Blog

“Everybody’s on the phone, so connected and all alone.”

Posted on February 2, 2012 by Rick Kriseman

This was the chorus of a Jimmy Buffett song of the same title. And I gave this post that title because it seems in our society today that you can’t go anywhere without seeing someone, somewhere, on the phone.

With the invention of “smart phones”, everybody isn’t just talking while on the phone. Now we see them texting, emailing, taking pictures, videos, surfing the internet or utilizing their phones as GPS’s.

While the benefits of this new technology are indisputable, there are some negatives which have accompanied this technology.

Because of this technology, we have seen a deterioration in the quality of and quantity of interpersonal communications.

We have also seen a dramatic rise in auto accidents caused by driver distraction resulting from cell phone use and the gamut of available smart phone uses.

In an effort to address the growing concern over accidents resulting from cell phone use while driving, several bills have been filed for this legislative session which, in their own manner, attempt to deal with this growing problem.

HB 39 by Representative John Patrick Julian, seeks to create a moving violation for using a “handheld mobile telecommunications device”. It allows a law enforcement officer to cite a person for using a handheld device while the officer observed that person committing a moving violation.

The bill defines a handheld mobile telecommunications device as a “wireless telephone or other device used to access the services of a commercial mobile radio service for the purpose of sending or receiving voice, text, or other data, including, but not limited to, computer data, electronic mail, electronic messages, games, music, images, and video.”

Finally, the bill provides for an enhanced penalty if the moving violation occurred within a school zone.

This bill was assigned to three House committees, and to date, has not received a hearing in any of the three committees.

The second bill filed was HB 187 by Representative Irv Slosberg. This bill does several things. First, it prohibits a person under the age of 18, from using any type of hand-held cellular telephone or other hand-held electronic communications device while in physical control of a motor vehicle.

The bill further provides that a person “in actual physical control of a school bus transporting any student” is prohibited from using any type of hand-held cellular telephone or other hand-held electronic communication device”

There are two exceptions to these two provisions. The first exception is if the device used is designed for hands-free use and the person is using it in that manner. The second exceptions occurs if the use occurs when the vehicle is stopped and the engine is not running.

Another significant portion of this bill requires minors to display a DOT issued placard, visible from the front and rear of the vehicle which bears a warning that the person must display the placard at all times while operating the motor vehicle.

Lastly, the bill prohibits a person under the age of 18 from operating a motor vehicle with more than one passenger under 18, unless those passengers are siblings or children of the driver.

This bill also was assigned to three House committees. To date, it too has not been heard in any of the assigned committees.

The last of the three bills addressing this issue was HB 299. This bill was sponsored by Representative Pilon. It contained the catchy title “Florida Ban on Texting While Driving Law.”

The bill included language clearly stating its intent to “improve roadway safety”, “prevent crashes”, and “Reduce Injuries”.

It prohibited persons from operating a motor vehicle while “manually typing or entering multiple letters, numbers, symbols, or other characters into a wireless communication device or while sending or reading data in such a device for the purpose of non-voice interpersonal communications..”

The bill defined a “wireless communications device” as “any device that is designed or intended to receive or transmit text or character based messages, access or store data, or connect to the Internet….”

A motor vehicle parked and not being operated was not subject to this prohibition.
Additionally, this bill would not apply to a motor vehicle operator who was; performing official duties as an operator of an authorized emergency vehicle; reporting an emergency or criminal or suspicious activity; receiving messages that are related to the operation or navigation of the vehicle; safety related information; data used primarily by the vehicle; or radio broadcasts.

It authorized law enforcement officers to stop a motor vehicle and issue a citation as a secondary offense for persons texting while driving.

A user’s billing records can be admitted as evidence to determine whether a violation occurred.

Like the previous two bills, this bill was also referred to three committees and has not received a hearing in any of the referred committees.

As much as texting or talking without a hands-free device continues to be a safety issue here in Florida, it does not appear that any of these bills will become law during this legislative session.

Posted in Auto Accidents, Florida Statutes, Rick Kriseman | Leave a comment

Highway, fog, smoke, darkness. For many, this is what hell looked like.

Posted on January 30, 2012 by Rick Kriseman

It’s mid afternoon on Sunday, when I receive a call from my cousin who was traveling on I-75 north headed back to school. She had left the Tampa bay area around noon, and was expected to reach her destination by 4 pm. When she called, around 3pm, she hadn’t even reached Ocala, and was wondering if I could provide her with alternate directions.

I asked her if she knew what was causing the traffic delay. She indicated that there had been an accident somewhere north of where she was, and that traffic had been at a virtual standstill for hours.

After looking into the cause of the traffic backup, I learned that the accident in question was not merely some ordinary, run of the mill accident. No, this accident was much worse.

It occurred on a stretch of roadway that is normally serene, near the Paynes Prairie State Preserve.

This accident involved more than a dozen cars and six tractor trailers. It was clearly not a serene scene that afternoon.

This accident, which will go down in Florida history as one of the worst traffic accidents, took the lives of 10 people, with another 18 being hospitalized for their injuries.

According to reports by the Florida Highway Patrol, the multiple vehicle accident took place somewhere around four in the morning.

Officials blamed fog and smoke which had apparently reduced visibility on the road to practically nothing, for causing the massive pileup and loss of life.

According to the Tampa Bay Times, visibility before the accident had been so bad that the highway patrol had temporarily closed the road to traffic, but, sometime just prior to the accident, reopened the road.

Rescuers who first arrived at the scene of the accident indicated that they could not even see their own hands.

The northbound lanes of I-75 were not reopened until approximately 5:40 p.m.

When an accident this horrific occurs, people want to point the finger at someone. Someone had to be at fault for this accident.

Was it the Florida Highway Patrol, who reopened the road after closing it because of visibility problems?

Was it one or many of the drivers involved in the accident, for failing to pull off the road until the conditions improved?

Does the law help clarify who might have been at fault for causing the loss of lives and multiple injuries?

Let’s look at what Florida law says to see if it provides any clarification.

We start with Florida Statute 316.1925 – Careless Driving. This is a kind of catch-all statute that provides instruction when no specific statute applies. It says that

“(1) Any person operating a vehicle upon the streets or highways within the state shall drive the same in a careful and prudent manner, having regard for the width, grade, curves, corners, traffic, and all other attendant circumstances, so as not to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person. Failure to drive in such manner shall constitute careless driving and a violation of this section.”

The key language in this section which could be applied to this accident is the part that says “in a careful and prudent manner, having regard ….for all other attendant circumstances.”

Now I want you to think about this. It’s one thing to slow a car down when the conditions of the road quickly change. It’s a whole other ballgame to slow a semi-truck down quickly when road conditions suddenly change.

So under this statute, an argument could be made that in conditions which were as bad as these appeared to be, merely continuing to drive a truck might constitute careless driving.

Did all the vehicles on the road in the early morning hours have their lights on so that they could be seen? That is a fair question to ask. Florida Statute 316.217 defines when lighted lamps are required. Section (1) says that

“Every vehicle operated upon a highway within this state shall display lighted lamps and illuminating devices as herein respectively required for different classes of vehicles, subject to exceptions with respect to parked vehicles, under the following conditions;

(b) During any rain, smoke, or fog.”

Even if the sun had begun to come out that early morning, in conditions that included smoke AND fog, headlights should have been on each and every vehicle on the road. Failure to engage the headlights during these conditions could have contributed to the occurrence of the accident.

Then there’s Florida Statute 316.185, Special Hazards. This little known statute states that even if you are driving your car lower than the prescribed limits (meaning, on a 70 mph road, you are driving at 55 mph), this fact alone does not relieve you of your duty to further decrease your speed

“….when special hazards exist or may exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or other roadway conditions, and speed shall be decreased as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle, or other conveyance on or entering the street in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care.”

Therefore, under this statute, for those drivers who decided they were going to continue driving despite the conditions which existed, those drivers were required to reduce their speed down until they could continue on without causing or being involved in an accident.

So, based on these cited statutes, an argument can be made that some of the drivers involved in this accident may have caused or contributed to the accident’s occurrence.

But what about the Florida Highway Patrol? Do they have any responsibility for this accident, and if so, what are they obligated to pay?

Florida Statute 768.28 – waiver of sovereign immunity in tort actions, is the statute which governs governmental entities and their liability.

Specifically, this statute provides that the state, for itself and its agencies (like FHP), waives its sovereign immunity for liability for torts caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the agency while acting within the scope of the employee’s office.

Therefore, under this statute, if one of the persons injured in this accident were able to prove that the Deputy who made the decision to reopen the roadway prior to the accident did so wrongfully or negligently, then an action could be brought against the agency the Deputy worked for (in this case, the FHP).

BUT, that same statute SIGNIFICANTLY limits the amount that can be recovered by an injured party against the agency. Section 5 of FS 768.28 says:

“ Neither the state nor its agencies or subdivisions shall be liable to pay a claim or a judgment by any one person which exceeds the sum of $200,000 or any claim or judgment, or portions thereof, which, when totaled with all other claims or judgments paid by the state or its agencies or subdivisions arising out of the same incident or occurrence, exceeds the sum of $300,000.”

This means that IF an action is brought against FHP, and IF a jury were to determine that the Deputy was, in fact, negligent in reopening the road, the MAXIMUM all of the Plaintiffs could recover from the state is $300,000.00. The only way to recover an amount in excess of $300,000.00 would be if the jury awarded a verdict in excess of that amount and the Legislature appropriate the excess judgment to the Plaintiffs.

Under this same statute, no action can be brought against the individual Deputy unless he/she acted in bad faith or with “malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard for human rights, safety, or property”. A high burden to prove.

For those who were injured or who lost a loved one in this tragic accident, our thoughts and prayers go out to them, as they deal with their pain, suffering and grief while they wait for the full results of the investigation.

Posted in Auto Accidents, bodily injury, Careless driving, Florida Highway Patrol, Florida Statutes, Tampa Bay Times | Leave a comment

Emergency room visits – Better hope nothing goes wrong

Posted on January 25, 2012 by Rick Kriseman

While some emergency rooms are better than others, and while some emergency room physicians are better than others, most are dedicated to providing quality health care, and in fact, do provide quality health care for those who receive treatment in their facilities.

Most provide quality health care. Unfortunately, not ALL do. There are those hospitals and ER physicians who, for whatever reason, do not provide the level or quality of care that falls within the acceptable medical standards.

Dr. Frank Lender is involved in an accident and sustains serious injuries. As a result of this injuries, he is transported from the scene of the accident to the emergency room at Parott General Hospital for treatment of his injuries.

Upon Dr. Lender’s arrival at the emergency room of Parott General Hospital, he is met by a nurse who places him in an room, closes the door to the room, and tells him that someone will be in to see him momentarily.

Little does Dr. Lender know that on the day and time of his arrival at the hospital,, the emergency room at Parott General is understaffed, as several doctors and nurses are out with illnesses.

After waiting for an hour in excruciating pain, someone finally comes in to examine Dr. Lender. Despite his complaints about the pain in his neck and back, because the ER was so busy, x-rays were only taken of Dr. Lender’s neck, not his lower back.

Because the x-rays of Dr. Lender’s neck came back negative, he was discharged with a recommendation to rest and follow up with his primary care physician.

His wife, who by now had arrived at the ER, drove Dr. Lender home where he attempted to follow ER orders by resting. Unfortunately, while simply sitting on his couch resting, his left leg started to go numb. The numbness got increasingly worse to the point where he could no longer even walk.

His wife immediately drove him back to the ER, this time, at Central Hospital. After x-rays of his low back are taken, Dr. Lender learns that he has a lumbar disc which has completely blown, and worse, the physicians have told him that his failure to receive treatment at Parott General has caused the paralysis he is experiencing, and that the paralysis will become permanent.

What are Dr. Lender’s legal rights in this circumstances? Does he have the right to file suit against Parott General Hospital and the doctors and nurses who treated him, and if so, are there any limitations on those rights?

The answer is yes, Dr. Lender does have the right to file suit.

However, in order to bring an action against the doctor and hospital, Dr. Lender will have to prove that they acted with “a reckless disregard for the consequences so as to affect the life or health of another.” That is a VERY difficult burden to prove and to meet.

Assuming Dr. Lender is able to prove that the ER physician acted with reckless disregard, Florida law will limit the amount he can recover in noneconomic damages to $150,000.00 per claimant, $300,000.00 per incident (noneconomic damages are damages for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, etc.) is $150,000.00.

At least, under current law, Dr. Lender will still be entitled to recover all of his medical bills, which totaled $350,000.00 and are expected, over his lifetime, to cost him an additional $2,500,000.00, and the loss of income he will sustain because he is no longer able to work, which is estimated at $5,000.000.00 over his lifetime..

So how could things possibly get worse if something in the ER goes wrong?

Because of HB385. This bill, filed by Representative Matt Gaetz, makes a formal legislative finding that ER physicians are agents of the government performing a government duty. By making this formal finding, ER physicians will have state sovereign immunity.

Sovereign immunity protects governments from being sued without their consent and imposes a $200,000.00 limit on the government’s liability to a single person ($300,000.00 total liability on claims from a single incident). That limitation isn’t just for non-economic damages, it is a cap on ALL damages.

So in the case of Dr. Lender, if he received the negligent care at Parott General after Rep. Gaetz’ bill passed, the maximum recovery Dr. Lender would receive for his injuries, for his medical bills (current and future), for his lost wages (current and future), and for his pain and suffering is $200,000.00. That’s it.

It doesn’t matter that over his lifetime he will lose $5,000,000.00 in lost wages because he can’t work due to his injuries. It doesn’t matter that his medical bills totaled more than $350,000.00 and are expected, over his lifetime, to exceed $2,000,000.00.

HB385 will limit his recover to $200,000.00. Period.

Better hope that no mistakes happen if you’re ever in the ER.

Posted in bodily injury, Florida Statutes, medical malpractice | Leave a comment

Are you out of luck if you are the victim of a hit and run while on a bike?

Posted on January 19, 2012 by Rick Kriseman

Say you’re like 27 year old Joseph Mosby, riding your bike down the road, minding your own business, when suddenly and without warning, you get hit from behind by a car. To make matters worse, the car doesn’t stop to see if you’re ok. Instead, it speeds off.

What do you do? Whose going to pay for any medical care you need if you were injured. Is leaving the scene of an accident with injuries illegal?

Unfortunately for Mr. Mosby, of Port Richey, these are questions that he probably never thought nor wished he would be asking.

Early Thursday morning, on January 19, 2012, Mr. Mosby was riding his bike headed south on Little Road, just south of Rancho del Rio Drive, when he was hit from behind. According to the Florida Highway Patrol, the vehicle which struck Mr. Mosby immediately left the scene of the accident. The vehicle was described as a silver or gray newer model two door passenger car. Not surprisingly, the vehicle sustained significant damage to its windshield and front end.

Trooper Evans of FHP has requested that anyone with information about this accident contact him, as Mr. Mosby ended up being transported to Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point for treatment of serious injuries.

So what exactly does the law say about leaving the scene of an accident, is it different if the accident is between a car and a bike, a car and a pedestrian, or a car and another car?

Who pays for the medical bills in an accident between a car and a bike, a car and a pedestrian, or a car and another car?

Let’s first look at the law relating to crashes involving personal injury or death.

Florida Statute 316.027 is the statute which addresses the obligations of drivers when they are involved in an accident involving an injury of death.

Specifically, when a person is injured in an accident, Section 1(a), says

“The driver of any vehicle involved in a crash occurring on public or private property that results in injury of any person must immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the crash, or as close thereto as possible, and must remain at the scene of the crash until he or she has fulfilled the requirements of s. 316.062.”

For those who die as a result of their injuries, we look to Section 1(b), which says

“The driver of any vehicle involved in a crash occurring on public or private property that results in the death of any person must immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the crash, or as close thereto as possible, and must remain at the scene of the crash until he or she has fulfilled the requirements of s. 316.062.”

As you will notice, both of these sections indicate that the driver of the vehicle must remain at the scene until he or she has fulfilled their duties under 316.62, which is a section entitled “Duty to Give Information and Render Aid”.

As you will also notice, FS 316.027 does not differentiate between accidents involving a car and a bike, a pedestrian or another car. It simply states that the driver of ANY vehicle involved in a crash must immediately stop at the scene.

So in Mr. Mosby’s case, the fact that he was on a bike didn’t affect the obligation of the driver who hit him to immediately stop her vehicle and remain at the scene until she complied with the requirements of FS 316.062.

Great, so now Mr. Mosby knows what the other driver was required to do and didn’t do, that doesn’t help him with getting his medical bills paid. Who’s going to pay his bills?

To answer that question, we need to answer two additional questions – 1) does Mr. Mosby own a car and if so, does he have auto insurance on that car; and 2) if he does not own a car, does Mr. Mosby live with a family member who owns a car with an auto insurance policy

The answers to these questions are important because of Florida Statute 617.736, which clearly states the circumstances in which coverage will apply.

It is Section 4(e) of FS 627.736 which defines who is eligible for medical coverage under a Personal Injury Protection policy of insurance in Florida and under what circumstances.

For Mr. Mosby, whether he was riding his bike, was a pedestrian, or was driving his car would make no difference, IF Mr. Mosby owns an insured car, the fact that he was injured when he was struck by another car satisfies the requirements of 4(e)(1), which says

“Accidental bodily injury sustained in this state by the owner while occupying a motor vehicle, or while not an occupant of a self-propelled vehicle if the injury is caused by physical contact with a motor vehicle.” (emphasis added)

What if Mr. Mosby didn’t own a car, and was riding his bike because that was his only means of transportation. Would this same section apply? No. Section 4(e)(1) would not apply because he was not the owner of an insured motor vehicle.

However, if at the time of the accident, he was living with a relative who owned a car, under section 4(e)(3), that relative’s auto insurance would pay his medical bills. Again, even if he was riding a bike or walking.

Section 4(e)(3) says

“Accidental bodily injury sustained by a relative of the owner residing in the same household, under the circumstances described in subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2., provided the relative at the time of the accident is domiciled in the owner’s household and is not himself or herself the owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required…”

So if Mr. Mosby is going to get his medical bills paid in this matter, he either has to own an insured car himself, or live with a relative who owns an insured car.

If neither of those two options apply to his case, his only other hope is that law enforcement is able to track down the person that hit him, and if they do, hope that person has the required auto insurance. If they do, Mr. Mosby’s medical bills will be paid under Section 4(e)(4), which says

“ Accidental bodily injury sustained in this state by any other person while occupying the owner’s motor vehicle or, if a resident of this state, while not an occupant of a self-propelled vehicle, if the injury is caused by physical contact with such motor vehicle,….”

Let’s hope, for Mr. Mosby’s sake, that he recovers from his injuries, and that one of the sections cited which provide coverage, ends up applying to his situation.

Posted in Auto Accidents, BI Coverage, Bicyclist accident, bodily injury, Florida Highway Patrol, Florida Statutes, pedestrian, PIP Insurance, Rick Kriseman | Leave a comment

FOR-PROFIT UNIVERSITIES – THE NEXT BUBBLE TO BURST?

Posted on January 17, 2012 by Rick Kriseman

The for-profit university system is the fastest growing sector in higher education in this country. These Universities have experienced explosive growth over the past 10 years.

While there are many of these Universities who provide a good, quality education, for too many of the For-Profit Universities, the driving force of their existence isn’t a commitment to providing a well-rounded education. Rather, it’s a profit-driven motive. The more students that are enrolled in the school, the more revenue for the school.

Lower admission standards, and enrollment increases. Who cares whether graduation rates plummet. Promise “high paying jobs” after graduation, and enrollment increases. Who care if the “high paying jobs” promised never materialize.

The largest for-profit institution, the University of Phoenix, owned by the Apollo Group, Inc., has a student body of more than 440,000 students. That’s more than all of the universities in the Big Ten combined.

Next on the list of players is EDMC, Education Management Corporation. This company, which is 40% owned by Goldman Sachs, runs four for-profit schools – The Art Institute, Argosy University, South University, and Brown-Mackie University. Other large for-profit players are ITT Educational Services, Inc., Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, and Corinthian Colleges, Inc.

The explosive growth of the for-profit industry hasn’t gone unnoticed. Because nearly 90% of the revenue at some for-profits colleges comes solely from federal student loan programs, the federal government has begun looking into the practices at many for-profit schools.

Leading the investigation into these practices is Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. As the Chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Senator Harkin’s committee has interviewed hundreds of former students, teachers, and employees of for-profit schools, and what they have documented is that many of these schools are deliberately misleading potential students into enrolling in programs that they will never graduate from, and incurring loans that they will never be able to repay.

Sen. Harkin’s committee found that for-profits tend to charge more for tuition than comparable public schools, spend a large share of revenues on expenses unrelated to teaching, and experience high drop-out rates.

Here are just a few statistics from Sen. Harkin’s committee that are worth noting.

1. While almost 90% of total revenues came directly from the federal government, 57% of the students enrolled between 2008 – 2009 have departed without a diploma.

2. Data from the Dept. of Ed stated that in 2008-2009, for-profits enrolled more than 1.8 million students, which was less than 10% of all Higher Ed. students, yet, they received 23% of all federal aid dollars and accounted for 44% of the loan defaults.

3. Profits at 16 of the largest for-profit schools totaled 2.7 BILLION dollars in 2009. Between fiscal year 2009 and 2010, one school alone saw its profits grow from $235 million to $411 million.

4. The cost to attend a for-profit school in comparison to a community college or public university is considerably higher, and students at for-profit colleges are 8x more likely to graduate with a debt larger than $20,000.00.

Which is precisely why some view For-profit colleges as the next federal financing bubble to burst.

So why should we be concerned about this? Why should we care about what happens to these students who incur thousands in student loans and have no degree to show for it?

First, because it’s wrong.

Second, as taxpayers, we should be incensed. At a time when we are facing budget deficits, when programs which help the middle class, small businesses, the elderly, children, and those with disabilities are being slashed, many of these for-profits are taking advantage of government assistance and making billions in profits on the back of taxpayers.

And lastly, we should care because this issue and the future of for-profit universities has reared its head in the 2012 Presidential campaign.

Now, this is not a democrat vs. republican thing, nor am I writing about this for political reasons or because I favor one candidate over another, I am writing about this out of concern for the thousands of students who have already been victimized by the for-profit system, and because there is a real possibility that under the leadership of some of the Presidential candidates, we could see an even greater expansion, and with it, victimization, in the for-profit college arena.

In a story which appeared in the Boston Globe on January 15, 2012, it was reported that at a New Hampshire town-hall style meeting, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney told the audience that his solution to the rising cost of higher education was for students to consider for-profit colleges.

A week later in Iowa, the Globe reported Romney stated that by increasing competition among colleges, for-profit institutions “hold down the cost of education and help students get jobs without saddling them with excessive debt.”

We are still trying to get over the burst in the housing bubble, are we really ready for the next bubble to burst?

Posted in EDMC, For Profit Colleges, for-profit universities, Rick Kriseman | Leave a comment

FDA Orders Vaginal Mesh Manufacturers To Study Product’s Safety and Effectiveness

Posted on January 17, 2012 by Jeff Lucas

The Food and Drug Administration which oversees all medical device products such as the transvaginal mesh has ordered the 31 companies who produce the vaginal mesh to undertake a 3 year study and report on the product’s safety and effectiveness. The order comes in the wake of a torrent of complaints concerning the vaginal mesh which had been approved by the FDA to treat female urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.

In spite of the notoriety surrounding the vaginal mesh implants, 300,000 medical devices were implanted in women during 2010. According to Business Week, “The Food and Drug Administration wrote J&J, C.R. Bard and 31 other manufacturers, telling them to conduct three years of trials on safety and effectiveness, the agency’s William Maisel said yesterday in a telephone interview. An FDA report in July found a fivefold jump in deaths, injuries or malfunctions tied to the products. Almost 300,000 synthetic meshes were implanted in U.S. women in 2010 to treat incontinence or shore up pelvic muscles, the agency estimates. The devices’ alleged failures have spurred more than 650 lawsuits against manufacturers and heightened scrutiny of the FDA program that cleared the products for sale without human testing.”

“Now these companies are going to have to tell the truth,” said Lana Keeton, a mesh recipient and patient advocate from Austin, Texas. While companies say implants are safe, “up until now, there’s been no data,” she said. “It’s all been marketing.”

Posted in Defective Products | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

RIP Mary Raftery-Irish Journalist Who Exposed Child Abuse

Posted on January 16, 2012 by James Magazine

For the thousands of Irish children who lived through the Dickensian hell of the Irish industrial schools, Mary Raftery was a heroine. She died last week at the age of 54 of cancer. In 1999, Raftery exposed the Irish boarding schools, financed by the Irish government but administered by private religious institutions such as the Catholic Church, for the inhumane and cruel torture they inflicted upon many of the young boys and girls who were sent to the schools.

Raftery produced a 3-part documentary entitled “States of Fear” that exposed these schools for the crimes they perpetrated against Irish children for the better part of the 20th century. According to the NY Times, “In examining the state child-care system in Ireland, the series brought to light a Dickensian network of reformatories and residential schools for poor, neglected and abandoned children known as industrial schools. The schools, which were financed and supervised by the government and managed largely by religious orders, mainly Roman Catholic, served about 30,000 children from the 1930s to the 1990s, according to a government report in 2009. The films, making poignant use of interviews with victims, focused on the system in midcentury and presented a horrifying litany of torments the young people suffered at the schools: beatings, semi-starvation, insufficient clothing, filthy living conditions, overwork, emotional abuse and sexual assault.”

In order to appreciate the magnitude and importance of “States of Fear” one must understand the power and influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland. It took a great deal of courage and journalistic integrity for Raftery to embark upon such a project.

“What television can do, if you get it right, is it can concentrate and focus a story at a particular time, and make people face it and make people furious,” Ms. Raftery said in a television interview in 2010. “So it was a question of constructing a series of programs that wouldn’t allow people to go back into denial again, in other words that the body of evidence would be so overwhelming that it could not be denied anymore.”

“The documentary series and the public outcry it engendered prompted the Irish prime minister, Bertie Ahern, to apologize publicly. “The government wishes to make a sincere and long overdue apology to the victims of childhood abuse for our collective failure to intervene, to detect their pain, to come to their rescue,” he said, speaking before the Irish Parliament on May 11, 1999.”

May she rest in peace knowing she helped countless sexual abuse survivors tell their story and reclaim their dignity.

Posted in Priest Abuse | Leave a comment

Berkeley Prep Swim Coach Arrested, Charged with Computer Pornography

Posted on January 13, 2012 by Robert Green

An assistant swim coach at Berkeley Preparatory High School in Tampa has been arrested and charged with more than 100 counts of possession of child pornography on his computer. While the investigation is ongoing, law enforcement officials have said that none of the images thus far appear to involve students at the school.
jay goldstein Berkeley Prep Swim Coach Arrested, Charged with Computer Pornography

According to www.tbo.com, “Jay Elliott Goldstein’s personal computer were of students at the school. Goldstein, 52, a non-faculty assistant swim and dive coach at the school, was arrested early this morning, said Hillsborough County sheriff’s spokeswoman Debbie Carter. He remained in jail this afternoon. Bail was set at $750,000, jail records show. Detectives discovered Goldstein on the Internet trying to download child pornography from websites where such material is offered, Carter said.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The latest on the Chinese Drywall settlement with Knauf

Posted on January 13, 2012 by Rick Kriseman

As I previously bogged about, on December 15, 2011, a tentative settlement was reached in the MDL case against Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin (KPT).

On December 20, 2011, the terms of the settlement were filed with the Court, with those same terms being described in that blog posting. Since that posting, several things have happened which merited posting.

On January 4, 2012, the Court held a preliminary settlement hearing after which the Court entered an Order taking the matter into consideration.

On January 10, 2012, the Court entered an Order preliminarily approving the settlement and directing that a Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of the Knauf Class Action be prepared and sent to all persons who were a party to the suit prior to December 9, 2011.

As such sometime in the very near future, everyone who was a party to the MDL suit against Knauf (approximately 4500 property owners) will be receiving the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement document.

The following is a summary of what the Notice will state and the reasons the notice is being sent.

First, the notice is being sent for two reasons – 1) to advise plaintiffs of the proposed settlement and terms of the settlement; and 2) to provide plaintiffs with notice of their right to opt-out of the settlement.

In the Notice, it states that there are three subclasses of Plaintiffs. There is the Residential Subclass, which applies to those who have resided or continue to reside in the affected property;

There is the Commercial Subclass, which applies to those plaintiffs who have never lived on the property and merely purchased it to run a business out of the property, or to lease it or sell it; and

There is the Tenant subclass. As you might expect, this subclass applies to those who are renting affected properties.

There will be a “remediation fund” established, which will be unlimited, meaning Knauf will continue to deposit money into this fund until such time as all of the Plaintiffs have either had their homes remediated or have been paid under the cash-out option.

Each participating Plaintiff will have three options to choose from under the remediation fund: 1) Program contractor remediation – where the contractor approved by Knauf and the Plaintiff’s steering committee performs the remediation on the affected home; 2) Self remediation – where a contractor of the property owner’s choice, who must be licensed, insured and bonded, performs the remediation on the home; or 3) the cash-out option – where the Plaintiff is provided with a cash payment with no obligation to remediate, but must take steps to ensure that any subsequent purchaser is aware of the Chinese drywall.

Under both options 1 and 2, plaintiffs will receive a payment to cover the costs of moving and storage during remediation, and to pay for any personal property, such as appliances, computers, flat screens, etc. that were damaged by the drywall.

If a plaintiff had already remediated their property prior to the settlement, they could seek reimbursement of those costs and would also be entitled to seek benefits from the “other loss” fund.

Speaking of the “other loss” fund, it is this fund that will reimburse plaintiffs for the alternative living expenses incurred when they have to move out for the remediation. If the Plaintiff is a commercial property owner, this fund would reimburse the plaintiff for their economic loss arising from their inability to use or rent the property and/or for carrying costs (i.e. interest expenses) arising from an inability to sell the property.

It is this fund which will also pay for any bodily injury claims. However, because Knauf is specifically denying that the drywall caused bodily injuries, they are requiring that anyone making a claim for bodily injuries MUST have sought medical care prior to the date of the settlement, AND the claimant’s medical provider must issue a report which indicates that the condition was caused by the drywall exposure.

This fund will NOT pay claims for stigma to the property, injury to reputation, loss of enjoyment of the home, psychological or emotional damages, medical monitoring, injury to reputation, credit rating loss, legal or accounting expenses, or loss of investment opportunities.

Once completed, Plaintiffs MUST execute a release of all claims against Knauf and any of the defendants in the supply chain, PROVIDED that those defendants contributed to the remediation fund. If they did not contribute, then the release will not include that defendant.

For any plaintiff accepted into the pilot program, if remediation had begun on the home, the settlement would not affect that plaintiff.

Now let’s talk about the right to opt-out of the settlement.

All plaintiffs have the right to opt-out of the settlement. Any plaintiff who opts-out will be excluded from sharing in the benefits of the settlement. That Plaintiff would, however, be free to pursue an individual claim against Knauf. They would not benefit from nor be bound by any further orders or judgments in the litigation.

For any Plaintiff who does choose to opt-out, they must send a request to do so to Settlement Class Counsel, Arnold Levine, and Counsel for Knauf, Kerry Miller, on or before April 6, 2012. Any objections to the settlement must also be sent to the parties noted by April 6, 2012.

The fairness hearing is scheduled for June 20 – 21, 2012. At this hearing, the Court will consider any objections to the settlement filed, along with all arguments in opposing to and in support of the settlement, and will enter an order either approving, modifying or disapproving the settlement.

The Plaintiff’s steering committee and settlement class counsel, after weighing the benefits that the class members will receive against the probabilities of success and failure, and the time involved in litigating if no settlement were agreed upon, all believe that this settlement is in the best interests of the Class, and that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate.

For those who decide to go against the recommendations of the steering committee and opt-out, they would need to pursue a case against Knauf on their own, which COULD take years before a settlement or court decision were reached.

Additionally, the costs involved in litigating the case would be astronomical, so the decision to opt-out should not be made lightly.

Keep checking our blog often for updates, as new information becomes available.

Posted in bodily injury, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

More Bad News for Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph: A Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

Posted on January 12, 2012 by James Magazine

It’s not surprising that in a Diocese rife with sexual abuse allegations another type of sexual abuse case surfaces. This time a former employee of the Diocese has filed a civil lawsuit against the Diocese for sexual harassment.

A whistleblower named Larry Probst has filed a new lawsuit that alleges more bad behavior on the part of diocesan administration officials. According to www.pitch.com, “Probst worked at the diocese as a part-time archivist at the Chancery office. He started in 1999 or 2000 on an intermittent basis and then “on a more regular, permanent, part-time basis” in 2007. His lawsuit says the “unwanted and unwelcome sexual harassment from his supervisory priests” and from a co-worker started in spring 2010 and continued until June 30, 2011, when he was fired for what he claims was retaliation for complaining about the unwanted advances.

The lawsuit says the Rev. Charles Michael Coleman, who served as Archivist for the Chancery, hired his friend, a man named Michael St. George, to do data entry from the sacramental records into a computer program called “Parish-Soft.” The lawsuit alleges that Coleman and the Rev. Robert Cameron “fawned over” St. George in front of Probst. The lawsuit says Coleman, Cameron and others would talk “about St. George in sexually suggestive ways … in the presence of” Probst.

The lawsuit also alleges that St. George made unwanted sexual advances toward Probst, creating “a sexually hostile work environment.”

Posted in Priest Abuse | 1 Comment