Archive for July, 2010

Aviation Accident Litigation: Third Circuit Rules on Preemption Issue

Friday, July 30th, 2010

aviation prremption 300x174 Aviation Accident Litigation: Third Circuit Rules on Preemption IssueThe recent aviation accident which killed multiple members of a Chicago-area family has drawn attention to the very real dangers of air travel.  But when accidents occur in commercial aviation, who has jurisdiction to hold those responsible accountable?  As our top-rated Chicago personal injury lawyers explain, that question is actually more complicated than you might think.

The federal government has passed a number of laws, together with related regulations, which usurp the traditional role of the states in deciding questions of tort liability.  Our Chicago accident attorneys generally disfavor the federal government’s interference in what should be simple questions of negligence, to be addressed in state courts.  In the aviation context, issues of federal “preemption” include application of the Federal Aviation Act and the related Air Carrier Access Act.

The FAA and the ACAA are given broad preemptive effect, known in legal circles as “field preemption,” or the preemption of an entire area of the law.  Even the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has previously held that the FAA preempts “the entire field of aviation safety.”

This month, the Third Circuit looked at FAA preemption and its applicability to personal injury accidents on airplanes that occur when an airplane is on the ground and stationary.  In Elassaad v. Independence Air Inc., the Third Circuit considered an accident that occurred as a passenger, Elassaad, disembarked from a commercial flight from Boston to Philadelphia.  The stairs provided for the passengers to descend had a railing on only one side.  Elasaad, who had one leg partially amputated and uses crutches to walk, fell off the unguarded side and hit the pavement with his shoulder, suffering severe injury that required surgery.

The airline argued that the FAA, the ACAA, and other related federal legislation and regulation only require an airline to provide assistance to passengers if the passenger requests it.  Elassaad, however, argued that the federal laws were inapplicable and that he should be permitted to sue under Pennsylvania’s state negligence law, which contains no such limitation.

The Third Circuit agreed.  It held that the federal laws were intended to apply only to in-air navigation and aircraft operations, and were inapplicable to conduct while the airplane is stationary and on the ground, such as loading and unloading of passengers.

The Third Circuit’s opinion does not decide the merits of Elassaad’s lawsuit against the airline.  Instead, it simply holds that the District Court should not have granted summary judgment on his state-law negligence claim as preempted by federal law.  This result makes perfect sense:  there is no evidence that when passing the FAA and the ACAA, Congress intended to remove all questions of negligence at all connected to air travel from the province of the states.  In essence, this simply means that Mr. Elassaad may now have his day in court.  The Chicago personal injury attorneys of Passen Law Group wish him the best of luck.

For a free consultation with an experienced Illinois injury lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

share save 171 16 Aviation Accident Litigation: Third Circuit Rules on Preemption Issue

Oil Spill Reveals the Dangers of “Tort Reform”

Tuesday, July 27th, 2010

As oil from the BP spill has savaged the Gulf of Mexico, ravaging entire industries and economies and destroying countless lives, the anger and outrage of the American public has never been greater. Our Chicago personal injury attorneys share this anger and outrage, and join in the general outcry – BP and its fellows must be made to pay for these destroyed lives and livelihoods, as well as whatever cleanup can be done to salvage the greatest environmental catastrophe of our time. Could there be any counterargument?

Unfortunately, there can. What many Americans do not realize is that a little-known tort reform provision may prevent the victims of the BP disaster from ever receiving full compensation for their losses. In 1990, Congress passed the ironically-named “Oil Pollution Act.” The Federal Environmental Protection Agency’s official summary of the legislation describes it as follows:

“The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990 streamlined and strengthened EPA’s ability to prevent and respond to catastrophic oil spills. A trust fund financed by a tax on oil is available to clean up spills when the responsible party is incapable or unwilling to do so . . . . The OPA also requires the development of Area Contingency Plans to prepare and plan for oil spill response on a regional scale.”

This is all well and good. A less-often-mentioned provision of the OPA, however, is the problem today. The Act also contains a $75 million cap on liability for offshore oil drillers. This unthinkable abrogation of the ordinary rules of liability was a gift to the oil industry given to sweeten the regulatory burdens and new tax burden imposed by the OPA. Our Chicago wrongful death lawyers are disappointed, but not surprised, to learn that this corporate gem was buried in an otherwise reasonable piece of legislation.

In the wake of the BP spill, Congress is working frantically to undo this travesty. There is even talk of removing the cap retroactively, so that it does not apply to the present disaster. The legality of such action is, of course, questionable. Even if such action were ultimately upheld, it is inevitable that the question of whether the cap is applicable would keep relief and recovery for the victims of the BP disaster tied up in the courts for the foreseeable future.

Our Chicago personal injury lawyers hope that the profound unfairness of the OPA damages cap will inspire the American public to think more practically about the real-world consequences of so-called “tort reform.” The aim of tort reform is, after all, like the OPA cap, to place artificial limits on the amount of liability a negligent party can face for his, her, or its own actions. What many Americans seem to forget is that this also means that victims who have suffered beyond these arbitrary caps will be unable to recover for the full amount of their injuries.

This is simply and plainly unjust. While Americans may be able to overlook the unfairness on a smaller scale – when it is a single accident victim, or a single family destroyed by an act of medical malpractice, who cannot recover all that they have lost – it will be much harder to turn a blind eye to the massive scope of the suffering caused by the BP oil spill. While we urge Congress to proceed with removing the OPA liability cap, we also urge that this be done loudly and publicly. Not only must Congress face up to the mess it has helped to make, but it is also its responsibility to educate the American public on the true consequences of “tort reform.”

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago accident lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

share save 171 16 Oil Spill Reveals the Dangers of Tort Reform

Rush Doctors Sued by Whistleblower for Medicare Fraud

Monday, July 26th, 2010

Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers took note of a whistleblower lawsuit filed recently in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by a surgeon and a former hospital executive alleging an egregious series of practices involving several physicians at Rush University Medical Center’s orthopedic department.  The conduct described in the suit, involving overbooking of physician schedules and allowing residents to perform surgeries unsupervised,  is not only places patient safety at risk, but also amounts to Medicare fraud.

The most salacious allegations of the suit concern the failure to supervise residents and junior surgeons in the performance of orthopedic surgeries.  Federal Medicare billing rules require surgeons to be present, at the very least, at certain critical portions of surgeries, to carefully oversee residents conducting procedures, and to be immediately available at all times during surgery, if needed.  The suit alleges, however, that although Medicare was billed for surgeries, Rush physicians often did not follow these rules.

If the allegations are true, the surgeons provided little if any oversight of residents during procedures.  In some cases, no oversight at all was provided, with a qualified surgeon never even entering the operating room.  In others, clearly inappropriate oversight was given, with surgeons engaging in such dangerous practices as “supervising” residents’ surgical procedures via video – while performing their own orthopedic surgeries in other operating rooms.   Such practices, regardless of whether or not they comply with Medicare regulations, place patients at unreasonable risk for catastrophic injury or wrongful death at the surgical table.

The lawsuit paints Rush University Medical Center, or at least some of the physicians in its orthopedic department, as placing profitability over patient safety – emphasizing quantity over quality and putting patients at risk in order to create a higher profile, and higher cashflows.  The original lawsuit also included allegations of improper referral practices, including allowing the use of office space in exchange for referrals to the hospital.  The Justice Department, however, settled these charges for a payment of $1.5 million from the medical center.  Rush did not, however, admit to any improper conduct.

Our Chicago malpractice attorneys will be following this case with great interest.  We are at least pleased that the Rush surgeon and hospital executive had enough courage to bring these violations, committed by their peers, to light.  Hopefully, those responsible will be held accountable and patients will not longer be put at risk in this manner in the future.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

share save 171 16 Rush Doctors Sued by Whistleblower for Medicare Fraud