Archive for May, 2012

Texting While Driving Rampant Among Teens

Wednesday, May 30th, 2012

This week, another new study again confirms what the top distracted driving attorneys have long knows: despite increased knowledge of the dangers, texting while driving is an enormous problem, and it’s getting worse.

The poll showed that the massive campaign designed to educate teens about the dangers of texting while driving is getting through to them. Not only did the majority of teens agree that this behavior is dangerous, but nearly all teenagers polled agreed.

Unfortunately, this increased knowledge did not lead teens to put down their smartphones while behind the wheel. Roughly half of all teens admitted to texting while driving during the past three months, despite their belief that the practice was dangerous. And around 75 percent of teens labeled this dangerous behavior typical for their friends.

Also troubling was the teens discounting the risks of reading texts while driving. Teens polled indicated their belief that reading a text was not a dangerous as typing one. While there is no data on whether this is true, our experienced Chicago distracted driving attorneys know that it is well-established that both behaviors are as dangerous as – or even more dangerous than – driving while drunk.

In fact, although only half of all teens admitted to the generalized behavior of “texting while driving,” when asked specifically, 61 percent admitted to reading texts during the same time period.

This most recent study, a poll conducted by AT&T focused on texting and driving in American teenagers. It mirrored the results of a Consumer Reports poll released last week, which showed that 80 percent of teens knew the risks of texting while driving, but around 30 percent of teens had done it in the past month despite this knowledge.

Perhaps the most important, although easily-overlooked, finding of the AT&T study was the fact that around 75 percent of teens report that adults text while driving just as much as they do, while nearly half said that their parents, specifically, had texted while driving recently.

Our Chicago distracted driving attorneys are quite concerned at the continuing trend, among teens and adults, of ignoring the established risks of texting while driving. This is no small matter. In 2010 (the most recent data available), over 3,000 Americans were killed in distracted-driving crashes, meaning that these crashes accounted for nearly 10 percent of all American automobile deaths.

Our distracted driving lawyers urge our lawmakers – at all levels – to take action to ban texting while driving, stiffen penalties for violators, and step up enforcement of existing rules. In the meantime, if you have been seriously injured in an auto accident and you believe that distracted driving may have been a factor, talk to an experienced attorney. Your attorney can help you to determine what happened to cause your crash, and whether you should take legal action against those who injured you.

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

Another Fatal Left-Hand Turn Motorcycle Accident

Tuesday, May 29th, 2012

Recently, in the latest in a long-running string of deadly or disabling motorcycle accidents in Chicagoland, there was an accident downtown involving two motorcycles and one automobile. One of the two motorcyclists died in the crash, while two other people were injured.

The crash occurred in Chicago’s Ravenswood area, and occurred in the early morning hours near the Lawrence/Damen intersection.

As our experienced Chicago motorcycle accident attorneys are only too well aware, motorcycle accidents are among the most devastating accidents which occur on our nation’s roadways. When motorcycle accidents occur, they frequently result in fatalities, brain injuries, and permanent disabilities.

Motorcycle accidents are shockingly common. Although the injuries in these accidents are at times exacerbated by a motorcyclist’s choice not to wear a helmet or other protective gear, the accidents themselves are typically caused by the negligence of an automobile driver – not the injured motorcycle rider. Automobile drivers simply fail to see motorcycles, and strike them in the same patterns, over and over.

Although the police have not yet released details or completed their investigation, it appears from witness reports that this accident was a classic left-hand turn motorcycle accident. In these accidents, the driver of an automobile simply fails to notice a motorcyclist – or, in this case, two – travelling in the opposite direction through an intersection. The car thus turns left across oncoming traffic, despite the cyclist travelling straight through the intersection.

One of two things typically results: the car strikes the cyclist, or the car turns directly into the path of the oncoming cyclist, who is unable to avoid a collision. According to witnesses, it was the second scenario which occurred this weekend: the car turned directly into the path of the cyclists, who were thus unable to avoid a collision and struck the car.

When left-hand turn motorcycle accidents occur, it is almost never the fault of the motorcycle rider: yet, it is the motorcycle rider who usually dies or suffers life-altering injuries. Our top motorcycle accident attorneys knows how to overcome anti-biker prejudice and obtain justice and compensation for riders injured in left-hand turn accidents and other accidents. If you have been injured in a motorcycle accident, contact an experienced attorney for an evaluation and advice about your circumstances and any potential legal action.

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

Junior Seau’s Death Shines Spotlight on Brain Injuries

Sunday, May 27th, 2012

Last week, the sports world was again shaken by the death of a beloved former NFL star. In another apparent suicide, Junior Seau shot himself in the chest. Our experienced brain injury attorneys cannot help but wonder whether this latest death is the result of the long-term effects of the many brain injuries Seau suffered during his long career.

Indeed, Seau’s death is simply the latest in a pattern of deaths and injuries. Most Chicago and Illinois residents will naturally draw parallels to last year’s death of former Chicago Bear Dave Duerson, who also shot himself in the chest. But several other well-known players have also suffered from former brain injuries, including Philadelphia Eagle Andre Waters and former Pittsburgh Steeler Terry Long.

Prior to his death, Seau’s conduct revealed that he may have been suffering from the effects of traumatic brain injury. For example, in October of 2010, Seau fell asleep at the wheel, causing his car to fall 30 feet off a cliff. Shortly before the fall, he was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence (although he was never charged).

Seau’s death, along with the deaths and problems of other NFL stars, has focused attention on the long-term consequences of repetitive brain injury. Indeed, recent studies have demonstrated that even relatively minor injuries such as concussions can have serious consequences when repeated over time. These consequences many not emerge for years after the injuries, or even decades later.

These lifetime consequences can include depression, personality changes, erratic behavior, difficulty controlling emotions and impulses, memory problems, chronic pain, difficulty reasoning, difficulty multi-tasking, chronic traumatic encephalopathy (boxer’s dementia), Lou Gehrig’s Disease, and even Parkinson’s.

Our experienced brain injury attorneys hope that Seau’s tragic death will continue the focus on brain injuries and their effects, and lead to improved safety for athletes at all levels. In the meantime, if you have suffered repetitive brain injuries on the job – even if you are not an NFL star – talk to your doctor and to an attorney. These professionals can help you determine the risks you face and whether you are entitled to compensation.

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

Investigation Shows Poisonous Chemicals Forced Into U.S. Homes

Friday, May 25th, 2012

In the past several years, flame retardants in furniture, mattresses, pillows and other household products have become as common as the items themselves. Indeed, in many cases – and many states – the inclusion of these chemicals is now required by law. An investigation by the Chicago Tribune has revealed, however, that these laws were put into place on the back of fraudulent testimony, and against sound science showing that these chemicals are not only ineffective, but highly dangerous.

The star witness in support of flame retardants has been, for many years, Dr. David Heimbach. Dr. Heimbach specializes in telling stories of infants fatally and horribly burned due to the use of pillows, mattresses, and other products lacking flame retardants. His gruesome testimony leads legislators to disregard more abstract testimony about the long-term risks of these chemicals, including environmental and cancer risks.

The problem, however, is that Dr. Heimbach’s testimony has now been shown to be almost completely fabricated. He has also cited to a supposedly-independent community group who supports the use of flame retardants. This group was later shown to be simply an industry group made up of chemical manufacturers and created to promote their products. This group often publicly states that it is allied with various organizations of firefighters and victims, a complete fabrication. This same industry group pays the “fees” of Dr. Heimbach and other witnesses who testify before government bodies in support of the chemicals.

Studies on the flame-retardants commonly used in the U.S. have shown that they are linked to cancer, fertility problems, developmental disorders and neurological defects. Nor do they remain safely in the furniture and products where they are placed.

Instead, these chemicals leach out of these products and into household dust – where they create high levels of exposure for infants and toddlers crawling on floors and putting objects from the floor into their mouths. Although exposures for these young children are the worst, exposures have been rapidly and steadily increasing in all age groups. In the past four decades, blood levels of these chemicals have not only increased, but doubled – every two to five years. And although some chemicals are no longer used, blood levels haven’t gone down.

Yet the federal Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly allowed these chemicals into American products, often without even assessing the health risks. And it has approved and even promoted these chemicals despite the protests of its own scientists that they were dangerous to both humans and the environment, and despite the conclusion of the federal Consumer Protection Commission that these chemicals are ineffective and dangerous.

This has led to a continuing cycle – the chemicals are approved, questioned, and eventually withdrawn from use. Several have even been banned by the United Nations as among the worst and most dangerous chemicals on the planet. New, equally dangerous chemicals are then approved to take their place, and the cycle begins again.

Not only are these chemicals highly dangerous, but they are also not even effective. Since the 1980s, study after study has shown that these chemicals have literally no effect on household fires. In fact, when fires do occur, these chemicals make the smoke toxic, leading to increased injuries and deaths from the fire.

The industry typically cites to a single study from the 1980s in support of its claims of effectiveness – but that study’s author has publicly stated that the industry has distorted his findings. He asserts, like other scientists, that flame retardants in household goods and furniture simply do not work.

So why are these chemicals used? The answer is age-old: money. Annual demand for these chemicals has now topped 3.4 billion pounds. To get a sense of the volume of the problem, consider this: many of these chemicals are related to the pesticide DDT. When you choose organic fruits, you are avoiding a microscopic dose of pesticides. If you eat that fruit sitting on your couch, you are sitting on 2 pounds of a related chemical.

Our experienced products liability attorneys are appalled that this dangerous situation has persisted for decades. We urge our regulators and legislators, at all levels of government, to take action to ban these dangerous and ineffective products, for all of our safety.

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

Unnecessary Blood Transfusions Putting Patients at Risk

Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012

Doctors are putting surgical patients at unnecessary risk by providing blood transfusions that are not needed, according to the latest study. The study, published in the journal Anesthesiology, was conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins.

Providing a transfusion during surgery may seem like a neutral action – how can supplementing a patient’s blood supply be a problem? The reality, however, is far more complex. Several studies have now shown that patients who receive transfusions during surgery do not, in fact, fare better than patients who do not.

Indeed, many patients who receive a transfusion fare worse than patients who do not. When a patient receives a transfusion, there is always the risk that his body will develop an immune response to the new blood. That is because the blood is, to his body, a foreign substance. The reaction itself can cause illness or injury in the patient. It can also reduce the body’s ability to fight off true pathogens, raising the risk of harmful or fatal post-surgical infection. Depending on the circumstances, these reactions can be an unfortunate, but unavoidable, complication of surgery, or the result of medical malpractice.

However, studies have now shown that, except in cases of trauma or hemorrhage, it is better to wait before transfusing. Instead, surgeons should monitor the patient’s hemoglobin levels – and wait to transfuse until levels fall below a certain point, even if there is blood loss during surgery.

One reason that patients are receiving these unnecessary transfusions is that there are no clear guidelines as to when transfusions should be given during surgery – no major medical group has yet established a set of rules for surgeons to follow. This lack, however, does not excuse American surgeons’ failure to follow the best practices with regard to transfusions during surgery.

That is because another startling aspect of this problem is that the Johns Hopkins study is not the first to reveal the problem. In fact, for five years, various studies have shown that surgeons should be giving less blood than they are. Indeed, the research on this question is now so well-developed that last year a federal committee, operating out of the Department of Health and Human Services, concluded that surgeons in the U.S. were providing excessive transfusions, endangering surgical patients – and raising costs. In fact, giving routine blood transfusions may constitute medical malpractice.

This is because surgeons have thus been adequately informed for well over a year, if not several years, that blood transfusions during surgery should be limited, and used only as needed. Yet they continue to give routine transfusions as a matter of course in every surgery, leaving patients at risk of reaction and infection.

In addition to the threat to patients receiving transfusions, these unnecessary procedures may be harming other patients, as well. Despite blood drives and other efforts, blood remains a scarce resource, particularly in certain areas. And collecting, testing, and maintaining a blood supply is an expensive endeavor. Thus, unnecessary transfusions may be harming other patients by reducing the available supply, and raising costs for those who do require blood.

If you or a loved one have suffered a reaction or infection following a surgical procedure where a blood transfusion was given, your surgeon’s negligence in providing the transfusion itself may be to blame. An experienced medical malpractice attorney can help you to determine whether negligence was to blame in your case, and whether you may have legal recourse.

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