Charlotte Injury Lawyers Blog

Charlotte Patients Need to be on the Lookout

February 14, 2012 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

Whether it’s from your mom or a message on a poster in your employer’s restroom, you hear it all the time: Wash your hands after using the bathroom and before eating. Use soap and hot water. And make sure you wash your hands long enough to kill the germs lurking on them.

You might think that doctors of all people would know the rules of hand washing, right? Wrong, at least according to a recent study discussed in Time Magazine. The report indicates that an alarming number of medical students may not know everything there is to know about hand washing despite engaging in the practice of medicine and regularly assisting in operating on patients.

Researchers at a German med school surveyed 85 medical students who were about to enter clinical training – the stage where they first begin to interact with actual patients. The med students were given seven scenarios, five of which required hand washing: before contact with patients, before preparing IV fluids, after removing gloves, after contacting patients’ beds and after contact with vomit (the other two scenarios did not require hand-washing).

Unfortunately, the doctors didn’t do so well on the test. Only 1 in 5 students correctly identified what to do in all seven situations. Just 1 in 3 got all five hand-washing scenarios correct. Most students knew that they were supposed to wash their hands before contacting a patient, after touching their bed and after contacting vomit, but 15% to 20% could not correctly identify the other two hand-washing situations.

What does this mean for you? Improper hand washing by physicians is a leading cause of spreading germs and contagious diseases from one patient to another in North Carolina. This is because much of a doctor’s job involves direct physical contact with patients. Thus, doctors who conduct surgery on someone with one disease and then don’t properly wash their hands, could easily spread germs and cause infection once their hands come into contact with new patients.

Family of Young Charlotte Girl Who Was Killed by Dogs Receives Settlement

February 9, 2012 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

WBTV.com reports that the family of a 5-year-old girl who was mauled to death by a loose pit bull finally received their wrongful death settlement, more than one year after the girl’s horrific death. The attorneys for the family said that Makayala Woodard’s family received a $20,000 wrongful death settlement.

On January 12, 2011, Makayla and her great-grandmother were viciously attacked by their neighbor’s pit bulls. The great-grandmother’s name is Nancy Presson. She suffered serious injuries as she was attempting to pull the dogs off of Makayla. Both victims were taken to the Carolinas Medical Center. Soon after arriving at the hospital, Makayla succumbed to her injuries. Presson was treated for her non-life threatening injuries and then discharged from the hospital.

The owners of the dogs were brought up on criminal charges, but the homeowner’s insurance policy will only pay the $20,000 for the wrongful death settlement. A wrongful death claim exists when a person’s death has been caused by the negligence, wrongful act, or fault of another person. The key to the claim is that if the deceased person had lived, he or she would have been able to sue for his or her injuries. The purpose of the Wrongful Death Act in North Carolina is to give the legal beneficiaries the same financial benefit if the deceased person had not died.

North Carolina Neighbors Sue Noisy Gun Range

February 7, 2012 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

Dr. Michael Land is having his day in court after his neighbors became fed up with the constant barrage of machine gun fire coming from his shooting range. According to a recent report by WCNC.com, 41 of Land’s neighbors have come together and filed a civil suit against him. The lawsuit alleges that machine gun fire has occurred on Land’s property, use of which is against state and federal laws. The neighbors also allege that the constant spraying of bullets amounts to negligence, private nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault.

On Monday, the plaintiffs and the defendant argued before the judge and now the parties are waiting on a ruling. The ruling will determine whether the case will move forward to trial or whether the case will be dismissed. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the suit. His attorney said, “Their [the plaintiffs’] fatal flaw is they haven’t shown a single person with any damages above and beyond anyone else in the group… The complaint does not allege that any bullets or debris ever left Dr. Land’s property. It does not allege anyone was ever injured by an explosion, bullet or firearm, or that Dr. Land has ever threatened anyone with his firearms.”

The plaintiffs’ attorney said that Dr. Land claimed that the reason for the machine gun fire was protection of his business, but, when questioned in court about his use of the machine guns, he invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The plaintiffs’ attorney says that should be seen as a strong indication that Land believes he has broken the law.

Charlotte Principal in the Midst of Investigation Commits Suicide

February 2, 2012 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

A Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools principal was found dead while in the midst of an investigation surrounding his involvement with a gun incident according to a report by WCNC.com. Barry Bowe was principal of Northwest School of the Arts. On the day Bowe was scheduled to meet with administrators regarding an incident involving a gun, he failed to show up. When he failed to show up, his colleagues tried to reach him at his home. He did not answer so they sent someone to his house and that is where they discovered his body.

The incident, which precipitated the investigation, began at a school dance. An individual brought a gun to the dance, pulled the gun out on another student and attempted to fire it. Thankfully the gun jammed, though the student ended up being punched in the face. The school district was concerned about the amount of security at the event and that was the subject of the meeting with administrators.

Rumors swirled that Bowe was in some way negligent, but everyone who knew him did not believe he had done anything wrong. His supporters say that he was not in trouble over the incident, but the administrators were concerned and wanted to know how he planned to handle the situation. The president of an association that supports the school, Friends of Northwest School of the Arts, said “To say that he’s negligent in the area of school safety is absurd. There have been much more egregious safety violations at other schools.” They also say that the school’s response to the incident was too harsh and should have been viewed as an incident that was beyond Bowe’s control.

Elderly North Carolina Woman Killed as She Crosses the Street

January 31, 2012 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

The family of an elderly Charlotte woman is grieving her loss after a car stuck her as she was trying to cross the street. According a recent report on www.WBTV.com, 73-year-old Bernice Williams Whitmire was trying to cross a busy street when she was hit by a car. She was quickly rushed to the hospital where she succumbed to her injuries that same afternoon. The intersection she was trying cross was an extremely busy section of road at the corner of Sharon Amity Road and Milton Road.

Her family is still reeling from the loss. Her son said, “Everybody is going to take a loss from this. The little kids she looks out for at the bus stop in the morning… the little one’s gonna hurt. The big one’s gonna hurt.” Even her neighbor expressed sadness at that the community will feel. “We are suffering a loss around here. She was like family; nobody can replace Ms. Bea. She was like everyone’s grandma. We adopted her and she adopted us,” said her neighbor, China.

The woman responsible for her death, Kendra Huey, was driving a 2008 Suzuki Forenza. Huey said that Whitmire walked in front of her truck and she could not avoid hitting her. The police are in the beginnings of the investigation, but Huey stayed at the scene of the accident and has thus far cooperated fully with the investigation. Some witnesses say that Huey seemed as if she sped up, but the police so far say that Huey was not at fault for the tragic accident.

It seems that the family at this point does not have any criminal recourse against the driver of the vehicle. That, however, does not exclude possible civil liability. Just because Huey was not criminally responsible does not mean that she is not civilly liable for Whitmire’s death. The standard of proof in civil cases is much lower than in criminal cases. In a civil case, the plaintiff only has to prove that the defendant is liable for plaintiff’s injuries by a preponderance of the evidence, whereas in a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Former NFL Player’s Estate Files Wrongful Death Suit Against North Carolina Fiancée

January 26, 2012 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

Former NFL player Chris Henry’s estate sued his former fiancée claiming she was negligent and as a result was responsible for the untimely death Henry. According to a recent report by News.Cincinatti.com, the estate of Chris Henry has alleged that Loleini Tonga is civilly liable for the wrongful death of Henry, along with her mother Ofu Tonga. However, lawyers for the estate claim that the purpose of the suit is to reach the insurance providers of both defendants. It is not the intention of the estate to take money from Henry’s children’s mother, but for the insurance companies to pay their fair share of the costs of liability.

The lawsuit claims that Tonga drove negligently after she and Henry got into an argument. Henry and Tonga got into a verbal altercation while at Tonga’s North Carolina home and afterwards Tonga got into a pickup truck and attempted to drive away. Henry was there recovering from an injury.

He apparently jumped into the bed of the pickup truck, but Tonga did not stop. When Henry proceeded to beat on the roof of the cabin, the suit alleges that Tonga continued to drive negligently which caused Henry to fall out of the bed of the pickup truck. Henry was “violently thrown from the bed of the pickup truck onto the paved road, resulting in multiple severe, painful and fatal injuries, including, but not limited to: a severe brain injury,” the suit notes.

Severely Injured North Carolina Woman Files Complaint

January 24, 2012 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

WCNC.com has reported that a woman who suffered a horrific trauma in a boating accident has just recently filed a lawsuit against the driver of the boat, the owner of the boat, and the manufacturer of the boat. According the suit, the victim, Deondra Scott, of Charlotte, had her right arm completely severed by the boat’s propeller when she jumped off the back of the boat into Lake Norman.

The accident took place in June during the annual Lake Bash, a yearly party where boaters come together to have fun, dance, listen to music and party. The boat that Scott was on was rented and driven by Dennis Allen. Allen rented the boat from David Orzolek. Prior to the day of the accident, Allen had no experience operating a boat. When the police responded to the scene of the accident in June, they determined that alcohol was not involved in the accident even though there was alcohol was present on the boat. The boat was, however, filled beyond capacity and it did not have enough life vests for the number of passengers on the boat.

Deondra Scott, along with some other passengers on the boat, jumped off the back of the boat and went into the water directly behind the boat. The complaint claims that all of the passengers who jumped into the boat were under the impression that the boat had been completely powered off. The plaintiff was swimming back toward the boat when other passengers of the boat realized that the engine was still running. One of the passengers tried to tell Allen to cut the engine, but Allen panicked and put the boat in reverse and hit the plaintiff with the boat’s propeller. Then, because Allen panicked again, he put the throttle in a forward gear and hit the plaintiff again with the propeller. As a result of being struck twice by the boat’s spinning propeller, the plaintiff suffered “1) a laceration to the right arm, which has since been amputated; 2) laceration to the breasts, which have since been amputated; 3) serious lacerations to both legs; 4) a punctured lung; 5) severed sternum.”

Scott’s attorneys filed the lawsuit in January. Scott is requesting damages for her medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, excessive scaring and loss of a limb. Both the driver and the owner of the boat have been named as defendants in the suit, in addition to the manufacturer. The suit alleges that the driver, Allen, and the owner, Orzolek, were negligent. It also charges the manufacturer of the boat, Chaparral, with a defect in design and breach of the duty to warn. The complaint alleges that the manufacturer of the boat promotes swimming directly behind the boat, but failed to warn of the dangers of swimming behind the boat while it is running, i.e., the spinning propeller that can dismember limbs.

Federal Government Invokes Sovereign Immunity in STD Lawsuit

January 20, 2012 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

According to a recent report in the Charlotte Observer, the federal government has responded to a lawsuit filed by the victims of a STD experiment by not responding. Federal researchers performed experimental research in the 1940s on Guatemalans to test the effects of penicillin. The experiment allowed prostitutes, prisoners, and patients in mental institutions to be exposed to sexually transmitted diseases and then be treated with the antibiotic penicillin to determine its effects. However, the subjects of the experiment did not consent to being exposed to these dangerous diseases.

The survivors have filed a federal lawsuit, but the Justice Department said that the researchers were federal employees and thus invoked the doctrine of sovereign immunity, meaning that the government cannot be named as a defendant unless it consents to being sued. The government has the benefit of being protected by the Federal Tort Claims Act. That law prevents the United States from being sued for acts that took place in a foreign nation. The President, Secretary of State, and the Health and Human Services Secretary have all issued an apology on behalf of the actions of the government during that time and have all acknowledged that the experiments are “a deeply troubling chapter in our nation’s history.”

Even though the government acknowledges how terrible the researcher’s actions were, the government believes that a lawsuit is not the proper avenue for the victims to receive a remedy. The attorney for the plaintiffs is of course in opposition to the federal government’s position. “We will continue to vigorously fight for the rights of the Guatemalans wronged in this matter to obtain a remedy for the harms done by U.S. officials,” plaintiffs’ attorney Terrence Collingsworth said in response to the filing. “But we remain open to the United States deciding to do the right thing, consistent with long-established human rights law and basic morality.”

US Supreme Court Limits Inmates Ability to Sue for Personal Injuries

January 17, 2012 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

The Charlotte Observer recently reported that the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a new decision regarding an inmate’s ability to file personal injury claims. On Tuesday, January 10, 2012, the Court ruled in an 8-1 decision that inmates held in federal custody in privately owned prisons can only file personal injury claims in state court. They cannot file claims in federal court. Writing for the majority, Justice Beyer said that the state law claims are enough to protect the inmate’s constitutional rights.

The suit was sparked by federal inmate Richard Pollard who filed a federal suit in California claiming that his treatment in a California jail violated the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Pollard was injured while performing his job at the prison. He fractured his elbow and broke other small bones. He claimed that the prison guards exacerbated the injury by forcing him into a position that aggravated his injury further. He filed a complaint, but it was dismissed by a federal judge. After appealing the dismissal up to the Supreme Court, the Court held that he could have filed a negligence action in the state of California, but he did not.

The Court acknowledged that federal lawsuits may provide more of a remedy in these situations, but ultimately decided that because the inmate was housed in a privately-owned prison, state law was his only recourse. If Pollard had been an inmate at a federal or state-operated facility, he would have been able to sue in federal court. This new ruling severely limits inmates who may have legitimate federal claims against the prison from being able to pursue them in the proper venue.

North Carolina Sterilization Victims Get Compensation

January 12, 2012 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue’s Eugenics Compensation Task Force has finally come up with a settlement figure, according to recent report by the New York Times. The panel has found that each living victim of North Carolina’s forced sterilization program should be given $50,000.00. North Carolina is not the first state to have a eugenics program, but it is the first state to place a monetary value on the compensation owed to the victims.

The term “eugenics” indicates an attempt to create a particular type of gene pool by selective breeding. According to a popular medical website, eugenics first began in the United States in Indiana where the government required state officials to sterilize, incarcerate, and at times, euthanize people who were thought to be genetically inferior. It turned into a massive campaign to rid the country of ethnic minorities, as the majority of the population was convinced that being a minority and being genetically inferior was one in the same.

North Carolina’s sterilization program was part of that campaign. Between 1933 and 1977, the North Carolina Eugenics Board sterilized nearly 8,000 people, mostly minorities and those with mental illnesses. In December 2011, the New York Times reported about a man named Charles Holt, who was forcibly sterilized as a teenager after he was caught fighting at school and openly masturbating. After spending years in a facility for individuals with mental disabilities, Holt was required to have a vasectomy before he could be released.

The North Carolina program allowed social workers to determine which people should be sterilized, and the social workers usually relied on IQ scores, which, to those running the program, served as an indication of mental capacity. Those with low mental capacity were deemed to not be fit enough to reproduce and were thus sterilized.

Some of the victims of the sterilization program are happy about the potential payout while others are convinced that it is not enough for what the government took from them. One victim, Ms. Rita Thompson Swords, said, “I think that number sounds fantastic.” Another victim, Ms. Elaine Riddick said, “They took away something from me that was so valuable that I can never get back.”

While there appears to be support from both parties in the North Carolina legislature for the payout, lawmakers may not be so easily convinced, especially since the payout could come total some $100 million. The panel believes that only between 1,500 and 2000 victims are still living. If Governor Perdue can convince legislators to approve this compensation plan, those victims will each receive $50,000.00.