Posts Tagged ‘Personal Injury Lawyers’

Recent Truck Accident Highlights Winter Road Danger: Falling Ice

Monday, January 11th, 2010

truck accident falling iceAn unfortunate accident last week highlights a winter driving danger being ignored: falling snow and ice off the tops of semi-tracker trailers.  To speak with a top Chicago truck accident attorney, call Passen Law Group at (312) 527-4500.

In Aurora, Peter Morano was severely injured when a large block of ice came off the top of a semi-tracker trailer as it was passing beneath an overpass.  According to news reports, the block of ice hit and shattered the windshield.  The driver’s nose was broken in several places, and the orbital bone of his left eye shattered.  Lacerations to his left iris may leave his vision permanently damaged.

While there is no data specifically related to how many serious motor vehicle accidents each winter are  specifically caused by ice falling off large trucks and other vehicles, there is plenty of data showing a spike in catastrophic car and truck accidents during the winter months due to weather-related factors.  f you have been seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident that you suspect was caused by the negligence or recklessness of another, contact an experienced car accident lawyer at Passen Law Group.

The accident described above raises a number of questions that have no simple answer.  For example, should the law require truckers to remove snow and ice from their vehicles prior to hitting the road?  The obvious answer is yes and, indeed, New Jersey passed such a law in October 2009.  To date, New Jersey is the only state to have passed such a law.

One problem is that such laws may run counter to current federal motor carrier safety regulations that prohibit drivers from climbing atop their rigs without proper safety equipment.  Such equipment is often only available at the terminal, if at all, and is impossible for truckers to bring with them on the road.

It stands to reason that if de-icing equipment exists for 747s, then snow and ice removal equipment exists for semi-tracker trailers.  Unlike the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which requires de-icing of aircraft, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCA) does not require snow and ice to be removed from semis.  Thus, it is of little surprise that a survey conducted by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) shows 54% of truckers “rarely or never” remove snow and ice from their rigs.

For now, New Jersey may stand as an example enacting, supporting and enforcing snow and ice removal laws in order to make roads safer for all.  Hopefully, for the sake of public safety on our nation’s roadways, other states, including Illinois, will follow.

If you have been seriously injured in a crash involving a car, truck, bus, motorcycle or other motor vehicle, contact Passen Law Group for Free Consultation with a Chicago personal injury lawyer at (312) 527-4500.

  • Share/Bookmark

The Need for Stringent Pilot Fatigue Rules

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

Pilot Fatigue CrashesThe Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has come under fire for continuing to delay issuing new pilot fatigue rules. Pilot fatigue is a serious safety hazard and a known cause of catastrophic airplane crashes.  Indeed, federal data links pilot fatigue to 20 airplane accidents that resulted in 273 fatalities between 1989 and 2008.

Fatigue or exhaustion is technically defined as “a non-pathologic state resulting in a decreased ability to maintain function or workload due to mental or physical stress.”  For pilots, studies have demonstrated two specific factors that contribute to fatigue:  sleep loss and circadian rhythm disruption.

Pilots require a certain amount of sleep “for maximal waking performance and alertness.”  Circadian rhythm disruption, or disruption of a person’s “internal body clock,” involves disruption to 24-hour biological processes, such as brain wave activity and cell regeneration, that are regulated by a person’s circadian rhythm.

Airline accidents are often catastrophic events, causing serious injury and death.  Numerous factors can contribute to airline accidents, including pilot error, airline negligence or product defects.  Therefore, it is important to contact an experienced airline crash lawyer well versed in federal aviation regulations, insurance and airline carriers.

According to current federal regulations, pilots on domestic flights must have at least eight hours of rest in any 24-hour period.  For international flights, the FAA requires airlines carriers to establish rest periods and provide “adequate sleeping facilities outside of the cockpit for in-flight rest.”

Previous attempts to modify the rules to fully address pilot fatigue have failed.  Political infighting among the aviation industry, namely large commercial airlines, smaller operators and cargo carriers and the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) have prevented rule changes.

Aviation accidents are not limited to commercial jets or small carriers; they may involve helicopters, medivacs and gliders.  Many factors, including pilot error, can contribute to an airplane accident.  If you or a loved one has been seriously injured as a result of an aviation accident, contact the Chicago personal injury lawyers of Passen Law about your case.  Call us at (312) 527-4500 for a Free Consultation.

  • Share/Bookmark

Medical Malpractice Myths: Tort Reform Will Lower Insurance Rates (Part V)

Friday, November 20th, 2009

malpractice insurance premiumsToday is our Chicago injury and malpractice attorneys final installment of our commentary on “Five Myths of Medical Malpractice,” based on a report recently published by the American Association for Justice (AAJ).

Medical Negligence Myth #5: Tort Reform Will Lower Insurance Rates

Yesterday’s post, Myth #4 – Medical Malpractice Claims Drive-Up Doctors’ Insurance Premiums, discussed the false correlation between malpractice lawsuits and increases in insurance premiums.  Today’s post, Myth #5, deals with converse theory – whether medical liability reform (a form of “Tort Reform) will result in insurance companies lowering doctors’ insurance premiums.  The evidence shows this will not happen.

The evidence shows that any savings to insurance companies — in the form of lower payouts due to damages caps — are not passed down to doctors in the form of lower premiums. The savings are not passed down at all.

Indeed, this myth is easy to debunk because we can look at states that have adopted medical tort reform to see whether insurance rates have gone down.  Texas, for example, enacted a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages for malpractice claims in 2003, believing such caps would translate into lower insurance premiums and attract more doctors.

As the AAJ report shows, although the number of doctors in Texas slightly increased after caps were imposed (as did all states), the increase was no different than before the caps were in place.  The increase has remained steady, as it has throughout the country.  If malpractice damage caps resulted in significantly lower premiums, the increase in doctors practicing in Texas since 2003 should have been more dramatic.

More importantly, since enacting caps on non-economic damages in Texas, doctors’ premiums have gone up instead of down.  The AAJ report cites GE Medical Protective, the country’s largest medical malpractice insurance provider, that said “caps had a negligible impact on rates” — and proceeded to raise doctor premiums.

The same holds true for California — which is depicted in the chart above.  After California enacted laws capping damages in medical malpractice actions, doctors’ insurance premiums continued to increase even faster than in previous years.  The way California leveled-off premiums was by passing legislation aimed at the insurance industry – by capping their insurance rates.

The AAJ report also cites a number of “pro tort reformers” who admit that, despite what has been argued, tort reform will do little, or nothing, to curb rising premiums. It will only serve to further curb the rights of individuals to seek justice after being wronged.

Those who argue for malpractice reform often cite the five myths discussed this week by our top-rated Chicago personal injury lawyers. Such arguments clearly ignore patient safety, as well as the empirical evidence.  Hopefully, the Senate will debate its health care bill using facts, not myths.

For a Free Consultation with one of our Chicago personal injury and malpractice attorneys, call Passen Law Group at (312) 527-4500.

  • Share/Bookmark

Medical Malpractice Myths: Drive-Up Doctors’ Insurance Premiums (Part IV)

Thursday, November 19th, 2009

Insurance Premium vs Paid

Day four of our personal injury lawyers‘ discussion of “Five Myths of Medical Malpractice.”  Here’s Myth #4:

Medical Malpractice Myth #4: Medical Malpractice Claims Drive Up Doctors’ Premiums

This myth continues to be spread by the health insurance lobby, despite being continuously debunked by empirical evidence.  The argument works as follows:  to protect against large payouts from medical malpractice verdicts or settlements, insurance companies must raise premiums on doctors’ malpractice insurance, which doctors are required to pay under state law regulations regarding the carrying of malpractice insurance.  Makes sense, right?

However, the actual facts present a different picture.  The Americans for Insurance Reform (AIR), a national coalition of public interest organizations, conducted a study that found no correlation between malpractice lawsuits and high premiums paid by doctors.  In other words, malpractice lawsuits brought by personal injury lawyers do not provide any justification for high premiums.

Instead, the study found that doctors’ increasing insurance premiums relate to the insurance industry’s bad investments and the downturn in the economy — what the authors call the “economic cycle of the insurance industry.”  The AAJ report explains insurance companies are heavily reliant on two sources of income:  (1) underwriting income and (2)  investment income.  Underwriting income is the amount of premiums the insurance companies do not “give back” in payouts, whereas investment income is the money the insurance companies make investing the premiums — in the stock market, real estate and other investments.

If investment income is strong, then insurance companies lower premiums “to attract more policyholders and increase their market share.” More policies holders paying smaller premiums gives them more investment money while also increasing the number of people who will inevitably have to pay higher premiums, which deepens the pockets of the insurance company even further.

However, if investment income is weak — and the steep economic downturn and stock market collapse the past few years have made insurance companies’ investment income weak — insurance companies raise premiums to allow their underwriting income to make up for their loss in investment income.

None of this has anything to do with medical malpractice claims, despite what insurance companies argue.  This point is made clear in a separate AAJ report about the 10 largest malpractice insurance companies.  That report found that “malpractice insurance companies have underestimated profits and overestimated losses in part to justify new legislation to restrict the rights of those injured by medical negligence.”

As the health care debate now moves to the Senate, the hope is that new health care reform will take into account this new information and set new health insurance regulations accordingly so that cost savings are not made at the expense of patient rights and safety.  To speak with one of our experienced Chicago injury and malpractice attorneys, call Passen Law Group at (312) 527-4500 for a Free Consultation.

  • Share/Bookmark