South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers

New York state investigators have been using hidden video cameras to investigate allegations of neglect and abuse at nursing homes in the state, and the cameras are revealing significant instances of such criminal behavior on the part of staff and caregivers.

A Rochester, New York nursing home has been the latest site of a hidden-camera probe by the New York Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit investigators. Fourteen employees of the Jennifer Matthew Nursing and Rehabilitation Center have been charged with neglecting the same resident, a bedridden 70-year-old man with dementia.

Resident Left Lying in Urine for Hours

The employees’ duty to care for the resident was evidenced by the videotapes, which showed the man left lying in his own feces and urine for hours at a time. The staff was supposed to keep the residents clean and turn and reposition bedridden patients every two hours to prevent bedsores and skin breakdown. The 14 employees not only failed to take care of this resident but also regularly falsified his medical care records to indicate that they had given him proper care.

AG’s Lawsuit to Recover Medicaid Payments

In addition to the ten Jennifer Matthews employees who have pleaded guilty, another four employees (including a registered nurse and three nurse’s aides) are scheduled for trial on September 4. The nursing home’s corporate owner and its CEO are also facing a civil lawsuit by the attorney general. The suit seeks recovery of the more than $10 million in Medicaid paid to the facility, in light of inadequate care.

Neglect Videotaped at Other Nursing Homes

Hidden-camera investigations of the Hollis Park Manor nursing home in Queens and The Northwoods rehabilitation facility in Cortland have also resulted in arrests for abuse, neglect, and records falsification — 30 arrests in all. The nurse’s aide who is the latest Jennifer Matthews employee to plead guilty to criminal charges was sentenced to 14 weekends in the Monroe County jail.

The Attorney General’s office places the cameras after getting permission from a resident’s family, following complaints by the family of nursing home neglect or abuse.

Seven local residents have put their names on a lawsuit against pharmaceutical giant Merck, claiming a medication designed to treat thinning bones instead caused permanent bone decay.

The lawsuit, Sandra Cooper et al vs. Merck & Co. Inc., was filed in the Jefferson County District Court on Aug. 23 by the Houston law firm Laminack, Pirtle & Martines.

The suit alleges that Merck’s osteoporosis medication Fosamax is defective, and that the manufacturer went so far as to bribe physicians to prescribe it in spite of the dangers.

Fosamax is a bisphosphonate that works to correct osteoporosis by reducing the activity of the cells that cause bone loss, increasing the amount of bone in most patients, according to the Merck Web site.

“Osteoporosis is often called a ’silent disease’ because there are no symptoms, so you can’t feel your bones become weak,” the Web site said. “Sometimes, women will not know they have osteoporosis until a bone breaks.”

In their suit, the plaintiffs allege Fosamax is “defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked the proper warnings as to the dangers associated with its ingestion.”

The suit also alleges Merck pharmaceutical reps bribed physicians to prescribe Fosamax, and that the company knew of the medication’s dangerous side effect but “maliciously” marketed the drug anyway.

By taking Fosamax the plaintiffs claim they developed osteonecrosis of the jaw, the suit said.

Better known as “jaw death,” osteonecrosis of the jaw is a disfiguring and disabling condition in which the bones of the jaw “die” from infection.

“ONJ develops when the jaw fails to heal after minor trauma such as a tooth extraction that results in bone exposure,” the MediaFact Web site states.

Merck did not list ONJ as a possible side effect on its Web site. However, lawsuits against Merck and other bisphosphonate manufactures have been sprouting up across the nation.

“The drug Fosamax was defective in design or formulation in that, when it left the hands of the manufacture, the foreseeable risks far exceeded the benefits associated with the design or formulation,” the suit said.

The eight-count suit faults Merck with strict product liability, negligence, misrepresentation and fraud, civil conspiracy and commercial bribery, breach of implied warranty, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of express warranty and gross negligence/malice.

The plaintiffs are suing for past and future physical pain, lost wages, mental anguish, medical expenses, impairment and disfigurement, plus exemplary and punitive damages.

They are demanding a trial by jury.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th Judicial District, will preside over the case.

Case No. B179-876

When James David Rehm of Louisville died in 2002 of cancer caused by asbestos, it appeared that his lawsuit against various work sites where he may have been exposed to the harmful substance might never get a full hearing.

The claims against the 16 companies were considered to be prohibited under the Kentucky Workers’ Compensation Act — though none had ever directly employed Rehm.

But a unanimous Kentucky Supreme Court ruling last week opened the door for the Rehm family to continue legal action against seven of the companies and, perhaps more significantly, aimed to clarify for workers and businesses which cases fall under the workers’ comp exemption and which can be considered in court.

The law — intended to discourage companies from subcontracting regular work to avoid the cost of workers’ comp insurance — provides that a company is responsible for subcontracted employees when it farms out “regular or recurrent” work to another business. It exempts companies from lawsuits filed by employees covered by their workers’ comp insurance.

But with the standard open to many interpretations, the court has offered a clarification: “Stated simply, (the law) refers to work that is customary, usual, normal or performed repeatedly and that the business or a similar business would perform or be expected to perform with employees.”

“For years, there have been a lot of different opinions by various circuit judges and from courts of appeal on when the exemption applied,” said Kenneth L. Sales, a partner with the Sales, Tillman, Wallbaum, Catlett & Satterley law firm, which represented the Rehm family.

In the Rehm case, “the original judge was struggling to apply the law, and it was a very difficult law to interpret.”

The businesses named in the lawsuit all argued that they were covered by the workers’ comp obligations, so they should be protected from the litigation.

“A lot of judges have been dismissing these cases not really understanding the limitations on the right, and the Supreme Court has completely defined it now,” said Sales, who called the ruling “a victory for those victims,” and said it’s a better definition for judges about how to apply a difficult law.

Businesses, too, have been looking for clarification of the law, said Rebecca Schupbach, an attorney with Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, which represented several of the companies involved. The question for businesses, she said, is when are they subject to being sued?

The law protects a business from worker-injury lawsuits if it has workers’ comp insurance in place, and if the case involves work from a reputable contractor that is or could be done by the company’s own employees, Schupbach said.

The case drew friend-of-the-court filings from the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, Associated Industries of Kentucky, Greater Louisville Inc., the Coalition for Litigation Justice and the Pacific Legal Foundation.

“The Supreme Court basically upheld the major arguments that we had made in that case, and that was primarily to protect the current workers’ comp system and to prevent a litigation crisis for employers,” said Dave Adkisson, president and chief executive officer of the Kentucky chamber.

“Generally the business community feels good when definitions are clear, understandable and predictable,” he said.

The case combined the Rehm family’s appeal with a similar case involving three plaintiffs who claimed that they contracted asbestosis while working for contractors on projects at General Electric Co.’s Appliance Park in Louisville.

In clarifying the boundaries of the workers’ comp protection, the court ruled that the family could sue American Standard, Ford, GE, Goodrich, International Harvester, Lorillard and Reynolds Metals.

A suspected drunken driver left a crash and drove home, not realizing a motorcyclist was lodged in the rear window of his car, investigators said.Nicholas Justin Campbell, 20, was riding his motorcycle Saturday night when Tony Martinez, 54, pulled his car out of a parking lot in front of him, California Highway patrol spokesman Ron Thatcher told The (Riverside) Press-Enterprise.

The motorcycle crashed into the car and Campbell was thrown through the rear window, Thatcher said. Martinez then drove away and realized when he got home that Campbell was in his car, he said.

Martinez drove to a Riverside County fire station where Campbell was declared dead, according to the coroner’s office.

Martinez was arrested and booked for investigation of gross vehicular manslaughter, hit-and-run and driving under the influence. Bail was set at $75,000.

Wal-Mart, Sam’s Club, and Target are just some of the stores that carry Chinese-manufactured merchandise. When consumers see an item labeled “Made in China,” they can usually expect a bargain. The question nowadays is are they bargains or just products that are hazardous to consumer health?

Numerous Product Recalls

The United States Consumer Product and Safety Commission (CPSC) said that 40 percent of all consumer products brought into the U.S. in last year come from China and totaled $250 million worth of goods. The CPSC also stated that more than 60 percent of all product recalls involve imports—primarily imports from China.

Food products exemplify the extent of the problem. According to an article in the Washington Post, Canada exports about $10 billion worth of food and agricultural products to the U.S. compared to the $2 billion coming from China.

In the first 4 months of this year, FDA regulators refused shipment on 298 inspector products from China and on 56 shipments from Canada. This means that food coming from China is rejected 25 times more than food from Canada.

Recently Recalled Imports

It is estimated that the CPSC recalled 152 products since January of this year and 104 were from China. Some of the more recently recalled Chinese imports include:

• Portable baby swings—some 60 reports of harm done to babies who were trapped
• Plastic toys—contain lead paint or easy-to-swallow magnets
• Defective swimming pool ladders—127 reports of injury
• Faulty baby carriers—babies fall out and are hurt
• Easy-Bake Ovens—burns from the openings of the oven
• Tower Fans with faulty wiring cause fires, burns
• Exploding air pumps—resulting in13 injuries, some with cuts to the face and eye areas
• Bargain priced oil and electric heaters—less then $50 to buy, but some have caused homes to burn down
• Notebook computers—batteries burn up
• Defective circular saws—faulty blade guards cause user injury
• Table lamps—faulty plugs which can cause electrical shock and fire hazards

Heating massaging recliners, pine cone candles, toothpaste, dietary supplements, electrical products, toys, tires, and pet food are among some of the other Chinese-made products that have been recalled in the U.S. in recent times.

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal in July 2007, lawsuits are being filed against the U.S. companies that distribute these products. One such lawsuit was filed against a New Jersey tire distributor when regulators asked the company to recall nearly half a million tires by made by Chinese manufacturer Hangzhou Zhongce Rubber. The tires caused a fatal car accident and both companies denied liability.

Regulatory Issues

In the United States, the CPSC and the FDA approval process on imported products lends our system some safety, but these agencies have limited funding as well as lack of personnel to handle the amount of goods entering the U.S each year.

The CPSC is working with the Chinese government to reduce the number of faulty or counterfeit products coming into the United States. Laws have been established in the U.S. to ensure some quality of imports from China, but will there ever be an end to the faulty Chinese goods?

Lawyers and economists suggest that corporations take a more proactive interest in the products they buy from China by visiting suppliers, choosing better suppliers, inspecting the product line before it enters the U.S., providing seminars on quality assurance, monitoring overseas vendors and educating the manufacturer on U.S. policies.

“Many counterfeit products are made in China and CPSC is actively working with the Chinese government to reduce the number of unsafe products that are exported to the United States,” a CPSC statement said.

Consumer Choices

The fact, however, is that we are consciously conducting business transactions all the time with China and bringing in products that are harmful. As consumers, we could buy only made in the U.S. products, go to our local farm stands, and be aware of the issue at hand.

“Consumers shouldn’t be scared of Chinese products. They should have a reputation of being good quality, cheap and safe,” commented Qin Gang, a spokesperson for the foreign ministry.

Statistics show otherwise so be careful when purchasing products imported from China and make sure your consumer rights are protected.

On Sept. 10, 2002, plaintiff Stephanie Giammarino, 34, underwent a rhinoplasty that included the removal of a bump on the right dorsum of her nose. The procedure was performed by Dr. Laurence Glickman, of Long Island Plastic Surgical Group, P.C., and it included nasal osteotomies–breaking of the nasal bones. Glickman had determined that the osteotomies were necessary to create a pyramid-shaped nose. Glickman also removed cartilage from Giammarino’s upper and lower lateral nasal cartilages.Giammarino did well during the six months that followed the surgery, but she subsequently suffered nasal bleeding and crusting of her septum’s left side–an area that was not addressed by the surgery. In April 2003, Glickman inspected the area and observed an ulcer on the septum. He referred her to an otolaryngologist.Giammarino saw the otolaryngologist twice in April 2003, but she did not see a doctor for her septum complaints until August 2004. She claimed that she was undergoing conservative treatment during the intervening 16 months.

After Giammarino saw the otolaryngologist in August 2004, she next saw Dr. Mark Shikowitz in December 2004. Shikowitz informed her that she was suffering a near perforation of the septum and that it was caused by Glickman’s excessive resection of cartilage.

Giammarino sued Glickman and Long Island Plastic Surgery Group. She alleged that Glickman failed to properly perform the rhinoplasty, that his actions constituted medical malpractice and that Long Island Plastic Surgery Group was vicariously liable for Glickman’s actions.

Giammarino’s counsel presented Shikowitz, who opined that the perforation was caused by Glickman’s excessive resection of cartilage. Shikowitz contended that the osteotomies were improperly performed in that they were uneven. He also contended that Glickman did not recognize that Giammarino was suffering a deviated septum. He claimed that Glickman’s failures resulted in an uneven, obstructed airflow that caused the ulcer and, ultimately, the perforation of the septum.

Defense counsel contended that Giammarino did very well initially after the surgery, with no complaints for six months, and that the ulcer developed independent of the surgery and had no relation to it. He also contended that Shikowitz never looked at the area of the osteotomies and therefore could not know if the osteotomies were uneven. He claimed that postoperative photographs showed a very good nasal profile and no evidence of nasal deformity. He further claimed that the photographs also showed that Glickman did not remove too much cartilage.

In response, Giammarino’s counsel claimed that the postoperative photographs were taken too soon to show the defects that developed over time. Shikowitz did not take preoperative or postoperative photographs related to his surgery of March 2005.

Giammarino claimed that she developed an ulcer that led to a perforation of her septum. She contended that the perforation’s size exceeded 1 centimeter. She also claimed she was constantly bleeding and that surgery to repair the perforation failed, thus requiring future surgery that will address the perforation.

Giammarino sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering.

The jury rendered a defense verdict. According to defense counsel, the jurors stated that they had difficulty with Giammarino’s failure to see a doctor for her nose for 16 months and that the postoperative photographs were evidence of a surgery that was successful, at least initially.

Former professional wrestler and reality star Hulk Hogan’s son was released from the hospital Monday, a day after a car crash that critically injured his passenger, authorities said.A Toyota Supra driven by Hogan’s 17-year-old son, Nick Bollea, was traveling at a high rate of speed at about 7:30 p.m. (2330 GMT) Sunday, Clearwater Police spokesman Wayne Shelor said. Bollea lost control and hit a raised median. The car flipped around, and the back end hit a palm tree.

Police identified Bollea’s passenger as 22-year-old John J. Graziano of Dunedin. He remained in critical condition Monday at Bayfront Medical Center, a hospital spokeswoman said.

The crash occurred on SR 60, which is a main drag through downtown Clearwater. Alcohol is not believed to have played a part in the crash. Shelor said the crash remains under investigation.

Bollea appears on VH1’s “Hogan Knows Best” with his father, his mother and sister.

The parents and estate of a girl who drank herself to death at a party filed a wrongful death suit against three adults who are also facing criminal charges.Samantha Lynn Scheuring, 16, of Vandergrift, had a blood-alcohol content of 0.44 when she died Jan. 14 , 5 1/2 times the amount of alcohol that would make an adult too drunk to drive legally in Pennsylvania, authorities said.

Diane R. Adorante, 37, faces involuntary manslaughter and other charges because police said she rented the apartment where the party was held. Two other Vandergrift residents, Matthew Alan Baker, 21, and David James Leone, 26, were charged with providing alcohol to juveniles.

The lawsuit alleges Adorante allowed the party to be held while she was gone, and did nothing to stop it when she came home and noticed underage drinkers.

All three are awaiting trial and have pleaded not guilty. The Associated Press could not locate listed telephones for the three.

A hot air balloon caught fire and crashed in an RV park and campground Friday evening, injuring as many as 11 people, police and a witness said. Two other people were unaccounted for.

The cause of the accident wasn’t known. Weather conditions were clear at the time of the sunset flight. At least three 30-foot RVs caught fire, said Don Randall, a witness who lives in the RV park. No one was reported hurt in those blazes.

Witnesses said passengers screamed and jumped to the ground as the balloon’s basket caught fire. The balloon reportedly took off from a grassy field with 12 passengers.

“The thing went up about 400 feet in the air at which point it melted enough of the balloon - it collapsed,” said Randall, who saw the balloon as it was on its way up and took pictures of the fiery scene. “The basket was basically a fireball, it just dropped like a stone.”

“I’m just thinking, ‘Oh geez, I hope there’s nobody in that thing. It’s basically a burning death up there,”‘ he said.

People who had been riding in the balloon suffered serious but non-life-threatening injuries and were taken to hospitals in the nearby Vancouver area, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Sgt. Roger Morrow said in a statement.

Fifteen ambulances, two air ambulances and eight fire trucks raced to the scene at the Hazelmere park, he said. Smoke could be seen billowing from the crash site from miles away, CTV said.

Randall said at least two vehicles were damaged along with the RVs. He said he ran to his RV and grabbed a small fire extinguisher, but it proved of little use.

The hot-air balloon, which CTV reported was operated by Fantasy Balloons Charters based in Langley, British Columbia, was one of several balloons in flight at the time.

On Oct. 19, 2001, plaintiff Randall Stern, 47, an investment banker, presented to Dr. B. David Gorman, an ophthalmologist. Two days earlier, Stern had gone to see his primary doctor with complaints of a red right eye, sensitivity to light and headaches. That doctor had diagnosed conjunctivitis, or pink eye. The doctor gave Stern some eye medicine and referred him to Gorman for additional treatment.On Oct. 19, Gorman also diagnosed conjunctivitis, and he prescribed stronger medicine. Stern’s condition worsened over the ensuing weekend, and he returned to Gorman’s office the following Monday. At this time, Gorman checked Stern’s intraocular pressure, found it to be elevated and determined that Stern was suffering from iritis or anterior uveitis–both conditions refer to inflammation of an eye’s iris. Gorman prescribed medicine to treat the iritis and the intraocular pressure.Stern continued to seek treatment from Gorman for several weeks, until it was determined that the pupil in Stern’s right eye had become fully and permanently dilated.

Stern sued Gorman. He alleged that Gorman failed to timely test the eye’s intraocular pressure and that Gorman’s failure constituted medical malpractice.

Stern claimed that Gorman should have checked his eye’s intraocular pressure when he first presented to him on Oct. 19. He contended that if Gorman had diagnosed the high pressure sooner, it could have been treated and diminished any permanent damage to his eye.

Gorman contended that it was not appropriate to check the intraocular pressure of an eye that has conjunctivitis, as was previously thought. He also argued that there was no proof that the pressure would have been elevated at the Oct. 19 visit.

Stern claimed that his right eye was left with a permanently dilated pupil. He alleged that as a result, he suffers sensitivity to light, problems with depth perception and difficulty reading.

Stern asked the jury to award him $120,000 for his past pain and suffering and $500,000 for his future pain and suffering. His claim of lost earnings and his wife’s derivative claim of loss of services were discontinued prior to the trial.

Defense counsel contended that the true cause of the dilated pupil was not the intraocular pressure, but the iritis. He contended that the disease caused damage to the dilating muscle of Stern’s eye and that it was a known risk of the condition.

Defense counsel also disputed the impact Stern’s eye condition has on his life. She contended that because Stern had 20/20 vision, he could use sunglasses and similar things to deal with his eye condition.

The jury rendered a defense verdict. It found that Gorman did not depart from generally accepted medical standards.