Archive for the ‘Child Injury Lawyer’ Category

Study Finds Brain Imaging Can Predict Pain Intensity

Thursday, April 11th, 2013

fMRI Detect Pain 300x194 Study Finds Brain Imaging Can Predict Pain IntensityPain and suffering is often difficult to measure, even by the most experienced pain specialists.  Patients are typically asked to rate their own pain on a scale of 1-10.  Although there are objective ways to confirm physical and psychological injuries consistent with pain, the nature and extent of pain is typically measured by the patient’s own subjective self-reporting.

A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine finds that brain imaging can be used to objectively assess pain — both physical and emotional pain.

The study involved a total of 114 patients who underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) — a unique and new form of neuroimaging — while being stimulated with heat-induced pain, as well as “social pain.”

What is Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)?

fMRI is a relatively new form of neuroimaging used to measure brain activity by detecting changes in blood flow that occur in response to certain stimuli. fMRI can identify the parts of the brain that are involved in certain mental processes.

fMRI use is controversial, because it is a relatively new neruoimaging technique.  However, fMRI can be extremely beneficial to identifying a brain injury in patients who are symptomatic of neurologic dysfunction, yet have “normal” brain scans using typical imaging techniques.

As the above-mentioned study demonstrates, fMRI can also be extremely helpful in identifying pain.

fMRI to Identify Physical and Emotional Pain

The study found that in those patients who were subjected to heat-induced pain while being imaged with fMRI, a “nerologic signature” emerged:  increased brain activity in the thalamus, posterior and anterior insulae, secondary somatosensory cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, periaqueductal gray matter, and other regions of the brain.

Even more interesting, the study found that fMRI was helpful in identifying emotional-related pain — related to depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or other events that cause emotional pain.  When subjecting such patients to “social pain,” the fMRI showed that many of the same brain regions were activated as with physical pain.

In general, the study found fMRI to be over 90% sensitive (or accurate) in identifying physical and emotional pain.

This is a huge breakthrough for pain research and treatment for those with chronic and acute pain — both physical and emotional.  Based on this research, new treatment may be developed to focus on these specific areas of the brain that are triggered, rather than on the conventional approach to attempting to block pain impulses from getting into the spinal cord and the brain.

At Passen Law Group, most of our clients have experienced significant pain — both physical and emotional — as a result of serious motor vehicle accidents, medical malpractice, and other contexts which produce pain.  We welcome these new developments addressed at identifying pain, and hopefully leading to beneficial treatment for pain.

For a Free Consultation with one of our attorneys, Call us at 312-527-4500.

Television Falls and Childhood Injuries

Thursday, November 24th, 2011

TV fall injuries Television Falls and Childhood InjuriesIn the past month, two Chicago lives have been claimed in a tragic accident involving a falling television. In the most recent incident, a 3-year-old girl was killed when she was struck by a falling TV in her South Chicago home.  The other victim was a six-year-old boy who was struck by a 32-inch television in the basement of his home in Arlington Heights.

Both children sustained massive traumatic brain injuries, from which they died.

Sadly, this accident was not isolated. In fact, around 17,000 children are taken to emergency rooms each year in America because of heavy or unstable furniture – including televisions – falling on top of them. The current rate is a 41 percent increase over the rate two decades ago. And nearly half of all these injuries are from televisions.

Our law firm is no stranger to these type of injuries.  In fact, Stephen M. Passen of Passen Law Group secured a $19 million jury verdict on behalf of a 9-year-old boy who sustained traumatic brain injuries when a TV fell onto his head in an unsupervised classroom of a private school in Chicago.

Unsurprisingly, the increase in this rate of injuries correlates perfectly with the increase in the popularity of larger and flat-screened televisions. At the same time, Americans moved towards narrower entertainment centers and stands to match the flatter televisions. But narrower stands and entertainment centers are also less stable.

In many cases, children escape from falling furniture with only minor injuries. But about 3 percent of victims require hospitalization. Many of those suffer head and neck injuries – often leaving them with permanent brain injuries or paralysis. And around 20 children die from these injuries each year.

The increase in the rate of injuries in recent years has been despite efforts by industry and regulators to combat the problem. In 2004, ASTM International (previously known as the American Society for Testing and Materials) issued new voluntary manufacturing standards designed to prevent furniture from tipping over. In 2005, Congress considered legislation setting standards for furniture that “poses a substantial risk of tipping” or which contains a glass pane or surface. It died in committee in 2005, then again in 2007. As of today, no government standards requiring testing, safety straps, or anchor mechanisms have been put in place.

But while certain designs are inherently flawed, in many cases there is only so much that even the best designs have accomplished. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania found in 2006 that flat-panel televisions were weighing in at 100 pounds or more, but with a thin design that is inherently unstable. Americans then expect these devices to balance on lightweight stands, or hang from wall brackets.

How to Protect Your Children

How can you protect your children from this type of injury? First, use extra care, particularly when children are younger: three-quarters of the children injured by falling televisions and other furniture are under the age of six. According to the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, children under six “simply don’t recognize the danger of climbing on furniture.”

Second, double-check your method of displaying your flat-screen. Use only stands rated for your television model and size, and choose a heavier, larger stand when possible. If you choose to wall-mount your flat-screen television, have the installation professionally done.

Parents and other caregivers can also take physical precautions to prevent injuries. Those with small children in the house should secure all heavy furniture, particularly top-heavy furniture and televisions. Other safety steps include:

  • Place televisions close to the ground, and towards the back of any stand or supporting furniture.
  • Use safety straps or L-brackets to secure televisions and other heavy furniture to the wall.
  • Select only furniture with solid bases and wide legs.
  • Install drawer stops, and place heavier items in lower drawers.
  • Never place enticing items like toys, remote controls, etc., on top of heavy furniture or televisions: this only encourages children to climb.

And then there is the most important precaution of all: supervise young children at all times. If your child spends time in the care of others, inspect the premises and demand that televisions and other large items be secured. Televisions in day cares can fall just as easily as those at home – last year, an unsecured television in an Indiana day care broke the cheeks, nose, jaw, palate, and eye sockets of a two-year-old girl when it fell. She needed multiple reconstructive surgeries simply to regain a functional face.

If you have any questions about a possible serious injury or wrongful death claim, please give us a call us at 312-527-4500 or email us at info@passenlaw.com for a complimentary consultation. You can also learn more by following us on Twitter, reviewing our LinkedIn or Avvo.com pages, and by reviewing our website.

Civil Liability in the Penn State Scandal

Friday, November 18th, 2011

Sandusky sexual abuse 300x220 Civil Liability in the Penn State ScandalThere are no words to describe the terrible tragedy that has come to light at Penn State University of the course of the last few weeks. Countless lives have been ruined – indeed, we may never know the full scope of the abuse that occurred, or exactly how many young men were abused.

For the University, and those who are alleged to have “looked the other way” when these alleged monstrous acts occurred, there are many consequences which must be faced. In addition to the prospect of living with themselves and their actions, more material consequences will certainly follow.

The University faces extreme damage to its reputation and standing. Moreover, future enrollments, endorsements, and recruiting of all kinds will likely be affected – indeed, one prominent bureau has already threatened to downgrade the University’s credit rating. Many of those involved in the scandal have already lost their jobs, or will do so in the near future.

But the University and those within the institution may also face civil liability. Many experts have already suggested that the University had sufficient warning about Sandusky’s actions, yet failed to act, to create legal liability.  That appears to be true according to the Sandusky grand jury report.

The prospect of liability for child sexual abuse is only heightened by the criminal case unfolding against several top figures in the University’s administration. The Pennsylvania Attorney General, Linda Kelly, has brought charges against University Athletic Director Tim Curley and University Vice President for Finance and Business Gary Schultz, including the failure to report child abuse and lying to a grand jury.

According to the grand jury’s report in the criminal case, Curley and Schultz were presented with multiple reports of sexual misconduct by Jerry Sandusky over the course of several years. This misconduct was also reported on at least one occasion to University football coach and community hero Joe Paterno, and to University President Graham Spanier. Both have lost their positions at the University since the allegations came to light.

While the failure to report criminal activity is usually not adequate to trigger civil liability, there are unique factors at play here. Despite an unenforceable University directive to prohibit Sandusky from bringing children onto the University’s campus, there is ample evidence that the University continued to allow Sandusky virtually unlimited access to University facilities, even with children. Sandusky’s charity continued to hold football camps at a University satellite campus, and Sandusky even brought child guests to at least one University football practice.

One potential legal theory at play here is premises liability for sexual abuse – much like a landowner who allows a dangerous condition to continue on his property, the University allowed a dangerous “condition” – the presence of a known pedophile – to continue on its own property. And like the landowner who fails to correct a dangerous physical condition (such as a broken swingset) which presents a known danger to children on the property, the University may face civil liability for failing to take steps to protect future victims from Sandusky.

Much like the civil cases against the various diocese of the Catholic Church, the potential suits against the University and its officials carry with them extensive financial exposure. Nor are these suits merely hypothetical – several major news outlets are now reporting that some victims have retained an attorney and begun planning a civil action.

We can only hope that, whether in the criminal or civil courts, the alleged victims of Jerry Sandusky will find some sense of justice.

If you have any questions about a possible claim for sexual abuse, please give us a call us at 312-527-4500 or email us at info@passenlaw.com for a complimentary consultation. You can also learn more by following us on Twitter, reviewing our LinkedIn or Avvo.com pages, and by reviewing our website.

Falls from Windows a Major Childhood Danger

Tuesday, September 6th, 2011

child fall window Falls from Windows a Major Childhood DangerIn our modern society, baby-proofing and child-proofing have become standard and commonplace. Cautious parents take action to secure or eliminate every small threat or danger their children might face, from cabinet door-locks to bumpers on the edges and corners of fireplaces and furniture.

But in doing so, many have overlooked one of the greatest dangers of all: windows.

In a study released in the journal “Pediatrics” this week, it was found that over 5,000 children in the United States are sent to the emergency room each year due to falls from windows. And the youngest children are those at the greatest risk.

The study was based upon data provided by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, covering nearly two decades, from 1990 to 2008. During those years, 98,415 American children were seen in hospital emergency rooms due to a fall from a window. The study did not include falls from car windows, falls through a closed window, falls from treehouse windows, falls from windows in houses under construction, or falls by a child seated on a windowsill back into the room. Thus, around 5,180 children were injured in such falls each year.

Of the children injured, the average age was 5.1 years old. But 64.8% of the injuries from window falls were in children four years of age and under. The peak ages for falls were 1 and 2 years of age. And taking all ages into account, boys sustained slightly more injuries than girls. In older children, nearly half of emergency-room visits due to window falls were known to be the result of risky behavior, such as climbing out a window or intentionally jumping from a window.

There have been considerable advancements in safety in this area in recent years. Both New York City and Boston have put legislation in place to improve safety standards on windows, and have conducted public awareness campaigns aimed at reducing these accidents. Our Chicago child injury lawyers are discouraged that Illinois cities have not followed suit.

Parents should be aware that window screens simply do not prevent window falls. In fact, for those cases where it was known whether a screen was in place prior to the fall, a screen was in place in over 80 percent of cases.

The only way to prevent window  falls is to have an appropriate window guard in place. Especially effective are window locks which, when engaged, prevent the window from opening more than four inches. Many newer windows are equipped with such locks, and our accident attorneys recommend that the parents of small children use these safety devices, particularly on second-story windows. Moreover, we urge our local and state legislatures to enact standards requiring that all newly-installed residential windows contain such locks.

It is also important to ensure that all your child’s caregivers are aware of the risk of window falls, and the need to use safety measures to prevent them. Check with your daycare center and ensure that their windows are equipped with proper locks or guards.

If your child was severely injured in a window fall, talk to an attorney about your options. Depending upon the circumstances, you may be entitled to compensation. For example, if you live in a newly constructed home and the windows were not equipped with proper locks, you may wish to take action against the builder. If your child’s fall occurred at a daycare center, you may have a claim against the center or its workers for negligence. And if your window lock or guard failed, you could have a products liability action against the manufacturer.

For a free consultation with a top-rated child injury lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

Birth Injury Malpractice and Forceps Deliveries

Monday, July 11th, 2011

Forceps are metal tongs used in childbirth. They are used to apply traction to the baby’s head, in an attempt to move the infant out of the birth canal and into the world. Forceps deliveries, once common, have been on the decline in the United States in the past few years. This is largely due to the increase in the rate of cesarean section in the U.S. – deliveries which once would have been done using forceps (or vacuum extraction) are now routed to c-section, instead.

The choice of c-section over forceps-assisted delivery is often a difficult one for mothers, many of whom fear surgery, and have been dreaming of a traditional childbirth since they learned they were expecting, or before.

But, from a medical perspective, the choice is easy. In fact, the use of forceps, rather than a c-section, can often result in birth injury medical malpractice.

The high risk of severe injury or death to infants delivered using forceps is now well-documented. One roughly one of every three malpractice cases based upon birth injury involves the use of forceps in delivery – a figure hugely disproportionate to the percentage of births in which forceps are used, which is currently around 5 percent. And in those cases, in around one-half of cases forceps were found to have been used in delivery in spite of the presence of warning factors or contraindications. Indeed, a high forceps delivery (use of forceps when the infant’s head is not yet deeply engaged) is extremely risky, and often causes both death of the infant and injury to the mother. This procedure is now always outside the standard of care.

Yet obstetricians continue to insist that the choice to use forceps should be entirely left to the physician, in his or her own experience and preference. This assertion is startling, in light of the evidence that forceps are often used when they should not be, and used negligently. This negligent use can lead to severe complications for both infant and mother.  For the mother, complications can include:

  • Vaginal lacerations
  • Cervical lacerations
  • Perineal lacerations
  • Blood loss and/or hemorrhage
  • Hematoma
  • Bladder or urinary tract injury
  • Anal sphincter injury and/or fecal incontinence
  • Death

For the infant, complications can include:

  • Facial bruising
  • Facial lacerations
  • Cephalohematoma
  • Facial palsy
  • Brain injury
  • Shoulder dystocia
  • Skull fractures
  • Intracranial hemorrhage
  • Tentorial lacerations
  • Cerebral palsy

Delivery with forceps should only be attempted when the factors calling for this delivery method are present. It is almost certainly medically negligent to use forceps in delivery if any of the following conditions is not met:

  • The head of the fetus is engaged, ideally deeply (so that a low forceps delivery can be performed).
  • The fetus is positioned properly – head down (not breech) and not transverse.
  • The physician knows precisely where the head is located.
  • The mother’s cervix is completely dilated (10 centimeters or more).
  • The membranes have been ruptured (the water is broken).
  • The fetal head is small enough to pass through the mother’s pelvis.

The use of forceps when all of these conditions are not met is may constitute medical malpractice. In addition, certain problems in forceps deliveries are almost always the result of medical negligence. For example, physicians now agree that the forceps slipping off the infant’s head (often, but not always the result of unruptured membranes) is almost always the result of medical negligence.

If you are expecting, you should talk to your obstetrician about his position on the use of forceps in delivery. If your doctor favors the practice, you may wish to consider changing obstetricians. Whatever you decide, you should be prepared to insist that only safe practices be used if your physician attempts to use forceps in the delivery-room.

If forceps were used in your delivery, and you or your child suffered serious birth injury or disability, you should talk to an attorney. An experienced birth injury attorney can help you to determine if you have a legal claim.

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