reform.

CONTRIBUTE $50 RIGHT NOW TO TURN UP THE HEAT

Working together, we will guarantee healthcare for all. Thank you for everything you do.

-Jim

Jim Dean, Chair
Democracy for America

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Can Acetaminophen Kill? FDA panel recommends smaller acetaminophen doses, painkiller bans.

Wayne Parsons — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:52:00 GMT

The CBS Evening News (4/30, lead story, 3:05, Couric) reported, "An FDA panel recommended today that prescription Vicodin [hydrocodone bitartrate and acetaminophen] and Percocet [oxycodone and acetaminophen] be banned, and that over-the-counter Tylenol, Excedrin, Nyquil, and Theraflu contain stronger warning labels...The problem, according to FDA advisors, is that they all contain acetaminophen, which can cause liver damage."

The FDA "panel noted that patients who take Percocet and Vicodin for long periods often need higher and higher doses to achieve the same effect," the New York Times (7/30, A1, Harris) reports in a front-page story. "The two drugs combine a narcotic with acetaminophen," and the panel's vote to "recommend a ban on the combination drugs was one of 11 it took" at the meeting. The experts also recommended "that the FDA reduce the highest allowed dose of acetaminophen in over-the-counter pills...to 325 milligrams, from 500," and "to reduce the maximum daily dosage to less than 4,000 milligrams."

The Wall Street Journal (7/1, Favole) notes that the panel "of 37 doctors, pharmacists, and researchers voted on the recommendations Tuesday after spending two days discussing steps the FDA should take to reduce the number of acetaminophen overdoses. Gerald Dal Pan, director of the FDA's office of drug surveillance, said, "Whatever we do on any of these options, it will really affect the whole healthcare system." The agency also noted that the recommendation to pull "from the market a number of prescription products "may" affect 240 pending drug applications. But some on the panel opposed a sweeping withdraw of prescription acetaminophen combination drugs "that are widely used to control severe, chronic pain."

The AP (7/1, Perrone) reports. The panel decided that "if the drugs stay on the market, they should carry a black box warning, the most serious safety label available." Notably, "drug companies avoided the most damaging potential outcome with the defeat of [a] proposal to pull NyQuil and other over-the-counter cold and cough medicines that combine acetaminophen with other drugs."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Bone Meal is Bad Stuff in Dog Food! Fluoride above healthy levels is found in n 8 national brands.

Wayne Parsons — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:34:59 GMT

God bless the Environmental Working Group (EWG). EWG Worldwide Headquarters announces that the pet food testing that voters contributed to resulted in a significant report: share the report.

EWG found fluoride above healthy levels in 8 national brands of dog food marketed for both puppies and adults. The amount of fluoride in the dog food was up to 2.5 times higher than what the EPA has deemed a safe amount in drinking water.

Why is excessive fluoride a problem?
Combined fluoride exposure from both food and water can easily range into unsafe territory. Routine exposure, like eating the same food every day, can predispose dogs to a variety of health problems: weakened bones, hormonal and behavior problems, and even bone cancer.

Where is the fluoride coming from?
Some of this extra fluoride comes from the fluoridated water used to manufacture dog food. Most, however, is from the "bone meal" and various meat byproducts that are added to dog food - anything from "chicken byproduct meal" to "beef and bone meal." These are basically ground bones, cooked with steam, dried, and mashed to make a cheap dog food filler. Since bones store fluoride, any product that includes bone meal is likely to be high in fluoride, too.

Click here to read the full report.

For your Fido look for and demand pet foods that do not include bone meal.

Thank you again for your very generous support of this one-of-a-kind testing. Through your suggestions of which brands to test and your financial support, you made it happen. EWG truly couldn't have done it without you, and us dogs are the better for it.

Wags,

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Health Care Reform? Nothing Short of the Public Plan Will Do For the Public

Wayne Parsons — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:00:06 GMT

I support the Public Plan for Health Care Reform and I am not backing down and I am not shutting up. I am in good company because between 72% and 83% of the public want a Public Plan for Health Care Reform. Is Congress listening? Does President Obama understand what is stake here? I am not sure they do. I smell cigar smoke and inurnace industry lobyyists in suits lighting them with $100 bills.

Why would I write about health care on a Blog that comes under the banner - Injury Board? Aren't we all here at Injury Board to promote our law firms and to get cases? Isn't this a lawyer marketing activity?

Well the answer is "no" and "yes". Tom Young and Nick Carroll created Injury Board to allow lawyers to "do well by doing good". And attorneys like myself, Steve Lombardi, Mike Bryant, David Mittleman, Greg Cusimano and Michael Ferrara are active in the Blogosphere as members of our communities, part of the public voice, small business people and attorneys who care about justice. How does health care reform fit into this picture? I will not get a case because of this Blog post but the subject matters to me and to the people in the State of Hawaii and in my hometown, Honolulu. So here goes.

In his article entitled No Compromise on the Public Plan!: Why Weakening the Public Option Would Weaken the Party Responsible - Phillip Cryan explains why the alternatives to a public plan are bad news for the people who need health care reform - the public.

Phillip Cryan

Why are all the alternatives to a robust public plan now being floated in the health care reform debate – cooperatives, state or regional plans, a “trigger” for the public plan, a public plan prohibited from bargaining with drug companies – such profoundly bad ideas?

For one simple reason: they would fail to rein in health care costs’ out-of-control growth rate.

And the effects of such a failure would very likely include not just unsustainable public budgets and the eventual collapse of universal health coverage but political calamity for the party that made the reform.

After hope was raised to an all-time high in the public heart on the day of President Obama's inauguration, conservative democrats (Republicats) have represented the interests of Big Pharma, Big Insurance and Big Doctors to sell out the idea of health care reform and replace it with a sham that is called Health Care Reform but in fact is little more than business as usual with the fat cats and CFO's and insiders in major corporations and rich doctors getting their way with money and politics.

What do the conservative Democrats want? They want health care reform that keeps the insurance companies in control of your life:

Any concessions made to those Democrats – and to the handful of Republicans still playing nice, just as long as health reform doesn’t bother the insurance industry – on the public plan will prove extraordinarily costly down the road. The cost would be measured first in dollars – as suggested in my previous posts in this series (here, here, and here) – and later in votes.

The other articles he cites are a great explanation of the "sting" that the insiders are trying to lay on the public.

Carey's scholarly articles point to the crux of the the need for a Public Plan, not an Insurance Plan:

If we do not significantly reduce the current rate of health care cost growth, we are in deep trouble as a country. President Obama has been both eloquent and insistent on this point since the debate over health care reform began. “The long-term fiscal balance of the United States will be determined primarily by the future rate of growth of health care costs,” in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director Peter Orszag’s neat summation.

The rate of health care cost growth stops looking so strange and unexpected as soon as you take a serious look at the extent of consolidation and the lack of competition in most of the country’s health insurance and health care provider markets. Given the extent of concentration in those markets, extreme rates of health care cost growth – with nothing to be shown for them, in terms of better outcomes for health care consumers – become expected, normal. In short: why would anyone expect oligopolist insurers and oligopolist providers to restrain prices, without effective pressure from the purchasers of insurance.

In America we know that competition is the key to a fair business climate. In Hawaii we had only one inter-island airline for a while. No competition meant price gouging and we had no choice but to pay. The insurance industry is not subject to anti-trust laws and those are laws that focus on maintaining adequate competition in American business.

Carey cites real studies that show that "most health insurance and health care provider markets are deeply uncompetitive." And "no", regulating the health insurance industry will not work.

Full-fledged competition – i.e., the kind most people have in mind when they hear the word “competition,” the almost magical efficiency-generating kind economists rhapsodize about – in health insurance markets simply is not possible.

Why? Carey explains:

There are significant economies of scale in the provision of insurance, including the simple fact that risk pooling works best when the pools are large;

The costs of entry into a health insurance market are very high;

It is hard to imagine what a viable, desirable substitute product for health insurance could be, to introduce competition from outside; and

“Health care markets remain and will likely forever be local,” making a significant degree of concentration in all small- to medium-sized local insurance markets inevitable.

Not only is the health care insurance industry not competitive bu there is an extreme concentration among health care providers.

Insurance companies stand between the public and the small businesses that buy their health insurance and the medical profession. The public gets crushed in that three party transaction. The public has no bargaining power and in fact isn't even at the bargaining table when it comes to health care. We stand in line at the pharmacy at our local drug store and in the crowded waiting rooms at our doctors' offices. We show our insurance cards and we pay with our credit cards. Each year they dictate to us what we get and what we don't get. Our heads spin with co-payments, deductibles, premiums and rules that are created by the CFO's of the health insurance company or the HMO, not by someone with a medical degree who obeys the Hippocratic Oath. Why would the insurers ever do anything other than strike deals with the providers (which raise prices for us health care consumers), given the lack of competition in both provider and insurance markets?

The solution? Give consumers some bargaining power. Am I crazy or is that what America and Conservative politics is supposed to be all about?!

How is that done? A Public Plan for Health Care Reform. Nothing less than a Public Plan. Watch out for the spin doctors and the politicians. If the word "insurance" is a part of a plan that floats by your door, put it immediately in the wastebasket. Tell Congress that you are smarter than they think. Tell them that you are watching them and that you are tired of insurance company suits sitting in their offices and feeding their campaign bank accounts.

I am not afraid of a government run plan. I live in a democracy where government can be good. I like government a lot more than I like _ or trust _ AIG, General Motors, Wall Street, Enron, Madoff and their ilk. Carey also gives facts that support a government run plan:

“The administrative efficiencies of government-run health insurance plans” – their dramatically lower overhead, compared to private insurers – and “the purchasing power of government to control costs” would be combined, in such a public plan, to introduce a degree of competition on price that is currently absent from oligopolistic insurer and provider markets. Regional or state-based public plans, cooperatives, and all the other compromise options on the table simply would not have the level of bargaining power required to eliminate waste and restrain cost growth. Without a robust public plan to compete with private insurers “we will continue to lack strong institutional mechanisms to rein in costs and drive value down the road, putting the broader goals of reform and our nation's public and private budgets at risk.” “The power of a large purchaser motivated to contain costs is needed to control rising health care expenditures,” note the Urban Institute’s John Holahan and Linda Blumberg.

What does the public want?

72% support a government-administered public plan, according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll. The Employee Benefits Research Institute – a group funded by the likes of JPMorganChase, Wal-Mart, General Dynamics, Morgan Stanley, Blue Cross Blue Shield, CIGNA, and United Health – found 83% in support of the public plan option.

The insurance industry is spending millions to scare us into thinking this is communism and that it won't work. Of course they are because they want to keep those billions of dollars of bonuses for ripping off the public. As long as they are in the chicken coop you can bet that the public will continue to be losers in health care.

Phillip Cryan received his Masters degree in Public Policy from the University of California, Berkeley’s Goldman School in May 2009. His report on the expected effects on employment from adoption of a “play-or-pay” employer contribution policy for health care was published by the Institute for America’s Future and the Economic Policy Institute in June.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Billy May and TBI: Another Closed Head Injury Death?

Wayne Parsons — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:48:36 GMT

Doctors are looking at a traumatic brain injury (TBI) as the possible cause of the tragic death of TV actor Billy May as Mike Bryant of Minnesota has reported recently in:

Doctors Will Be Looking At Potential Head Injury With Billy May's Death.

Everyone should be on alert that a blow to the head can start a small bleeding process in the brain that is unknown to the person whose head was hit - and can lead to death. Often the person is either unconscious for a period of time, or dazed. After a few moments the person goes through what doctors call a lucid interval where they seem OK.

This article is about the medical sign. For the Cephalic Carnage album, see Lucid Interval.
In emergency medicine, a lucid interval is a temporary improvement in a patient's condition after a traumatic brain injury, after which the condition deteriorates. A lucid interval is especially indicative of an epidural hematoma. An estimated 20 to 50% of patients with epidural hematoma experience such a lucid interval.^[1]^[2] The lucid interval occurs after the patient is knocked out by the initial concussive force of the trauma, then lapses into unconsciousness again after recovery when bleeding causes the hematoma to expand past the point at which the body can no longer compensate.^[3] After the injury, the patient is momentarily dazed or knocked out, and then becomes relatively lucid for a period of time which can last minutes or hours.^[3] Thereafter there is rapid decline as the blood collects within the skull, causing a rise in intracranial pressure, which damages brain tissue. In addition, some patients may develop "pseudoaneurysms" after trauma which can eventually burst and bleed, a factor which might account for the delay in loss of consciousness.^[4]

Because a patient may have a lucid interval, any head trauma is regarded as a medical emergency and receives emergency medical treatment even if the patient is conscious.

Delayed cerebral edema, a very serious and potentially fatal condition in which the brain swells dramatically, may follow a lucid interval that occurs after a minor head trauma.^[5]

Lucid intervals may also occur in conditions other than traumatic brain injury, such as heat stroke^[6] and the postictal phase after a seizure in epileptic patients.^[7]

The skull is solid and the brain is soft. Increasing the pressure with an internal bleeding process is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

I handled a TBI case years ago that I will never forget. A man hit is head when he fell off a ladder in his yard while trimming a tree. His wife was with him and got to him immediately. His eyes were open but when she asked if he was hurt he did not respond. He never was "unconscious" as we usually think of it. That was at 9 o'clock in the morning. By 5 PM he was dead. He went to his family doctor who asked him some questions that he answered correctly. The doctor did not order a CT Scan.

The 20th century has seen critical developments in diagnosis and treatment which have decreased death rates and improved outcome. These include imaging techniques such as computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Depending on the injury, treatment required may be minimal or may include interventions such as medications and emergency surgery. Physical therapy, speech therapy, and occupational therapy may be employed for rehabilitation.

During the afternoon the man slept at home and his headache worsened. He was unresponsive at 5 PM at home. Tragic. A CT scan might have shown the insidious bleed and treatment would have been available.

These head injuries are a leading cause of death in the United States from trauma:

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death and disability among persons in the United States. Each year, an estimated 1.5 million Americans sustain a TBI. As a result of these injuries, 50,000 people die, 230,000 people are hospitalized and survive, and an estimated 80,000-90,000 people experience the onset of long-term disability. Rates of TBI-related hospitalization have declined nearly 50% since 1980, a phenomenon that may be attributed, in part, to successes in injury prevention and also to changes in hospital admission practices that shift the care of persons with less severe TBI from inpatient to outpatient settings. The magnitude of TBI in the United States requires public health measures to prevent these injuries and to improve their consequences. State surveillance systems can provide reliable data on injury causes and risk factors, identify trends in TBI incidence, enable the development of cause-specific prevention strategies focused on populations at greatest risk, and monitor the effectiveness of such programs. State follow-up registries, built on surveillance systems, can provide more information regarding the frequency and nature of disabilities associated with TBI. This information can help states and communities to design, implement, and evaluate cost-effective programs for people living with TBI and for their families, addressing acute care, rehabilitation, and vocational, school, and community support.

Billy May was far too young to die. The first lesson is to get to a doctor or hospital immediately. The second is to look for the subtle signs and symptoms of an internal bleed in the head.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

GM agrees to take responsibility for future liability claims.

Wayne Parsons — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:57:10 GMT

The AP (6/28, Fowler) reported General Motors "has agreed to take on responsibility for future product liability claims, removing what could have been a sizable roadblock" on the company's way to a "quick sale of its assets" and emergence from bankruptcy. GM "wants to sell the bulk of its assets to a new company and leave behind unprofitable assets and other liabilities such as product-related lawsuits." But in a "concession to consumer groups and state officials who had threatened to block the sale because of product liability concerns, the new company will now assume responsibility for future claims involving vehicles made by the old company."

The Wall Street Journal (6/29, A4, Spector) reports that the agreement "represents a partial victory for more than a dozen state attorneys general and several consumer-advocacy groups."

The Washington Post (6/29, Tse, Marr) reports, "Those with past claims would have to pursue the GM left behind in bankruptcy with nothing but unwanted assets, debts and other liabilities. That means these consumers are likely to recover little, if anything." On Friday "Rep. André Carson (D-Ind.) introduced legislation that would require automakers to purchase liability insurance if they are owned by the federal government or have federal loans. This insurance must protect against past and future claims, even after a bankruptcy filing." Bloomberg News (6/28, Lui) also covered the story.

The New York Times (6/28, A20, De La Merced) reported GM and the Obama Administration's auto task force "have been negotiating with more than a dozen state attorneys general who have objected" to GM's asset sales plan.

The Washington Post (6/27, Dennis, Tse, Marr) reported earlier on the talks leading to the agreement.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Illinois man Killed in Big Rig Accident On Kauai

Wayne Parsons — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:04:48 GMT

Wesley VanValkenburg was a new father visiting Kauai to pay respects to his in-laws when he became the victim of a freak accident that led to a truck collision. On a warm Saturday morning a woman lost control of her motorcycle, veered into the path of a truck that struck the rental car carrying VanValkenburg and his family. The family and the motorcycle driver survived but Mr. VanValkenburg tragically died. The Jun VanValkenburg and their one year old son grant survived the crash that occurred near the Waialua Golf Course.

I don't know how to prevent these tragedies but the losses are so huge that they are hard to comprehend. The family has lost their shining star and his wife and son will have to go on without a man who stood out as a leader and protector:

Thornburg says her brother never took life for granted. Back in 2004 in Chicago, a last-minute shift change opened his eyes after two fire trucks collided killing one of the paramedics.

"Wes was supposed to be sitting in that passenger seat, where the guy died in the fire truck and he had switched out a shift. All he did after that was go to the family and helped the family that was lost instead of himself," said Thornburg.

His family says he was a small-town boy who made a big impact on everyone he came across and knowing he's now in a better place is helping them heal.

"Huge loss, he's a person who touched more lives than any of the other of us combined," said Thornburg.

Back home in Machias, Illinois the suffering is felt throughout the community.

All of Hawaii sends deep and sincere condolences for this tragic loss.

The story brings to the fore front or my mind, once again, the question of motorcycle safety. Hawaii has seen an epidemic of motorcycle injury and death this year. The roads are becoming more crowded with motorcycles and more are being sold. Do the drivers have proper training? I am very interested in that issue as are motorcycle experts and state and county authorities. My other articles point to training as a key part of the problem. Why did the lady veer into the path of the truck? How fast was she going? How fast was the truck going. Cell phones? I hope not. The following articles highlight the problems that motorcycles are causing and what happens after an injury or death:

Hawaii Motorcycle Chronicles: Another Death On Friday

Recovering Damages in a Motorcycle Accident

The facts of the conduct of the motorcycle driver and the Big Rig truck driver will be coming out as the investigation continues. In Mr. VanValekenburg's memory I hope that we as a community can learn from this tragedy and implement better driving habits. Please keep an eye out for motorcycles and please motorcycle drivers on Kauai and all Islands, take safe driving courses. The motorcycle can be unstable and must be carefully operated. Finally, for the truckers on the roadways in Hawaii, please go slow and be careful!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Treasury negotiating on GM's product liability.

Wayne Parsons — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:26:01 GMT

The Wall Street Journal (6/26, B1, Spector, McCracken) reports on the front page of its Marketplace section, "The U.S. Treasury Department is negotiating with more than a dozen state attorneys general to roll back two key features of General Motors Corp.'s bankruptcy plan that would have wiped out billions of dollars in potential claims from car-accident victims and closed auto dealers." Under the current reorganization plan, "hundreds of car-accident victims have lawsuits against GM in various stages of the legal process that would be effectively washed away." In opposing GM's product-liability plan, "state attorneys general are raising a number of complex legal issues, ranging from the power of federal bankruptcy courts to supercede state law to constitutional due-process rights of Americans to sue GM if they're injured by the auto maker's vehicles in the months and years ahead."

In an informative analysis of the impact of this bailout on people injured in defective automobiles Cecelia Prewett of the American Association of Justice (AAJ) sheds light on this judicial and Congressional problem:

Protecting Consumers in Wake of Chrysler / GM Bankruptcy

GM wins financing, "tort czar" denied. The Detroit Free Press (6/25, Hyde) reported, "General Motors won approval Thursday to use up to $33.3 billion to pay for its bankruptcy, after making a few changes to settle technical objections." US Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Gerber also "denied a request from an unofficial committee of people with asbestos-related claims against GM to appoint a 'tort czar' that would oversee all future claims against the old GM, not just those related to asbestos."

The Detroit News (6/26, Gardiner) reports that consumer victims and asbestos claimants "withdrew petitions for their own independent bargaining committees on Thursday."

Comcast pulls liability ads. The Washington Post (6/26, Marr, Tse) reports, "Comcast pulled a cable television advertisement criticizing General Motors' bankruptcy plan earlier this week after the automaker challenged the spot's claims. The ad was paid for by a group of people injured in GM and Chrysler vehicles, who say the taxpayer-funded restructurings should not allow the automakers to escape liability claims for injuries or deaths that occurred before the bankruptcy filings."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons