San Francisco Injury Lawyer Blog

Your trip to the grocery could end up costing you more than the total printed on your receipt. The Environmental Working Group has just released lab tests showing the synthetic estrogen BPA is found in high levels on cash register receipts. Bisphenol A (BPA) has been linked to cancer, abnormal reproductive system development, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disorders and asthma. Health professionals and scientists have been trying to get BPAs banned from food packaging to prevent BPAs from leaching into infant formulas, canned foods, and beverages. It turns out that major retailers are using BPA contaminated paper in their receipts including: McDonald’s, CVS, KFC, Whole Foods, Walmart, Safeway, and the US Postal Service. However, many receipts contain little or no BPAs such as those at Target, Starbucks, and Bank of America ATMs. What is scary is about this new discovery is that the paper used in the receipts that contain BPA look no different than papers that do not.

Research has demonstrated that this BPA leaches out of polycarbonate plastics, out of the resins used to line most food cans and out of dental sealants. When we hear about polycarbonate bottles and BPA, the amount of BPA leaching out is so minimal that it can only be measured in nanograms. Now, when we hear about average cash register receipt containing BPA, the amount of BPA leaching out is so great that it is measured in milligrams! And the BPA that is leaching out from receipts is free BPA, free meaning the individual molecules are loose and ready for uptake. However there is no research yet that shows exactly how much BPA can rub off onto fingers from receipt papers, if it penetrates through the skin — and if it does, how much gets into the circulation and if it can reach organs throughout the body. Here at the Brod Law firm we believe that the government should mandate labeling of any and all products that contain BPA, including receipts—since they are the biggest threat—at the point of purchase. That way, at least consumers would know the risks involved regarding their purchases and, most importantly, if they should wash their hands after picking up a BPA-laced receipt.

Posted by Gregory J. Brod | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Personal Injury , Product Liability

Bookmark:

Last night, on July 22, 2010, a Greyhound bus heading from Los Angeles to Sacramento hit an overturned SUV, killing six people, including three passengers in the SUV, and injuring many more. The CHP (California Highway Patrol) has not determined what caused the SUV, a Chevy Trailblazer, to turn over, and it is unclear as to whether or not the headlights were on, which would have affected the Greyhound bus driver’s ability to see it.

There were more than 30 people on the bus, which was not equipped with seatbelts for its passengers. California Vehicle Code Section 23715 requires taxicabs to install seatbelts in their vehicles, which addresses the policy to reduce highway deaths and injuries by encouraging the use of seatbelts. While the cause of this tragedy has yet to be determined, if the Greyhound bus involved had seatbelts available to its passengers, the number of serious injuries, and possibly some fatalities, would almost certainly have been reduced.

If you or a member of your family has been involved in a bus accident or a vehicle rollover, please call the Brod Law Firm, P.C. for a free consultation.

Posted by Gregory J. Brod | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Bus Accidents , Car and Auto Accidents , Rollovers

Bookmark:

Apropo our last blog, there is some addition information we would like to share. But before we do that, the following is a quick recap. Last week, according to AOL news, a Greyhound bus carrying 47 people on its way to Sacramento from Los Angeles crashed on a highway in California’s Central Valley on Thursday, killing six and injuring many others. The California Highway Patrol Officer at the scene said the bus driver swerved to try and avoid another crash involving an overturned SUV and slammed into a concrete center divider and then struck another vehicle shortly after 2am. The bus then went down an embankment, hit a eucalyptus tree and came to rest on a freeway off-ramp. 47 people were on board, six people died, and the driver was among the dead. This story brings to light two issues: SUV safety and bus safety.

First, this accident happened because the driver of the bus swerved to avoid an overturned SUV and could have been avoided if the SUV had not rolled over and obstructed the path of traffic, which forces the question--Why are some people are still under the impression that bigger is safer? Even though there is plenty evidence showing that SUV’s have a propensity for rollovers and instability at high speeds due their high center of gravity, plenty of people are still buying/driving them. Second, the accident resulted in serious injuries and 6 deaths, which forces the question--Can buses be made safer so that accidents such as this don’t have such catastrophic results? It turns out that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(NHTSA) is making it a priority to improve motor coach safety. In a meeting held in June 2010 they announced specific ways in which they will go about doing that. They will begin by addressing the root causes of motor coach crashes, such as driver fatigue, inattention, medical conditions and the oversight of unsafe carriers. Then they plan to address the root causes of fatalities and injuries in motor coaches by developing requirements for seatbelts for all seating positions to prevent ejections, strengthening the bus structure surrounding the windows to improve their crashworthiness, conducting verification rollover testing, develop performance requirements for motor coach structural integrity, leasing and testing Electronic Stability Controls to decide if they should be standard, upgrading the performance of tires used on motor coaches, and developing more stringent flammability and fire countermeasures and detection requirements. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe that consumers decisions about what form of travel they purchase should be tempered by their own research into the risks involved—which may, or may not, give them a better chance of staying safe than if they had not.

Posted by Gregory J. Brod | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Bus Accidents , Personal Injury , Product Liability , Rollovers

Bookmark:

Today, the San Francisco Examiner, reported that two dogs were euthanized this week following an attack in Golden Gate Park earlier this month. According to SFGate, on July 1, 2010 three people were attacked by one of two dogs--both of which were running loose through Golden Gate Park. One person, a 70 year old woman, was taken to San Francisco General Hospital with bites on her lower legs. An unidentified man in his 40s was taken to UCSF Medical Center with bites on his leg. And another woman had her clothes torn but was not hurt. Both dogs captured at the time of incident were believed to have had bitten the victims, but the city's Animal Care and Control confirmed later that only one of the animals - an unneutered male pit bull - was believed to be responsible for all the bites. Authorities believe both dogs probably have owners because they were in good health and wearing harnesses. The owners could face civil, criminal or administrative charges.

California dog law allows breeds to be regulated, including requiring them to be spayed and neutered. And San Francisco has its own law that targets pit bulls. Under the ordinance, pit bull owners are required to spay or neuter the breed, and get breeding permits from the city San Francisco's. The law also allows animal control officers to issue a fix-it ticket to noncompliant dog owners, requiring that the pit bull be sterilized within two weeks. Animal Control officers also hand out information on low-cost and free surgeries. Officers follow up with visits to the homes of owners who have not complied. A first violation can bring a citation and $500 fine and may result in the Department impounding the pit bull and disposing of the pit bull. A second violation of this section by the owner, guardian or keeper, shall be a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not to exceed six months or by a fine not to exceed $1,000, or by both a fine and imprisonment. In addition, a second violation may result in the Department impounding the pit bull and disposing of the pit bull.

It is important to note that the law is not intended to criminalize bill bull ownership, as it takes into consideration there are a lot of people that can't afford to spay or neuter their dog, rather it is intended to remove animals that pose a danger. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe the law is good for everyone--spaying and neutering is good for pit bulls because it reduceds the number of unwanted pups, and it is good for the citizens of San Francisco, as it stunts aggressive behavior—which can often lead to bites, maulings, or in the most drastic case, killings. No one would disagree that a bite from a pit bull is potentially far more dangerous than a bite from other dogs due to the simple fact that they have more muscle and strength in a single bite. If you have been bitten by a pit bull or any other dog, or, if you have questions regarding dog bit law, please call us.

Posted by Gregory J. Brod | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

Bookmark:

This week, according to the Huffington Post, Judge James Ware of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has approved a class action, monopoly abuse lawsuit against Apple and AT&T. The class action brings together several individual claims filed by iPhone buyers dating back to late 2007. An amended complaint was filed in June 2008, the basis of which deals with Apple’s practice of “locking” iPhones so that they can only be used on AT&T’s network. The lawsuit also accused Apple of secretly making AT&T its exclusive iPhone partner in the U.S. for five years. Consumers who bought the iPhone were duped into a five year relationship with AT&T, after they had signed a two year contract with AT&T, and were essentially locked into staying with AT&T if they wanted to keep their phone. In addition, the lawsuit claims that the actions hurt competition and drove up prices for consumers . The lawsuit also seeks an injunction to prevent Apple from selling locked iPhones in the U.S. and from determining what iPhone programs people can install.

At the moment iPhone 4 consumers have three options to deal with the reception problem: 1)hold their phones in an akward manner; 2)return their phones and pay a 10% restocking fee; or 3) or purchase an Apple “bumper” case for their phones, which costs $29.99 on top of the premium their already paid premium. Without the class action iPhone consumers have no other leverage or relief. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we were wondering when something like this would happen two the largest companies in the U.S. For some time the public has not been properly informmed or even been made aware of corporate practices, and a class action case such is this is needed to force corporations to undertake informational campaigns, which would give consumers an opportunity to make educated decisions when purchasing products.

Most consumers do not fully understand how powerful these corporations are and how they may harm competition in the market. What is more, competition in the technology market is very different from competition in traditional markets. Specifically speaking, the technology market has powerful “network effects(FYI: the term ‘network’ refers to a common user base, not the physical wires or wireless systems that connect pieces of electronics).” What all this means is that the “first movers ( the term ‘first mover’ refers to the first significant company to move into a market)” in the technology market have an advantage over the “late movers” and rivals who have incompatible products--by setting up a dominant, proprietary standard—and, thus, make it difficult, if not impossible, to compete. If you feel that you been treated unfairly due to an iPhone 4 issue or have questions regarding any other defective product or class action issue, please contact our firm.

Posted by Gregory J. Brod | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Product Liability

Bookmark:

California’s Elder Abuse and Dependant Adult Civil Protection Act (the “Act”) is relatively new legislation, which was intended to protect the abuse of an elder or a dependent adult. The abuse can be physical or financial, and may be evident in a case of neglect, abandonment, isolation or abduction. As cases of elder abuse become reported, the Act helps to provide a way in which violations can be addressed, extreme wrongdoers can be punished, ideally to prevent others from becoming victims of elder abuse.

In Humboldt County, a jury awarded a verdict of nearly $619 million based upon health code violations against Skilled Healthcare, one of the largest nursing chains in the United States. The verdict did not include punitive damages, which were to be decided at a later time. The class action lawsuit involved approximately 32,000 patients. The facilities involved with the health code violations were: Eureka Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, LLC; Granada Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, LLC; Pacific Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, LLC; Seaview Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, LLC; and St. Luke Heathcare and Rehabilitation, LLC .

Ideally, jury verdicts like the recent one in Humboldt County will send a message to nursing facilities across California and the rest of the country. If you abuse elderly or dependent citizens, you will pay. If you or an elderly member of your family has been the victim of ) Financial Abuse; 2) Physical Abuse and Neglect; and 3) Abduction, please call the Brod Law Firm, P.C. for a free consultation.

Posted by Gregory J. Brod | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Nursing Home Abuse

Bookmark:

There is a growing concern over how the instant accessibility of information online is affecting, even threatening, the legal system. The following is a scenario that is becoming popular: Prior to a trial a prospective juror conducts a few quick Google searches of the parties involved in the trial. During the trial, evidence is presented, and the juror Googles whatever info there is regarding that evidence (even though the judge already admonished the jurors regarding this particular practice). Then, during deliberation, the juror tells another juror about what was found during the web search prior to trial and during trial. Some other jurors hear the exchange. Finally, the jury reaches its verdict, let’s say for the defense. Next, a motion is filed by the plaintiff, and the trial court sets aside the verdict, finding that one juror had introduced extrinsic evidence into deliberation that prejudiced the jury and swayed the outcome. For those of you who don’t know, extrinsic evidence includes knowledge relevant to the facts in issue not obtained through the introduction of evidence but acquired prior to trial. So, it goes without saying, that all such types of internet research by a juror prior to trial without notice to the court and counsel can lead to mistrials, which not only delays justice but furthers the cost, inconvenience and emotional stress of all parties.

The flip side of the internet’s influence over a case or trial has to do with attorneys using it to find evidence against opposing parties or information on prospective jurors. Divorce attorneys, especially, are using the internet, usually via social networking sites, to gather personal information about their client’s soon-to-be-ex and use it as leverage or as a way to cast doubt on the character of the soon-to-be ex. Also, a lawyer can check their client’s presence on the web for any information that could be used by the ex’s legal team. And when it comes to picking a jury, lawyers sometimes pay more attention to their computer screens during a voir dire than on the answers jurors are giving. Any attorney that thinks this is a good idea should consider the ethical and legal rules that may apply. Here at the Brod Law Firm we are noticing more and more how an individual's presence on the web could potentially hurt them if they become involved in a lawsuit. It is a brave new world out there, people. Proceed with caution.

Posted by Gregory J. Brod | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Personal Injury

Bookmark:

In a recent article in the NYT about double parked cars on Sundays in San Francisco, the ongoing conflict between cars and cyclists is paid some attention. According the article, cyclists are angered by the police and the Department of Parking and Traffic policy of ignoring, and neglecting to enforce, ordinances against double parking during weekend church services. The article also points out that the number of new cyclists has increased strongly here in San Francisco. Sadly, however, some new cyclists are all over the road (a point not mentioned in the article) and don’t know the rules--giving the seasoned, well-behaved, law abiding cyclist a bad name. That said, we no longer need anti-car this or anti-bike that banter—we just need proper legislation. Thankfully we have the politically savvy people at the San Francisco Bike Coalition working tirelessly to help with that.

Speaking of the need for proper legislation and people tirelessly working to bring about change, the practice of allowing double parking on Sunday’s is a slap in the face to the city’s Transit-First policy and the new Civil Grand Jury investigative report that has made recommendations for easing the tensions between drivers and cyclists. The report, titled Sharing the Roadway: From Confrontation to Conversation, states that its purpose is to focus city attention on identified barriers to the successful implementation of the San Francisco Bicycle Plan: serious mistrust, conflict and misunderstandings among city stakeholders including motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. Also in the report, the Jury states its desire to move towards everyone seeing him/her self as part of the community sharing the roadway. In addition, enforcement of traffic codes is recommended and seen as the key to keeping roads safe and encouraging new and prospective cyclist to begin cycling in the city. And, in its summary, it states that education can bridge the mistrust, misunderstanding, and misperception motorists and cyclists have of each other, and shift (society) toward a more unified cultural perspective and coexistence.

Here at the Brod Law Firm, we couldn’t agree more with the recommendations of the report. During our years of fighting for people who have been injured on the road, due to road rage or driver inattention, and listening to all the stories of near misses, we sometimes feel that we, as a society, are living in the dark ages, psychologically. I mean how come some people don’t know how to share the road? And, why is that when a person is cut off by another on the road, they take it personally and feel as if something was stolen from them. Or, seen from another point of view, why are those people, those people who are cutting off the other people, either not paying attention or doing it intentionally? Is it really so hard for us to share the road? Will people in the future look back at us and laugh, or will they feel sorry for us? We have been on this planet such a long time; one would think our psyches would have evolved and adapted to sharing by now. I guess, considering that the automobile is a comparatively new invention and that evolutionary adaptations don’t happen overnight, we may need to wait decades before we see progress in the area of sharing.

Posted by Gregory J. Brod | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Bicycle Accidents

Bookmark:

Anyone who has insurance is vulnerable to insurance fraud. It does not matter what type of policy you hold, whether you have an individual plan or employer based insurance --you are not safe from insurer bad-faith practices. What is more, even people who have high paying jobs with great insurance plans don’t know they are at risk. Speaking of employer based insurance, most people don’t know about a little thing called ERISA preemption.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 is a federal law that was intended to protect the retirement benefits of employees against mergers, acquisitions, and other corporate activities that might otherwise have endangered such funds. Originally ERISA had nothing to with overruling state insurance regulations. It specifically approved of the use of state laws to regulate insurance practices. That was until the insurance companies went to the US Supreme Court and argued that they could lower insurance premiums on health insurance policies purchased in the workplace and, thereby, make insurance more affordable to people if the Supreme Court would agree to preempt state laws. And in the 1987 ruling written by Justice Sandra day O’Conner, in the case of Pilot Life v. Dedeaux, the court decided that a state law that does not directly regulate the business of insurance is preempted by ERISA for insured plans, essentially eliminating the legal rights --established over many years—that protect policy holders from fraudulent and bad-faith insurance practices.

Now, without federal laws making it illegal for an insurance company to defraud somebody or ensuring accountability for bad-faith practices, insured people in almost every state are having their rights taken away, because of ERISA preemption. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we know that the likely hood of ERISA reform is slim, considering that the insurance companies are the strongest lobby in Congress (FYI: ERISA is also our roadblock to health care reform). But you can help lobby Congress by calling and voicing your concerns to your local Congressional representative and your state’s U.S. Senators. If you feel that you are the victim of bad-faith practices and have questions about the state law and how it will (or will not) protect you, please contact us.

Posted by Gregory J. Brod | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Personal Injury

Bookmark:

According to the Times-Herald, five people face criminal charges in the fiery deaths of three Casa de Vallejo retirement home residents nearly two years ago. The five consist of owners, operators and managers of the building and have been charged with two counts of manslaughter, two counts of elder abuse causing death and one count of elder abuse. Those killed in the blaze are John Argente, 74: Robert Bennett 68: and Harold Fortune, 61. As it turns out, they all died due to the lack of an audible fire alarm system. An investigation revealed that the fire was accidentally sparked by Bennett when he fell asleep in his room with a lit cigar, while on a medical oxygen tank. Also according to the investigation, the fire system’s audible alarm had been disconnected two months before the fire, during rehabilitation work on the building. Solano County District Attorney David Paulson's office states that there was “a complete failure of notification of the elderly and infirm residents that the building was on fire." As a former resident of the building said: “I thought they (meaning the building owners, operators and managers) got away with murder.”

Remember that elder abuse refers to any intentional, reckless, or negligent act by a care giver or other that person that causes harm or serious risk of harm to a vulnerable adult and deprives the vulnerable adult of the necessities of life, which is similar to nursing home abuse. Nursing home abuse refers to elder abuse or neglect committed in an institutional setting such as a skilled nursing facility, rest home, convalescent home, or residential facility or long term care home. People who reside in nursing homes do so because they have special care needs due to their age or medical condition, making them especially vulnerable to abuse and neglect. Sometimes, because of Alzheimer’s or dementia, they may not be able to recognize or speak-out when they are neglected or abused. Also, they may have physical limitations that prevent them from caring for themselves and are utterly dependent on nursing home staff to provide for their every need. And as mentioned in previous blogs, nursing homes sometimes underpay and overwork their staff in order to maximize profits, which may lead to a higher probability of injury or neglect of an elderly adult. In this case, it is the building owners, operators and managers who have cut corners and put the residents at risk.

Here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe one of the most important laws in California is the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection ACT. California Legislature has declared, under the Act, the intent to enable interested persons to engage attorneys to take up the case of abused elderly persons and dependent adults, as well as provide for attorneys fees and damages for pain and suffering. The Act targets institutional care givers and health care providers and aims to deter those in charge from trying to cut corners and make it expensive to risk neglecting their residents and patients. As declared in the Act, living elders, defined as adults 65 years of age and over, and dependent adults, defined as adults with disabilities, have rights to monetary compensation for their injuries. And if the elder or dependent adult is deceased, then their estate, heirs, next of kin and other family members may have rights to monetary compensation due to injuries suffered by the elder or dependent adult prior to death and for punitive damages for abuse or neglect committed with oppression, fraud or malice. Despite legislative efforts to protect elders, abuse and neglect continue. If you believe a member of your family is or was the victim of elder abuse, or if you have questions regarding the laws that pertain to nursing home abuse, please contact us.

Posted by Gregory J. Brod | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

Bookmark:

There are multiple California Vehicle Code sections that impose responsibilities on drivers of automobiles with respect to bicyclists. For example, California Vehicle Code § 22107 states: “No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.” In addition, California Vehicle Code § 21801(a) states: “The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left or to complete a U-turn upon a highway, or to turn left into public or private property, or an alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction (emphasis added) which are close enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to the approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-turn can be made with reasonable safety.” Finally, though persons riding bicycles are not defined as “pedestrians” under the Vehicle Code, Vehicle Code § 21950(a) requires a driver of a vehicle to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked or unmarked crosswalk.

While the laws designed to protect cyclists may govern the fault and responsibility of a driver of a car or truck after an accident, they cannot, however, protect you as a cyclist. That’s why it is important to be as aware of the cars and trucks around you as possible, and to ride defensively. Assume that drivers do not see you, and always wear a helmet. In the event you’re involved in an accident with a car or truck, or even doored, ensure the local police are called so they can document what happened, take witness statements, and get the insurance information of the driver. The most important thing to do after an accident with a car or truck is to monitor your body and seek proper medical treatment for anything that’s bothering you. You should consult an attorney prior to speaking with the insurance company of the driver involved in your accident, though your health, not your legal case or claim for damages, is the most important thing.

At the Brod Law Firm, we have been advocating on behalf of injured cyclists for over ten years, and have helped clients who have suffered minor injuries to catastrophic injuries. If you or a loved one has been injured by the fault of someone else, please contact us for a free consultation.

Posted by Gregory J. Brod | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Bicycle Accidents , Car and Auto Accidents , Motorcycle Accidents , Pedestrian Accidents

Bookmark:

What is “Bad Faith”? Bad Faith refers to a claim an insured person has against an insurance company that won’t honor a policy or pay a legitimate claim. At this point in time, it should be no surprise that some insurance companies delay payments in order to keep your money. Some legal consultants are saying that, because of the current recession, insurers are using delay tactics in order to make their bottom lines look better than they actually are to please their stockholders. And, as we saw with the government-sponsored financial bailouts of corporations such as Citicorp and AIG, we know the bottom line is sometimes an illusion that eventually implodes. On top of that, the insurance industry is not federally regulated, and some bad faith cases have found in favor of the insurer, stating that it is not required to disregard the interests of its shareholders and other policyholders when evaluating claim and that insurers need not put insured ‘s interests ahead of its own. For example,the judgment in Austero v. National Cas. Co of Detroit, Mich.1978 states: “An insurer is not required to pay every claim presented to it. Besides the duty (of good faith, which is the opposite of bad faith) to deal fairly with the insured, the insurer also has a duty to its other policyholders and to the stock holders…not to dissipate its reserves through the payment of meritless claims.”

Contrary to that view, other cases have had the opposite judgment upheld, suggesting the insurer must place its insured’s interests above its own or its stockholders’ interests in maximizing profits, as in McCormick v. Sentinel Life Ins. Co. 1984 that found: “The duty (of good faith) does require an insurer to place the interests of its insured above its own or its stockholders’… We accordingly reject (the view that)…there is an equivalent duty…owed to an insurer’s stockholders which may be balanced against the duty owed to its insured.” Most people believe the latter when they buy insurance and feel overwhelmed and powerless when insurers don’t want to pay. And even though each state has their own insurance departments that enforce provisions of their state’s insurance regulations, it can still be difficult to recover money for a cheated policyholder. Because bad faith cases are complex and because most policyholders feel powerless going against insurance companies, most victims of bad faith find it useful to hire an experienced insurance attorney to fight for them.

Here at the Brod Law Firm we wonder what the future may hold for policyholders, considering the current political and economic climate and the instability of the stock market. Now, more than ever, large insurance companies, like any other large company, will fixate on the bottom line of making profits and providing returns to their stockholders. The more claims a company pays, the weaker its bottom line will appear. To avoid all that, insurance companies may withhold or refuse payment or use delay tactics to hang onto your claim payment as long as possible. Despite all of this, we have the experience and skills needed to fight and win any case involving insurance bad faith.

Posted by Gregory J. Brod | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Personal Injury

Bookmark: