Lansing Personal Injury Lawyer - damages

Michigan's Wrongful Death Act Provides Compensation, Closure for Families

David Mittleman — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:31:00 GMT

It is always difficult when a family member dies. When a loved one passes away, it is quite common to feel grief and loss. Those feelings can be even worse when someone is taken out of our lives due to the carelessness or negligence of another.

Nothing can ever truly replace a relative lost forever. However, Michigan law does allow family members to receive fair and reasonable compensation when an individual dies as a result of injuries caused by someone else. Michigan's Wrongful Death Act permits the following people to recover certain damages:

The decedent's spouse
The decedent's children (and their descendants)
The decedent's parents and grandparents
The decedent's brothers and/or sisters
People entitled to recover a portion of the decedent's estate under law
People entitled to recover a portion of the estate under a will

Instead of compensating the decedent, the Wrongful Death Act is designed to compensate the surviving relatives and the estate for damages they have suffered. Therefore, damages are typically limited to:

Reasonable medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses
Conscious pain and suffering suffered by the decedent
Loss of financial support
Loss of society and companionship

The law also permits a jury or judge to award any other damages considered "fair and equitable under the circumstances."

Michigan's Wrongful Death Act is very complicated and detailed. It includes numerous procedural requirements that must be strictly observed. Our firm regularly handles this type of claim, and we may be able to help you if you have lost a family member due to the negligence of someone else.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Michigan Medical Malpractice Claims Fraught With Obstacles

David Mittleman — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:58:00 GMT

Most of us know little or nothing about the practice of medicine. When we go to our doctors, for everything from a routine checkup to a serious emergency, we trust in them to conduct a proper and thorough examination and to formulate an adequate plan of care. Sometimes, as a result of the carelessness or inattention of the physician or other medical provider, a patient is harmed rather than healed.

Doctors and other medical providers have a legal duty to provide patients with treatment that meets the "standard of care." In layman's terms, the standard of care is what an ordinary and prudent doctor should do in a given situation. If a doctor breaches the standard of care, and the patient is injured as a result, the doctor has committed medical malpractice.

Medical malpractice is more than just a breach of duty, it is a betrayal of trust. However, Michigan law can make it very difficult and expensive for victims to hold the at-fault doctors accountable. There are numerous procedural requirements demanded by law that must be strictly followed. Failure to follow these rules precisely could (and often does) result in the dismissal of an otherwise valid medical malpractice claim. Injured victims have only two years to bring a claim for malpractice, while victims of other types of negligence have three years. Moreover, the victim is required to procure the testimony of other doctors in order to prove his or her case. This is an expensive requirement, and the injured person's doctors must have exactly the same credentials as the at-fault doctor or the claim may be dismissed.

In Michigan, even if a victim of medical malpractice can satisfy all the procedural requirements and prevail in court, their level of compensation may be limited. Medical malpractice damage caps operate to prevent severely hurt patients from fully recovering for their injuries.

Our office handles medical malpractice claims regularly, and our attorneys have extensive experience navigating Michigan's legal obstacle course. If you suspect that you or a loved one is a victim of medical malpractice, contact our office to see if we can put our expertise to work for you.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Kansas Supreme Court Called to Protect Patients From Tort Reform

David Mittleman — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:35:06 GMT

Kansas, like Georgia, will be visiting the problem of tort reform this year as it decides whether or not caps on damages in medical malpractice cases violates a patient's rights after he or she has been injured by a doctor's negligence.

The legal battle surrounds a wrongly removed ovary. Amy Miller of Eudora, Kansas, went to have her right ovary removed. Dr. Carolyn Johnson unfortunately removed the left ovary instead. Ms. Miller filed a lawsuit and a Kansas jury comprised of her peers returned a verdict for $759,680.

However, because of laws in Kansas that place limits on damages for pain and suffering (noneconomic damages) in medical malpractice, the Judge in the case stripped $150,000 of the verdict that had to do with future noneconomic loss.

Attorneys for Ms. Miller argue that Kansas's law on medical malpractice caps violates Kansas's constitutional guarantees to a jury trial.

In addition to the Constitutional violation, her attorney argues that it violates the seperation fo powers by allowing the Legislature to unnecessarily take away a power vested to the judiciary and juries.

Most important, however, is the fact that caps on noneconomic damages do nothing but place the greatest limitations on the people who have been injured the most. Follow us as we let you know how these pivotal cases are decided across the country.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Vermont Jury Awards $2.2 Million to Abused Alter Boy

David Mittleman — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:01:25 GMT

A Vermont jury awarded $2.2 million to a former alter boy as compensation for abuse he suffered in the late 1970s at the hands of a rogue priest. The plaintiff, whose real name was concealed to protect his identity, claimed that Rev. Edward Pacquette had fondled him some 20 to 25 times over a two-year span from 1976 to 1978. The jury agreed, and found that the state Catholic diocese had failed to protect the young man.

The $2.2 million dollar award is made up entirely of compensatory damages. In other words, the amount is intended to put the plaintiff into the position he would be had he not been injured by the defendant's conduct. The largest verdict against the Catholic church in Vermont was $8.7 million, but that was primarily composed of punitive damages. Punitive damages are intended to punish and discourage particularly egregious behavior.

Notably, this is not the first verdict rendered against Rev. Pacquette.

Generally, a claim based on conduct that occurred so long ago will be barred by statutes of limitations. However, under certain narrow exceptions, individuals can commence a lawsuit that would otherwise be time barred. Although the rules vary from state to state, the plaintiff generally must show that something prevented him or her from realizing that he or she could assert a legal claim. In the Vermont case, the jury concluded that the victim did not discover that he had a cause of action until 2004 or 2005.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Philip Morris to Pay $13.8 Million in Punitive Damages to Daughter of Deceased Smoker

David Mittleman — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:00:00 GMT

A jury in Los Angeles Superior Court voted 9-3 on Monday that Philip Morris USA should pay $13.8 million in punitive damages to Jodi Bullock. Betty Bullock, Jodi Bullock’s mother, died of lung cancer in 2003 after smoking Marlboros beginning at age 17 and later Benson & Hedges. Both cigarette brands are Philip Morris products.

A civil suit was originally filed against Phillip Morris in April 2001 that accused the company of fraud and product liability. A 2002 jury recommended that Philip Morris should pay Bullock $28 billion in punitive damages. However, the judge reduced the award amount to $28 million. Then, in 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District reversed the jury’s decision and a new trial was set over the punitive damages. However, the original jury still awarded Bullock $750,000 in damages and $100,000 for pain and suffering.

Philip Morris contends that the $28 million award is excessive. Nevertheless, Philip Morris is the world’s largest tobacco company. In fact, according to a 1998 Stanford University report, the company rakes in $74 billion annually, while tobacco products contribute to four million deaths per year. However, that death rate estimation was made in 1999. The World Health Organization estimates that preventable deaths caused by tobacco use will rise to 10 million per year by 2020. While Philip Morris has started youth smoking prevention programs in recent years, internal documents show that the tobacco giant continues to target adolescents as potential customers. Indeed, most smokers began before turning 18. Furthermore, Philip Morris spent $23 million in lobbying expenditures in 1998 with 22% to Democrats and 77% to Republicans—they are second only to British American Tobacco in lobbying expenditures. Given these facts, $28 million for Betty and Jodi Bullock is a drop in the hat to pay for one more life lost to the lies of big tobacco.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Relatives Outraged to Learn Bodies of Deceased Loved Ones May Have Been Dug Up in Burial Site Scam

David Mittleman — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:40:00 GMT

Horrifically, 200 to 300 graves at the Burr Oak Cemetery in Alsip, Illinois were dug up in an illegal scheme to make more money. According to the Cook County Sheriff, four employees of Perpetua Holdings of Illinois Inc. were arrested after they allegedly dug up graves and moved bodies to a mass dumping site to make room for new grave sites. The perpetrators also apparently removed headstones and buried coffins on top of existing burial sites. All of these actions were part of an elaborate scheme to cash in on the re-sale of burial sites that were already being used.

At least six Chicago law firms are representing the relatives of the deceased. Some of the firms are attempting to obtain a restraining order to allow the families into the graveyard, which was cordoned off as a crime scene by local authorities. Aside from the temporary restraining orders, the lawsuits seek compensatory damages and potentially punitive damages. Furthermore, Capital Group of Richardson, Texas may also be named as an owner of the graveyard.

The cemetery holds the bodies of many prominent Americans such as the slain civil rights figure Emmett Till and blues and jazz singer Dinah Washington. Michelle Obama’s father was allegedly buried in the graveyard as well, but the White House has since debunked that rumor.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Michigan Supreme Court rightfully decides that domestic labor has economic value

David Mittleman — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:21:32 GMT

In a 4-3 decision, the new Gang of Justice at the Michigan Supreme Court stood up to conservative Justice Robert Young and ruled that backbreaking domestic work is, in fact, work.

Michigan Supreme Court Justice Robert Young is showing us once again how little he knows about the lives of average Americans. His dissenting opinion in Thorn v Mercy Memorial Hospital shows that he thinks the day-to-day efforts of a mother and wife do not have an economic value. Not surprisingly, any mother or wife reading this right now might beg to differ. As anyone who has to pick up after kids, change diapers, fold laundry, prepare three meals, make the bed, walk the dogs, buy the groceries, vacuum the carpet, wipe the windows, clean out the fridge, mop the floors, sanitize the toilet, etc., already knows: it’s a J - O - B. Even the folks at Salary.com agreed, saying a stay-at-home mom, in 2006, would earn $134,121 a year if they were actually paid for all the work they do (a "working mom" would still rake in $85,876 a year, thanks to the Second Shift effect).

Young’s dissent really comes down to one thing. When it comes to the relatives of a deceased or injured loved one up against the corporation who hired the doctors that killed or injured the loved one, Young thinks average Americans should get no assistance from the corporation or doctor to replace all the tasks that person used to do before the malpractice. He’d like to lump it together with the idea that all that back-breaking work is just a part of the "companionship" of a spouse or relative.

Are we really back in the 1950s, that we’re discounting the actual labor people do in their homes? Is "women’s work" really a value-less activity that wives and mothers do because it’s their lot in life? Of course not, but Justice Robert Young has no other option to argue that because we all know who he really cares about - insurance companies and corporations.

Thanks to the wisdom and modern views of the majority members of the Michigan Supreme Court, if your spouse of relative is injured as a result of someone’s medical negligence, there won’t be a "cap" on how much you can recover for the loss of their labor value when it comes to all the things they did to be a "super-mom".

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Long Legal Battle Ends With $3 Million Verdict

David Mittleman — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:27:00 GMT

Earlier this week, a jury awarded an Owosso, Michigan, woman $2.9 million in her medical malpractice action against an area hospital, two doctors, and their professional corporations. In the process, they have closed the latest chapter in the nearly nine-year-old case.

Sue Apsey and her husband commenced their lawsuit in November 2001, alleging that doctors negligently performed an exploratory laparotomy, resulting in serious medical complications including infection. The defendants successfully had the case dismissed, arguing that the Affidavit of Merit (a document required for all medical malpractice actions in Michigan) had been prepared out of state and had not been properly authenticated under Michigan law. The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal.

At issue was the apparent conflict between two statutes - the Uniform Recognition of Acknowledgments Act (URAA) and a provision of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA). Each statute provides a different method of authenticating out-of-state documents, with the RJA provision requiring an additional certification Ms. Apsey and her husband had failed to include until after the statute of limitations had run. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the RJA controlled in this instance because it dealt more specifically with documents prepared for court (such as affidavits of merit) than did the URAA.

In 2007, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the rulings of the lower courts, breathing new life into the Apseys' case. Writing the opinion for the Court was Justice Kelly (now Chief Justice), who convincingly explained that the URAA and RJA provide alternative, co-equal methods of authenticating out-of-state documents. The highly regarded opinion is well-founded on the language chosen by the legislature when drafting the URAA, which plainly states that "[n]otarial acts may be performed outside this state for use in this state with the same effect as if performed by a notary public of this state[.]" In addition, the URAA expressly provides that it is "an additional method of proving notarial acts[,]" not a replacement for or an invalidation of the method prescribed by the RJA. As a result of the Court’s ruling, the Apseys' Affidavit of Merit was valid and their case was allowed to continue. It was remanded to the trial court, where the jury ultimately reached its verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.

Unfortunately, the Apseys will never see all of the money to which the jury believes they are entitled. Even though a duly empaneled group of reasonable individuals agreed that $3 million would be adequate compensation for Ms. Apsey’s injuries, Michigan’s malpractice damage caps will reduce the award considerably.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

$3.1 Million Jury Verdict Awarded to Drunk Driving Victim’s Family

David Mittleman — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:35:07 GMT

A LeHigh County, Pennsylvania jury awarded a victim’s family and estate a $3.1 million verdict last Friday, after she was killed by a drunk driver on the evening of her 25^th birthday. The victim, Sheena Marie Villa, pleaded with the driver of her vehicle, 30-year-old Robert E. LaBarre, to slow down as he drove 85 mph, lost control and crashed into an oak tree.

The jury did not find the bar that was serving LaBarre liable. Instead, they found LaBarre 85% at fault and Villa 15% at fault. They awarded the family $1.1 million in compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages. LaBarre is currently serving a 5 ½ to 12 year sentence for vehicular homicide.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Malpractice Verdict of $16 Million Allowed to Stand

David Mittleman — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:41:00 GMT

A San Diego-area judge refused to alter a jury verdict of $16 million in favor of the bereaved parents of an infant who died due to medical malpractice. After a nine-day trial, the jury found that Sharp Mary Birch hospital, two of its doctors, and a pathologist were guilty of negligence and fraud.

Teresa Bailey was admitted to the hospital for an induced delivery due to concerns about the health of the baby. Once in the hospital, however, Ms. Bailey received very little medical attention from her doctors. Tragically, during the delivery the infant became trapped in the birth canal with the umbilical cord wrapped around his neck. According to the parents and their attorneys, this is precisely the sort of complication that had prompted Ms. Bailey’s admission in the first place.

The conduct of the hospital following the baby’s death is perhaps even more shocking. Evidently the hospital’s pathologist lied to the mother and concealed the cause of death in the autopsy report, saying the infant had died of lung disease. The hospital contends that the jury findings are erroneous and that the damages award is excessive.

This case is not the first instance of a large jury verdict for medical malpractice during delivery. When a baby is injured or killed due to the negligence of a doctor, justice (and common sense) demands that the wrongdoer be held accountable. Although Michigan law makes it hard on parents who want their day in court and just compensation for their loss, individual victims do have legal recourse. This latest case is a reminder that juries do expect hospitals and doctors to accept responsibility for their actions.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman