Washington DC Injury Lawyer Blog

New Research Suggests Amateur Athletes May Also Be at Risk for Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy

December 17, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Over the past few years, the National Football League and the National Hockey League have been involved in lawsuits brought by players, alleging that the league failed to adequately prevent and treat serious head injuries that can lead to life-threatening diagnoses, including Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). New research indicates that professional athletes may not be the only ones at risk.

The Theory of Liability

Players in these lawsuits claim that the leagues they play in failed to adequately warn them of the potential for serious, life-threatening harm that can result from participating in the sport. Players claim that they were encouraged to get back onto the field or ice shortly after they suffered serious head injuries or concussions, and this has resulted in an increased risk of developing CTE. CTE is only diagnosable after someone has died, but people who suffer from the disease experience myriad symptoms, including anxiety, aggression, parkinsonism, depression, dementia, and even suicidality.

The crux of the players’ claim is that the league knew or should have known of the dangers present in playing the high-contact sports and should have taken more precautions and taken head injuries more seriously when they did occur. In fact, a group of NFL players recently reached a settlement with the NFL to establish a fund to compensate injured players. The details of that settlement are still being worked out.

Ski Injury Plaintiff’s Case Dismissed for Lack of Causation, a Critical Element in Any Negligence Case

December 10, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided a case that was brought by a man who was injured while skiing in Vermont. The allegations were that the ski resort was negligent for allowing “jumps” to be built on its terrain, which caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The court ultimately determined, however, that the plaintiff failed to submit adequate proof that the ski resort’s negligence in allowing the jumps to be present was the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

The Facts of Gemmick v. Jay Peak, Inc.

In the case, Gemmick v. Jay Peak, Inc., the plaintiff was skiing with his daughter. Toward the end of the run, the plaintiff’s daughter stopped to look for her father but couldn’t find him. As it turns out, a ski patroller found the plaintiff disoriented and combative midway up the hill. The plaintiff was treated for “fractures to his left ribs and left transverse processes.”

The plaintiff could not recall what exactly had happened. However, his daughter recalled seeing a ski jump to the left of the trail near where he was injured. This led both father and daughter to conclude that another patron went off the jump and collided with the man.

Medical Malpractice Case Dismissed after Expert’s Testimony Deemed Inadmissible

December 3, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Alaska heard a case brought by a patient against the doctor and anesthesiologist who performed his open-heart surgery. In the case, Brandner v. Pease, the court ultimately determined that the plaintiff’s failure to provide admissible evidence from an expert required that the case be dismissed.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s written opinion, the plaintiff suffered a heart attack in 2009 and had a subsequent open-heart surgery that was conducted by the defendants. From the beginning, there were complications, starting with the fact that it took the anesthesiologist two attempts to intubate the plaintiff. Upon successfully intubating the plaintiff, the anesthesiologist administered propofol to induce anesthesia. After the medication was administered, the plaintiff’s blood pressure dropped, nearly sending him into another cardiac arrest. However, with CPR and additional drugs, his condition was stabilized.

Once the plaintiff was stabilized, the doctor attempted to place a transesophageal echo (TEE) to take images of the plaintiff’s heart for diagnostic purposes. The TEE placement was unsuccessful, but the doctors decided to continue forward with the surgery nonetheless. The procedure was completed, and 12 days later the plaintiff was discharged.

Maryland Court Reconsiders Standards Required to Prove Personal Injury Case Alleging Exposure to Lead-Based Paint

November 25, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals decided a case that will likely have implications for any plaintiff bringing a case alleging they were injured by the use of lead-based paint in a residence. In the case, Barr v. Rochkind, the plaintiff was a woman who suffered lead poisoning while living in a residence owned by the defendant. The tenant filed suit against the landlord, arguing that the landlord should be responsible for her injuries and medical treatment.

At trial, the plaintiff conceded that there was no way she was going to be able to provide any direct evidence that the the defendant’s residence contained lead paint. However, she asked the court to infer that it did, based on circumstantial evidence. Specifically, the plaintiff wanted to prove that the home contained lead paint by submitting medical tests showing that the level of lead in her blood rose 33% while she was living in the home.

The court discussed the general principles of negligence first, noting that in order for a defendant to be found liable, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed them a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the plaintiff suffered some actual injury that was caused by the defendant’s breach.

Accident in D.C. Suburb Kills Four and Injures 14 Others

November 17, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month in Hyattsville, Maryland, not far from Washington, D.C., an accident between a church van and a pick-up truck resulted in four people losing their lives and another 14 being seriously injured. According to one local news source, the accident took place on a Sunday afternoon on Hyattsville Street.

Evidently, police believe that the driver of the pick-up truck rear-ended another passenger vehicle and then lost control of the truck. After traveling several hundred feet past the site of the initial collision, the truck crossed over a double yellow line into the line of oncoming traffic. A church van with 16 people inside traveling in the opposite direction was unable to avoid the collision, and it struck the truck on the passenger side.

After that collision, the pick-up truck ignited in flames. The flames burned intensely until emergency workers were able to get the fire under control. However, ultimately the driver of the truck was pronounced dead at the scene. Thankfully, the flames from the truck did not spread to the van. However, three people in the van – two adults and one child – were killed as a result of the collision. Fourteen others in the van were injured and were taken to various hospitals in the area.

Seven Product Recalls Announced in the Past Few Weeks; Some with Potentially Serious Safety Concerns

November 10, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a national news source compiled a list of several recent product recalls that major manufacturers across the country have announced. According to that article, the following items have all been recalled:

Skippy Reduced Fat Peanut Butter: Skippy told consumers that there is the possibility that there could be small pieces of metal in the product.
Sure Signal Fire Alarms: There is a potential fuse problem in certain models, resulting in a failure to alert owners of a fire.
Sanofi Epinephrine Injections: There have been 26 reports that the company has administered the wrong dose to patients.
Burley Child Bicycle Trailers: Several models of the trailers have defective hardware that can cause the trailer to separate from the bicycle.
Dodge Journey Vehicles: There is a problem that can cause moisture build-up in the brake system, potentially leading to an increased risk of brake failure.
Jeep Cherokees: There is a reported problem in the AC line that can cause a vehicle to catch on fire.
Honda Accords: Roughly 304,000 Accords were recalled because the airbags may spontaneously deploy. So far, 19 injuries have been reported.
Pottery Barn Water Bottles: There are reports that the paint used in the water bottles contains lead.

Anyone who believes that they may be in possession of a defective product should consult with the manufacturer to determine if that is the case. If so, most manufacturers will return any money paid for the product or will repair it free of charge.

Manufacturer Settles Lawsuit over Defective Tire that Paralyzed One Man

November 3, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier last month, Cooper Tire & Rubber settled a lawsuit that was brought in the aftermath of an accident that paralyzed one man. According to one news source covering the case, the settlement agreement was reached on the second day of the trial. However, the exact terms of the agreement have not yet been released.

Evidently, the plaintiff was riding as a passenger in a minivan equipped with Cooper tires when the rear left tire blew, causing the minivan to overturn. The man, who was sitting in the rear of the minivan, was ejected from the vehicle. As a result of the accident, the man suffered serious injuries and was paralyzed.

The man filed suit against Cooper Tire & Rubber, alleging that the company manufactured a defective product that caused his injuries. Specifically, he claimed that Cooper failed to use belt-edge gum strips, which are known to reduce occurrences of tread separation. In fact, there was evidence before the court that suggested that Cooper knew of these problems as early as 1996, but it failed to do anything about them in this specific model. Additionally, other models of Cooper tires did have some safety mechanisms that the tires on the plaintiff’s vehicle did not. This, the plaintiff argued, showed that Cooper was aware of the potential defect.

Gun Manufacturer Named in Lawsuit Following Accidental Shooting Death; Defective Trigger to Blame

October 30, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decided an appeal that allowed a products liability case to proceed against a gun manufacturer, alleging that a faulty trigger mechanism led to an accidental shooting. In the case, O’Neal v. Remington, the plaintiff was a woman whose husband was killed in an accidental shooting when he and several friends were hunting.

According to the court’s written opinion, the accident took place back in 2008 and involved a Remington rifle that was originally made with a “Walker trigger” mechanism. The Walker trigger mechanism was used dating back to the 1970s, and since then it had come under criticism for causing the gun to fire when the safety is off but without the trigger being pulled. However, despite evidence that a problem with the mechanism existed, Remington determined not to recall the roughly 20,000 rifles made with the trigger.

On the day in question, the plaintiff’s husband was out hunting with friends. He allowed one of his hunting buddies to use his Remington rifle, and, when the group spotted a deer, the friend pulled out the borrowed rifle. However, as he did so, the rifle accidentally discharged, killing the gun’s owner. The deceased’s wife filed suit against Remington, as the manufacturer of the gun.

D.C. Police Cruiser Involved in Near-Fatal Pedestrian Accident

October 19, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a Washington, D.C. police cruiser was involved in a serious accident with a pedestrian, nearly claiming the pedestrian’s life and injuring the officer as well. According to one local news source, the accident took place at around 1:45 in the afternoon, near the intersection of Connecticut Avenue and L Street NW, just north of Farragut Square.

Evidently, the pedestrian was walking across Connecticut Avenue when a police cruiser came speeding into the intersection with its lights on and sirens blaring. As the officer saw the man in the intersection, he attempted to swerve. However, the officer’s evasive maneuvers were not quite enough, and the cruiser’s side mirror ended up striking the pedestrian. Some witness accounts claim that the man was then thrown into the air before he crashed down onto the median. He was immediately taken to the hospital and admitted in critical condition. The police officer was also injured in the accident, although his injuries were minor, and he is expected to make a quick and full recovery.

One eyewitness to the accident told reporters that she was at the intersection at the time of the collision, and she had arrived there before the pedestrian who “rushed” across to beat the “Don’t Walk” signal. She also said that the police car may have been in hot pursuit of another vehicle, but she wasn’t certain of that. Police are conducting an investigation into the near-fatal accident, and they are looking into whether either of the two parties involved was in violation of a traffic law at the time of the collision.

Medical Malpractice Case Dismissed as Untimely After Late Filing

October 14, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Mississippi released a written opinion in a case, Thornhill v. Ingram, holding that a medical malpractice plaintiff’s case was untimely because the statute of limitations had run. This left the plaintiff with no way to recover for the injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of the defendant’s negligence.

The Facts of the Case

Back in 2002, one of the plaintiff’s loved ones passed away after being treated by the defendant doctor at the defendant hospital. However, after her treatment at the hospital, the plaintiff’s loved one passed away from a condition that was not diagnosed until it was too late. The plaintiff filed suit against the doctor and hospital.

Eight years later, the case had not gone to trial and was not making significant progress, and the defendants asked the court to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution. The court agreed and dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning that it could be refiled if and when the plaintiff chose to do so.