San Francisco Injury Lawyer Blog

If you have been the victim of a personal injury, you have the right to receive compensation for your damages. But if you go after compensation, you must be careful to avoid the pitfalls of the process. When you know your rights and understand how the system works, you will have much better chance of getting adequate compensation for your injuries. Unless your injuries were minor, you should consult with an attorney after your accident. A good personal injury attorney can help you sort through and gather important evidence, and provide valuable advice on how to document your injuries and damages. An important point to take note of is you should never talk to an attorney representing the other person in the accident or the other person’s insurance company representative, or sign any documents, before consulting with your own attorney first. After you hire an attorney, your attorney will send a demand letter, either to the other person or to their attorney or to the other person’s insurance company. The letter will provide the relevant facts about the accident, such as time, place and cause of the injury, a description of the injury and ask for a specified amount in settlement of the case. A demand letter usually gives the other parties a specific time to respond.

If your case does not settle pre-trial, then the next step is for the person who has been injured,referred to as the plaintiff, with the help of their attorney, to file a lawsuit, what is referred to as a complaint. The party being sued is called the defendant and has a specific time to reply, such as 20 or 30 days. The reply is referred to as an answer. Both the complaint and the answer, are filed with the local court, usually in the jurisdiction where the plaintiff lives or where the accident occurred, yet in some circumstances the defendant may seek to have the lawsuit moved to a different court. After the lawsuit is filed, the parties have an opportunity to get information from each other about the case, also known as the discovery phase of a case. This can be in the form of written questions, sworn testimony in front of a court reporter, and requests for documents. Before the case goes to trial, the attorneys may make various legal arguments about the case in the form of motions to the court, which usually concern the relevancy of the complaint or answer, and disputes about discovery. Sometimes the arguments of one the party are so strong that they lead to a judgment in their favor without the need for to go to trial.

If all efforts at settlement fail, the case will be set for trial or arbitration. Arbitration is an alternative to the trial process. It is similar to a trial, but is conducted before an arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators. In binding arbitration the decision of the arbitrator or panel is as final as the trial court’s verdict. The trial process is different. At trial, the parties present witnesses, cross-examine the other parties’ witnesses, present evidence, and make arguments. At the end, the jury will enter a verdict for the plaintiff or defendant.

If you or a loved has suffered an injury due to an accident or have questions about personal injury law, contact our firm for a free consultation today. Our personal injury attorney has over 10 years experience representing personal injury clients and is prepared to put the law on your side. After an accident, it is important that you contact our firm promptly so that we can act quickly to protect your rights.

Many consumers are beginning to realize that they can tap into class action court settlements reached with manufacturers and service providers via the internet. This a good thing for consumers since judges usually require that as many people as possible are notified about a class action settlement. It is also a good thing for attorneys because now they can reach more witnesses than when their only method to do so was through mail and or print media. Because people use the internet as their primary source for finding information, the courts are beginning to realize that they could use the internet as the main way they send information to a class. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we are finding the internet can significantly improve our ability to notify class members that they may be entitled to a recovery in a settlement, and the internet is becoming the place consumers turn to for all class action settlements.

Class action lawsuits are a good way to keep businesses honest and help consumers find justice in the marketplace. No one likes being ripped off, even if the amount of money lost is a small amount. Consumers sometimes feel a small amount doesn’t justify legal action and/or is not worth fighting on their own. Consumer class action suits provide a means to deal with this type of situation, and they provide a sense of justice on behalf of the frustrated consumer. When that small amount is multiplied by all the people who have been ripped off, then there are thousands or millions of dollars that the company must pay back to all the members of the class, in addition to the company paying a penalty. Also, class actions draw public attention to instances when businesses have not treated the consumer fairly, and force those businesses to take responsibility. It is not fair when a company fails to deliver on a promise. If you have been wronged by a company, please contact our firm for a free consultation and share your case with us. We have over 10 years experience investigating wrongdoing and fighting for our clients in court.

Stacking is a term that means treating multiple policies that apply to a single loss as cumulative—as a “stack” of coverage—rather than each as mutually exclusive. Therefore, stacking issues can arise almost any time multiple policies cover a single loss. Stacking refers, literally, to the stacking of policy limits. In other words, stacking is the ability of the insured, when covered by more than one insurance policy, to obtain benefits from a second policy on the same claim when recovery from the first policy would alone be inadequate to compensated for the actual damages suffered. Also, stacking refers to the stacking of policy limits across different policy periods. For example, a continuous loss can occur across multiple policy periods and may be covered under every policy applicable to every such period, and each such policy may provide coverage up to the entire amount of the loss. In fact, in January 2009, the California Court of Appeal, 4th district, made a landmark decision when it ruled that a policyholder facing long term property damage or personal injury claims may stack liability policy limits across policy periods to maximize recovery. The decision was especially important for policyholders in manufacturing, pharmaceutical, construction, and chemical industries that face claims for continuous injury which occured in past years.

If you have questions about how to recover damages for long-term property damage or personal injury claims under your insurance policies, please contact our firm for a free consultation. Our expert insurance attorney will be able to explain the complex, complicated world of insurance policies in an uncomplicated, easy to understand language. We have over 10 years of substanstial experience helping personal injury clients navigate complex insurance matters and manage negotiations with insurance companies, ensuring that they receive the compensation they deserve. For more information on how we may possibly help you, call our firm today.

According to the American Bar, employers must comply with federal and state wage and hour law, period. What is more, they should know that they will not be able to avoid being held liable by pretending not to know—and they could incur more liability for “willful” violations if they do. So, if an employer violates wage and hour law through its work place rules, it can generally be proven by facts, regardless of any change to company policy. Employees and former employees may seek wage and hour relief through various vehicles which provide group relief. The most common is through a class action relief or equivalent class relief under local jurisdiction laws and rules.

Another type of relief, collective action relief, may be sought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Generally speaking, the courts follow two phases when they consider collective actions under the FLSA. In the first phase they examine the pleadings and submission of the proposed collective action and decide whether the proposed class members are similarly situated. If that is the case, then they may conditionally certify the class. Then, putative class member are given notice and the opportunity to “opt in.” Through the discovery process the action proceeds as a representative action. The second phase of an FLSA collective action inquiry takes place after discovery is mostly complete, and this next phase is usually based on a motion for “decertification” by the defendant. At that time an extensive analysis is conducted to determine whether the employees are sufficiently similarly situated to continue to proceed as a class. If the claimants are not similarly situated, then the class is decertified. Then the opt-in plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice, and the class representatives proceed to trial on their individual claims.

Lastly, governmental agencies, such as The Department of Labor (DOL) or similar state agencies, have statutory authority to pursue damages and/or injunctive relief directly against an employer. The DOL can also pursue group remedies. For more information about class action law, or if you would like a free consultation regarding a potential class action case, please contact our firm. We have over 10 years experience fighting for injured parties in personal injury cases, and we can help you evaluate whether you have a claim as individual or as part of a class. Contact us for a free consultation today.

According to SFGate.com, a class action lawsuit has been filed in California by two Safeway shoppers, Dee Hensley-Maclean of Montana and Jennifer Rosen of San Francisco, with the aid of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The lawsuit says that Safeway failed to notify its regular customers about a Salmonella recall, even though it had the tools to do so through its Safeway Club Card program. Safeway is claiming that it is not always possible to reach shoppers via its loyalty program, although it says it attempts to do so in other ways, such as posting recall information on its website, complying with legal and regulatory requirements regarding food recalls, and sending out press releases.

Hensley-Maclean said she bought peanut butter crackers and Nutter Butter sandwich cookies that had been recalled because of Salmonella contamination. Rosen said she bought eggs that had been recalled ude Salmonella-contaminated eggs, though no one in her family became ill. Both plaintiffs argue that they and others who bought recalled food should be refunded the price of those purchases and that Safeway should commit to using its Club Card program to contact consumers about future recalls. Rosen is upset mostly because she has two small children who could have become sick, or perhaps died, had they consumed contaminated eggs.

When a Safeway shopper fills out an application for a club card, they are asked to fill out their name, address, telephone number and email address so they can be notified of store promotions. Then that information goes into a database that the company uses to analyze customer shopping habits. Here at the Brod Law Firm we believe that if Safeway can use club member information to notify them about special deals in order to boost sales, then they should do the same by notifying customers about recalls in order to boost consumer confidence and loyalty. This lawsuit is not about people becoming sick or injured due to eating contaminated food, it is about asking Safeway to take off its corporate tinted glasses, take a look at the bigger picture, and do what is right by the consumer.

http://The term third-hand smoke is a relatively new term that troubles some researchers and non-smokers. According to a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, and as is discussed in Scientific American, third-hand smoke is a cocktail of toxins that linger in carpets, sofas, clothes and other materials hours or even days after a cigarette is put out, and it is a health hazard for infants and children. The study shows that most people surveyed agreed second-hand smoke is dangerous, but not all agreed that third-hand smoke can harm the health of infants. Third hand smoke actually refers to the toxins that remain and then pile up over time, coating the surfaces of a room. In small spaces the build up is heavy and noticeable, in larger spaces it is less visable—but that does not mean the smoke can not enter a child’s nose. Smokers, too, are contaminated and actually emit toxins from both their clothing and hair.
The toxins may be difficult to quantify, nevertheless they are present after the cigarette is put out. Consider the this: cyanide, a chemical that interferes with the release of oxygen to the tissues, and arsenic, a poisen used to kill mammals, are present in cigarette smoke. These toxins can build in layers on surfaces, such as floors, and pose a greater risk to children, simply because they are the ones exposed to these surfaces. They also ingest twice the amount of dust as adults, as they are have faster respiration and are closer to dusty surfaces. The developing brain is especially susceptible to low levels of toxins. As a result of these new revelations, several courts have recognized the right of children to be protected from thirdhand smoke. For example, in custody disputes, some judges have stipulated that there be no smoking 24 to 48 hours before a child is expected to arrive and smoking-- or banned even when the child is not present, thereby protecting them from third-hand smoke. This new information shows that as more people become aware of the dangers of tobacco smoke residue, both judges and legislators will face the challenge of extending to nonsmokers the same protections from third-hand smoke as are provided from second-hand smoke.

On December 29th, two dogs, a boxer and a Labrador, attacked Bob Ferguson, a 78-year-old IBM retiree, who was walking his small dog in a quiet cul-de-sac in the Blossom Bill neighborhood, according to San Jose Mercury News. Ferguson said that the dogs did not make a sound at the time they charged him. He was bit on his ear, head, and arm and had to go to the emergency, where he received 10 stitches in his ear. He believes he would be dead if a neighbor had not seen the attack and chased the dogs away. Another of Ferguson’s neighbors said the same two dogs attacked his German shepherd just days before, which cost the family $660 at the Veterinarian. They fear the dogs could attack children next.

San Jose city officials have initiated what is called a “dangerous dog attack” investigation based on the attack on Ferguson, and there will be a public hearing to decide what to do about the dogs and the owner. If it is decided that the attack remains in the category of “dangerous” and not “vicious,” then it probable that the dogs will be allowed to live under the condition that their owner buys liability insurance and takes strict measures to secure them. At the end of this story, the main thing Ferguson is left wondering is: “Why would a person living in a quiet neighborhood need two big, threatening dogs for protection?” Here at the Brod Law Firm, we agree. It is unfortunate that some dog lovers place their taste for aggressive dogs above the welfare of their neighbors-- a dangerous hobby that seems to be gaining popularity.

If you or a loved one suffered an injury due to a dog bite and wonder if you have grounds to file a claim, please contact our firm today. Or if you questions regarding Dog Bite Law in California, please contact our Dog Bite Injury Attorney today. Our firm has over 10 years experience fighting for the victims of dog bites, and we have the expertise to win you the compensation you deserve.

After almost six years since the attacks, thousands of rescue workers and volunteers are sick after being exposed to toxic dust at Ground Zero, such as the ironworkers who volunteered on the heap of rubble for days and are now sick and/or dying of lung disease. This happened despite the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's (ATSDR) warning on September 12 that there were significant asbestos readings in the air. The good news is that on Wednesday of last week Congress passed and the President reportedly signed the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010. The bill states its purpose is to “establish the World Trade Center Health Program (WTC Program) within the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to provide:
“(1) medical monitoring and treatment benefits to eligible emergency responders and recovery and cleanup workers (including those who are federal employees) who responded to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; and
“(2) initial health evaluation, monitoring, and treatment benefits to residents and other building occupants and area workers in New York City who were directly impacted and adversely affected by such attacks.”

In other words, this is healthcare for World Trade Center for all those responders sickened by toxic dust at Ground Zero. However, in order to get the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act past any unessasary obstruction in the US Senate, the bill was scaled back significantly. The original draft of the bill asked for a 10-year, $7.4 billion treatment and compensation package; the new version asks for 5 years at $4.2 billion. It also reopens the 9/11 Victims’ Compensation Fund to the responders, but it caps lawyers' fees to 10 percent. The passage of the Zadroga Act is especially important to the 325 Ground Zero responders who were left out the recently approved World Trade Center Toxic Dust Settlement. The $4.3B billion package is an important action to support the 9/11 first-responders and volunteers injured-or handed out death sentences-- after working at Ground Zero, but we wonder if it will be enough.

If you or your loved one became sick due to exposure to toxic substances and would like to know if you have grounds to file a claim, please contact our firm. We have over 10 years experience working with victims of toxic substances, and, if you have a case, we will work hard to get you the compensation you desrve.

According to the pressdemocrat.com, the body of a kayaker was recovered from the ocean south of Mendocino last week, one day after he was reported missing. The victim, Donnie Kelly Foster, 56, was from Mountain View. He had set out on his 7-foot blue, whitewater kayak near Mendocino Bay and the Big River area at about 3p.m. on Tuesday. Foster and his wife went to the coast for the Thanksgiving holiday. Forrester had gone out on the ocean on Monday and Tuesday Morning and returned safely, but did not return after he went out Tuesday after noon. He was the second person to die Tuesday in the rough waters off the Sonoma and Mendocino coasts. A 71 year old Sacramento man who was crab fishing with friends north of Bodega Bay drowned after his vessel capsized. Forester’s wife told rescuers that her husband was an adventurous person who enjoyed extreme outdoor activities. According to Coast Guard rescuers, he was not wearing a life jacket, and he was nothing but a thin dry-suit-like jacket and fleece pants.
Here at the Brod Law Firm we often hear stories of water sport enthusiasts who underestimate the often treacherous conditions of the ocean and then become injured because they did not take the proper safety precautions, like wearing a life jacket. Considering the many boating and kayaking fatalities, the unpredictable nature of waters, the instability of kayaks, and the risk of drowning or hypothermia from capsizing or falls overboard, it makes sense to always wear a life jacket. A properly fitted life jacket can prevent most fatalities. The following are safety tips from the U.S. Coast Guard:

• Always wear a life jacket
• Be comfortable in the water, out of your boat
• Obtain the knowledge, skills and ability necessary for kayaking and canoeing
• Always boat with a group. Three boats is a recommended minimum.
• Know how to self-rescue. Practice! Practice! Practice!
• File a float plan, with friends, family, or authorities.
• Bring appropriate safety, rescue, and navigational aids, and more than adequate food, water, and extra protective clothing. Do not wear cotton!
• Pick an activity level that matches your ability, and progress to more demanding challenges.
• Monitor your physical and emotional condition, and watch the other members or your group for fatigue, illness, and changes in behavior.
• Know and follow all local, state and federal laws.
• Be visible—wear bright colors so others can see you between waves or in the fog. Carry a bright light, flares, and whistle to signal your position.
• Take a boating safety class offered by the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary.

If you or a family member became injured in a boat accident or if someone in your family died in boat accident, please contact the Brod Law Firm. You will need an experienced trial lawyer to properly handle injury accident case. Or if you have questions regarding personal injury law and want to know if you have a potential claim, contact us today--as we have over 10 years experience helping victims of injury accidents.

The Brod Law Firm is posting a very short blog today and taking the rest of the week off.

Don’t forget to stay safe during theThanksgiving holiday. Specifically, stay alert while driving to and from relatives and friends, be careful in the kitchen, if you’re the one cooking the Thanksgiving dinner, and be aware of your surroundings while shopping on Black Friday.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Monday of this week, a Carnival Splendor cruise ship with nearly 4500 passengers, 52 of whom were senior citizens, became stranded off Mexico’s Pacific Coast. A fire in the engine room caused the ship to lose power Monday morning, only one day after it left port in Long Beach for a seven-day Mexican cruise. Because they were without power, passengers were forced to wait in hot, dark rooms, and eat rations delivered to the ship by the U.S. Navy when the ship’s refrigeration system lost power. In addition, passengers had to cope with limited food, long food lines, stinky toilets, no showers, and no lights. The only food available was canned Spam and Pop-Tarts. One passenger, a diabetic, said she did not have sufficient food to take her insulin. When her husband asked a crew member for food for his wife, he was told to give her a Tic-Tac. The National Transportation Safety Board announced Thursday that it had begun an investigation and Carnival has announced that everyone will receive a full refund.

According AOLnews.com, only one passenger suffered an injury, related to a slip and fall, but all the other passengers on the cruise left the ship safe and healthy. However, the situation could have ended- up much worse-- considering the age and physical conditions of the some of the passengers-- and carnival could have faced serious personal injury lawsuits--or even a wrongful death suites. For example, that woman who was unable to take her insulin could have become very ill or fallen into a coma if the ship had not been rescued in time. These kinds of cases can be tricky because they are generallly governed by the terms of the ticket and usually have a shortened statute of limitations or time within which to file a lawsuit.

If you have questions regarding personal injury law or if you have been injured while on a cruise and need an attorney, please contact our office for a free consultation. We have over 10 years experience helping injured parties get the compensation they deserve, and we will fight for your legal rights.

According to the Los Angeles Times, AT&T Mobility vs. Concepcion, a case involving AT&T that goes before the U.S. Supreme Court next week, will have serious ramifications for potentially millions of consumers if AT&T gets their way. If a majority of the nine justices vote on the side of AT&T, any business that issues a contract to consumers-such as for credit cards, cell phones, or cable TV-would be able to prevent them from joining class-action lawsuits. This would take away
a consumer’s leverage when they want to seek compensation from an entity, especially when small amounts of money are involved, as class actions allow plaintiffs to band together in seeking compensation or redress and gives clout to their claims. The ban on class actions could apply to employment agreements and union contracts. Consumer advocates say that without the threat of class-action lawsuits, many businesses would be free to engage in unfair or deceptive practices. A lot of people would be stripped of their right to sue over contracts violations, as not many would be willing to litigate on their own a case involving small amounts.

What is to be decided is whether the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts state courts from striking down class-action bans. The federal law requires both sides in a dispute to take their grievance to an arbitrator, rather than a court, if both sides have agreed in advance to do so. Initially, AT&T asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to dismiss the case because its contract forbade class actions. The court ruled that a class-action ban violates state law and is not preempted by the federal law, and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower-court ruling. Then AT&T petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. As it stands, it looks as if high court is interested in extending the reach of the Federal Arbitration Act.

If the court decides that the federal law trumps state law in this case, there would be virtually no limit to control that companies hold over the consumer. Put another way, all companies and employers could prevent people from joining class action by putting arbitration clauses in contracts. As a result, a number of consumer groups and civil rights organizations, including the Consumer Federation of America and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, have filed briefs that support the right to class actions. It comes as no surprise that other telecom companies and those with corporate interests, such as the American Bankers Assn., the Financial Services Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are backing the AT&T case.

Here at the Brod Law Firm, we handle class action lawsuits against governmental agencies and corporations, and our firm has the experience required to win these kinds of cases. For more information about the potential class action cases that our firm is investigating, or if you think you have a potential class action claim, please contact us today.

Soon the FDA may seek criminal charges against drug company executives whose firms have illegally promoted drugs for unapproved uses. Prescribing a drug for an unapproved use—an act known as off-label use—is legal, but promoting it—an act known as off-label marketing—is not. Normally the FDA seeks monetary penalties against drug makers that engage in such marketing. Unfortunately these kinds of fines have shown to be ineffective in discouraging drug makers from engaging in off-label marketing. Earlier this month, according to newsinferno.com, Eric Blumberg, FDA litigation chief, told an industry audience that his agency was looking for cases to use what is known as the Park Doctrine as a tool to "change the corporate culture" of firms that have thus far shrugged off other penalties. In other words a corporate officer can now be liable for illegal corporate actions of which he should have now about or was responsible for preventing.

The Park Doctrine was established based on a case involving John Park, president of Acme Markets Inc. in 1970, a time when the company was cited for rodent infestations at a warehouse here. The FDA charged Park personally with violating sanitation laws after other rodent infestations were discovered despite a number of agency warnings. Park argued that as company president he was too far removed from warehouse supervision to be held responsible. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the FDA that Park, as president, was responsible for ensuring rodent-free warehouses. Park got a slap on the wrist--all he had to pay a $250 fine. Prosecutors now hope to enforce stiffer penalties under the doctrine, including up to a year in prison and $100,000 fines.

Legal experts believe, the Park Doctrine can be a very powerful tool, while, at the same time, it presents prosecutors with a number of hurdles. They believe the real challenge is finding a person who was in a position to know about and prevent the conduct that occurred. In addition the other challenge would be assuring that an off-label case would hold up in court, especially if it involved executives many levels higher than the departments that committed the illegal acts, as there are certain cases where the management is so far removed from the activity and will have had no direct knowledge of an issue. So it goes without saying, to hold an executive criminally liable is a significant policy step that needs to be handled with unwavering confidence and diligence. Here at the Brod Law Firm we believe bringing criminal charges against executives is a bold and significant deterrent, despite the complexity and inherent challenges of these kinds of cases.

According to the St. Claire Record former Judge from St. Clair County, Judge Michael O’Malley, is part of a legal team leading two separate product liability suits filed the same day in Madison and St. Clair counties over the diabetes drug Avandia. O’Malley retired as judge on July 30th to join a St. Louis personal injury firm. When he was judge, he presided over at least one class action against drug companies. In 2005, he certified a case against Bay and GlaxoSmithKline, over the cholesterol fighting drug Baycol. The Illinois Supreme Court overturned O’Malley’s ruling in 2009. In the Avandia suits filed October 1st, O’Mailley is taking on GlaxoSmithKline as an adversary.

According to the suit residents Ida Akins and Allen McAllister say GlaxoSmithKline was wrong in selling a diabetes drug without first warning of potential serious side effects from which they suffered. Walgreens is a co-defendant in both suits. Akins and McAllister claim they used Avandia to treat their type 2 diabetes mellitus, but suffered severe injuries, one of which was a heart attack, from their ingestion of the drug. The defendants are being accuses of negligence, negligent pharmaco-vigilance, a breach of express warranty, a breach of implied warranty, fraud, and a failure to warn. They say both GSK and Walgreens are liable for their injuries because they created and heavily marketed Avandia as safe, despite knowing the drug posed a substantial health risk to patients with type-2 diabetes.

Avandia's potential risks and side effects have led critics to suggest that Avandia should be removed from the shelves. Yet, the FDA has not bothered to properly warn the public of its potentially fatal effects. Instead they merely issued a black box warning. In 2007, a study conducted by the Cleveland Clinic and published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that Avandia increases the risk of a heart attack by 43 percent and concluded that Avandia increased the risks of cardiovascular death by 64 percent. Now accusations have been made that the drug's manufacturers, GlaxoSmithKline, withheld data that showed problems with Avandia and neglected to properly warn the public and users of the drug of its potentially fatal side effects.

Those who criticize the FDA contend that the same department that is responsible for investigating a new drug's risks is the same department that decides drug approval, leading critics to believe that this fact poses a sincere conflict of interest—and that any information about risks that are discovered should be forwarded directly to the FDA commissioner, instead of being passed through various levels of bureaucracy within the FDA. Because heart attacks are the leading cause of deaths in diabetics, the risks of heart attack associated with the use of the drug should have been released to the public sooner. Had the FDA acted done that, perhaps many injuries and deaths could have been prevented. If you or someone you love thinks that they may have been hurt from using Avandia, contact the Brod Law Firm to learn more about your options.

According to the Huffington Post, 10 people have been injured in a roller coaster accident at Knott’s Berry Farm in Orange County. The accident happened Thursday night on a rollercoaster called the Pony Express. The injuries reported were minor, however. A spokesperson for the park stated that a train leaving the station didn’t make it over the first hill and rolled back into another train, and one person who getting into a waiting train and nine people on the train that rolled back were injured. All the victims were taken to the hospital. The cause of the accident is now under investigation.
Roller coasters and amusement rides are usually associated with fun for children, adults, and families. Most people who visit amusement parks and ride roller coasters with suffering an injury; however, each year thousands are injured while on roller coaster or any other amusement park ride. Tragically, in the most extreme situations, some visitors don’t leave an amusement park or water park alive. Most amusement park injuries result from equipment malfunction, but people can also be injured on water rides, water slides, in wave pools, and rides that use inflatable devices. Serious injuries associated with amusement parks can include:
• Deadly Falls – riders can die after being thrown from rides.
• Cartoid Artery Dissection (CAD) and Stroke --A roller coaster's vigorous jerking of an amusement park rider's neck can potentially lead to a CAD injury and stroke for the rider.
• Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) – Injury to the brain due to the forces and stresses that can be imposed on veins in the riders' brains. Equipment that become separated during a malfunction ride can strike riders and cause head or brain injuries.
• Drowning - drowning due to negligently supervised amusement park swimming pools.
• Inflatable Ride Injuries
• Lacerations, Broken Bones and Torn Ligaments
• Emotional Injuries and Distress – Sometimes the mental trauma that victims suffer may be greater than any physical harm they suffer, which can require extended, if not lifelong treatment.
As in any business, amusement parks can operate equipment that suddenly malfunctions, equipment such as doors, lap bars, and shoulder harnesses used to restrain riders can malfunction. In addition, employees operating amusement park rides and working at water parks can fail to use a reasonable standard of care on the job. Unfortunately there is no federal law on amusement park safety. If you or a loved one suffered injuries at an amusement park, you may be entitled to compensation. If you think you may have a claim or have questions regarding laws regarding amusement park safety, please call the Brod Law Firm today for a consultation.

According to the Mercury News San Bruno residents have begun filing class-action lawsuits in San Mateo County Superior Court over the San Bruno explosion that killed eight people and destroyed 37 homes. The lawsuits seek to force PG&E to turn over control of the $100 million victims fund to an independent third-party. In one lawsuit specifically, Daniele Ditripiani, a resident of San Bruno, seeks unspecified damages to be paid to him and others. According to the lawsuit, DiTrapani was at home on September 9th when the blast occurred and that he “has been injured and suffered damages." The lawsuit is the second class-action against the utility during the recent aftermath of the explosion and claims PG&E was negligent and that it was the utility’s actions or lack of action that caused the 30-inch pipe to explode, stated the Mercury News . The complaint also alleges that residents there have been “contaminated by debris, ash, (and) toxins” due to the blast and fire. Also according to the lawsuit, cleanup timing remains unclear as well as the timeframe for when San Bruno can return to a so-called “normal state.” The lawsuit indicates that response and clean-up are estimated at over $10 million, with debris removal running about $2 million.

According to the LA Times, an investigation into the explosion looked at work performed on a sewer near the ruptured line in 2008 and the method used by the city to replace the sewer line, which is known to pose risks to nearby pipes. In addition, the LA Times reported, in a separte report, that Rep. Jackie Speier (D-San Francisco) announced legislation that would mandate stricter regulations of gas pipelines nationwide, and that Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer just introduced a bill to impose more stringent pipeline safety standards. Speier also announced legislation to mandate pipeline operators nationwide equip lines with an automatic shut-off, highlighting the fact that this technology would have reduced the San Bruno explosion’s destruction and ferocity. Also part of the bill, pipeline operators would also have to advise homeowners if they live in proximity to high-pressure gas mains. The manual shut-off process took nearly two hours following the San Bruno explosion. The Feinstein-Boxer bill also mandates many other actions, such as automatic electronic valves replace current manual valves and that in-line inspection devices be installed, federal officials create standards for leak detection devices, federal inspector personnel be doubled, safety violation fines be increased, and older lines in seismic areas be prioritized.

If you or a loved one suffered a loss due to the San Bruno explosion, please contact the Brod Law Firm for a free consultation today. We have over 10 years experience helping vicitims of similar situations receive the compensation they deserve.

According to the Oakland Tribune, PG&E plans to release a list of 100 high-risk natural gas pipelines and has already stated that two of those lines are in the northern part of San Jose. One pipeline is located near the intersection of the Tasman Drive and North First Street and another near the city’s border with Milpitas. PG&E does plan to upgrade the street section at Tasman and First, but it is still unclear to what degree the cities should be concerned regarding locations of the high-risk pipelines. PG&E released the information about the pipelines to San Jose and Milpitas before releasing the it to the California Public Utility Commission, but both cities are still uncertain as to what needs to be done about the matter. However, they are planning a meeting with Milpitas concerning what action needs to be taken. PG&E had previously publicly disclosed a list of pipelines that were deemed a problem, but, like the San Jose and Milpitas situation, it is unclear which area of pipe should be considered a maintenance priority, and which should not. Here at the Brod Law Firm, all this new information inspires little confidence, especially considering the fact that San Bruno was not on that previous list. We do hope, however, that the disaster will save lives by forcing government to create new regulations about pipeline safety.

If you have been injured, have sustained the loss of a family member, your home, your possessions or were injured in the San Bruno PG&E gas line explosion, our firm and fire are here to help. The Brod Law Firm has successfully prosecuted explosion and fires claims under similar circumstances in the past and has represented individuals and families injured in fires for more than 10 years. The Brod Law Firm will represent individuals and families in claims or injury and property loss resulting from the PG&E gas line explosion. If you have questions about any fire burn injury lawsuit or property claim, please call us.

Walmart faces what may turn out to be the biggest class-action suit in U.S. history—a class action that claims systematic discrimination against women in promotion and pay. Walmart has already asked the US Supreme Court to overturn a ruling from the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, that would allow 1.5 million current and former female Walmart employees to file the largest class-action lawsuit in history. The case started in San Francisco in 2001 when six women filed suit claiming Walmart discrimination, in part because they were passed over for promotion in favor of men -- one says she was told, "It's a man's world." The case, known as Dukes v. Walmart Stores, Inc., claims that Walmart actively discriminated against its female employees by denying them job assignments, promotions, training, and compensation equivalent to their male counterparts.

The suite claims women who were hired in 1996 earned, on average, $0.35 less per hour than men doing the same job. Of these women, those who were still working for Walmart in 2001 earned, on average, $1.16 less per hour than men doing the same job. In 2001, women in salaried management positions earned an average of $14,500 less than men per year. Additionally, testimony by plaintiffs document numerous accounts of sexist and discriminatory behavior coming from men in upper management positions such as being told that men "need to be paid more than women because they have families to support" and that "men are here to make a career and women aren't. Retail is for housewives who just need to earn extra money."

Recently Walmart's lawyers have argued against the validity of the class-action suit based upon its size and its centralization of claims. They contend that discrimination is the result of specific acts committed by individuals, not company policy, and that decisions made by local manages did not have the same effect on all female workers, which would all become members of the potential class action. Yet, previously, the district court held that “although the size of this class action is large, mere size does not render a case unmanageable” and Judge Jenkins, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently wrote that plaintiffs ‘assertion that managers' actions were in line with an extremely centralized and "strong corporate culture that includes gender stereotyping." If the suit is allowed to go forward, with its class of 1.5 million U.S. women, it could cost the retail giant billions of dollars.

This week, the FDA has issued a warning to physicians and patients that the intravenous antibiotic Cubicin can cause life-threatening eosinophilic pneumonia, which is caused the accumulation of a type of white blood cells, called eosinophils, in the lungs. Symptoms include fever, cough, shortness of breath and difficult breathing. According to their data, The FDA has identified seven confirmed cases of eosinophilic pneumonia between 2004 and 2010 and an additional 36 possible cases. Of the seven confirmed cases, all were older than 60, and all were prescribed Cubicin for non-FDA approved conditions. Cubicin was approved in September 2003 for treatment of sercous skin infections and in 2006 for the treatment of bloodstream infections. In 2007 its label was modified to indicate an increased risk for pulmonary eosinophilia, the increased concentration of eosinophis in the blood. The FDA has requested that Cubist, the manufacturer of the product, revise its label to reflect the newly recognized danger.
News like this suggests approval by the FDA hardly has anything to do with the safety or efficacy of a drug. What is more, by the time a drug is recalled, many people have already been injured or killed. As drug companies continue to market new drugs and downplay serious health effects in their relentless pursuit of profit, the public will always be at risk. Each year United States and multi-national pharmaceutical companies bring new and different products to market--some of which have adequately been tested and some that have not. Many of these drugs are causing human pain and suffering, rather than relieving it. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we have experience representing victims of injury and wrongful death due to prescription, and non-prescription drugs, which have caused harm. Whether you or a loved one have sustained injury or death as the result of preventable side effects from a prescription drug or over-the-counter remedy, we are available to investigate your claim and represent you if your loss is the result of drug manufacturer wrongdoing.

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.

Lawsuits are mounting on behalf of the environment and communities around the gulf coast. One Lawsuit has been filed by the Sierra Club and Gulf Restoration Network against the U. S. Interior Department and Minerals Management Service (MMS) over permits. According to the suit, the agency gave BP and other oil companies illegal waivers. The suit states, “Had MMS not waived the regulatory requirements, had BP done a proper Blowout Scenario and Worst Case Oil Spill Response analysis, theses critical planning flaws may have been avoided.” And in other related news, it turns out that BP cut corners on safety in order to save money. According to the Wall Street Journal, as of 2003, U.S. regulators decided that remote-controlled safeguards, known as acoustical valves, needed more study; and a report commissioned by the MMS said “acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to very costly.”

Needless to say, the spill is destroying wetlands and delicate ecosystems around the gulf and poisoning life in the ocean. And the spill poses long term health concerns for the safety of communities around the gulf. The toxins can persist for years in the food chain, as oil contains traces of heavy metal such as mercury, arsenic and lead, all of which raise the risk of cancer and neurological problems. Several restaurants from Louisiana and Florida have decided to take proactive steps toward recovery by filing a class action lawsuit against BP, whom they see as the responsible party, according to the Oil Pollution Act. The class action, dated, May 18, was filed on behalf of several plaintiffs who are restaurant owners and others in the seafood service industry who have or will suffer lost profits as a result of the spill. The action states that due to the dangerous environmental contamination as a result of the oil leak, “fishing, shrimping, oystering and other commercial activities have been suspended and will likely continue to be legally and/or effectively reduced,” thereby causing a loss of revenue and earning capacity for the industry.

Here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe unchecked development over the past century has put us in this devastating situation. Up until now, coastal erosion, land loss and vulnerability to hurricanes and flooding have been the end result of wreckless pillaging of the earth and sea for oil. But now, as the oil continues to gush--at a possible rate of 1million gallons a day--we wonder how long before the spill and/or byproducts of the it will show up other places around the globe, or perhaps, here in San Francisco, and ultimately place all of us in peril.

According to the Associated Press, a total of 89 class action lawsuits have been filed against Toyota nationwide as of Monday, which could result in 3billion in payouts (if each individual receives around $500). Speaking of Class Action Lawsuits, have you ever received a notice in the mail from the courts that you are a member of a class action lawsuit and wondered what the heck it means? Then, not knowing what was the best thing to do or what you really could gain or lose from taking action, thrown the notice in the garbage? Here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe in the class action suit, as they give the everyday, hardworking citizens a chance to fight large corporations and private entities. So, with that said, we would like to give a brief tutorial about class actions for our readers, for the next time they might receive notice from the courts or have a potential class action claim of their own.
Let’s say you buy a car with faulty brakes and contact the company who makes the car, asking them what they will do to fix the problem. Then they delay or avoid taking responsibility for the issue, leaving you frustrated enough to hire an attorney. At that point your attorney will do some research and file a lawsuit on your behalf, and any other parties involved, and the company is put on notice. Then your attorney takes some depostions and asks the court to certify the case as a class action, meaning all people in the same circumstance get redress. Next, the court directs that notice be given to all parties having a similar claim during a particular time period. Those parties are then to be notified (usually by the defendants’ attorney) so that they may be informed and have input into the case. At that time, all parties, including the persons who bring the claim, are treated equally.
So basically, what a class action does is it allows cases that have merit to be filed that would otherwise be too expensive to litigate had they been filed individually. In the course of a class action case, several notices are mailed to class members, giving them a chance to “opt-out”. If they choose to “opt-out”, they have no further standing in the case. They can forget the matter or bring about file an action on their own behalf. If a party does not “opt-out,” they are considered to be a party to the case. From that point on you are bound by court’s decision and prohibited from taking any further action in the matter. The case could settle quickly or take years. Then, at the end, the parties will either reach an agreement, and the judge will approve the fairness and propriety of the settlement, or the case is tried and the judge renders a decision.
Anyone who feels they have a potential class action case should call the Brod Law Firm at 415-397-1130.

Last week a lawsuit filed by the Bologna family, the family whose father and two sons were fatally shot in 2008, against the city of San Francisco was thrown out. The presiding judge, Charlotte Woolard, ruled that the surviving members of the Bologna family can’t sue the city for allegedly harboring accused murderer Edwin Ramos from federal immigration authorities under federal immigration laws. In her ruling she stated: “In California and in their jurisdictions, it is well established that public entities generally are not liable for failing to protect individuals against crime.” Unlike injury cases where public entities and local jurisdiction can be held liable for injuries suffered at those locations, criminal cases do not follow the same rule. The lawsuit also claimed that that Ramos, an alleged illegal immigrant, had been previously arrested multiple times for violence and drug offenses, and the city failed to notify immigration enforcement. It is interesting to note that the Bologna family had also filed suit in federal court in 2008, and that that suit was also dismissed last year after a U.S. district judge reached the same conclusion. The crime and the criminal’s immigration status are two separate issues (issues that are too complex for the purposes of this blog), the former having no bearing on the latter.

Here at the Brod law firm, complex and tragic cases like this always leave us pondering the nature of justice, really. After all the lawsuits are filed, who is the last person to blame? Of course the person with the gun is the one responsible, but often the families of victims, such as this case shows, believe more than one person be held responsible--which is completely understandable-- in the face of the facts. It is hard to fathom the depth of grief any family feels after such a monstrous crime. Obviously, the family in this case has to come to terms with the result of the lawsuit; but, more importantly, they must come to terms with the deaths of their family members. We have seen our own clients face similar challenges during wrongful death lawsuits. Clients sometimes alienate themselves behind a lawsuit, thereby making it harder to accept and deal with their loss. It is an arduous task coming to terms with death of a loved one; it requires a courageous act of allowing the full measure of grief to penetrate one’s faculties and then by adjusting one’s life accordingly. Let’s be clear, in no way do we claim to be experts on the subject of grieving. Consequently, we always recommend victims’ families to seek out the appropriate form of grief counseling.

When the state of California took millions in transit aid to reduce its budget deficit, it severely hurt city transportation agencies—since most agencies are already strapped with their own deficit, including our MUNI. Last August, Genesis, a local group of public advocates, along with representatives from the other transportation advocate and agencies from accross the country, gathered in Chicago to speak out and call on Congress to stop the trend of transit service cuts, fare hikes, and operating budget shortages. During the press event, speakers described the dismal fiscal conditions of most of the major transit agencies around the country and offered solutions for how to get them out of the hole. They specifically referenced a report by Transportation for America titled “Stranded at the Station”. According to the report, in 2008, Americans took 10.7 billion transit trips, the highest since 1956. Advocates and community leaders say funding cuts have hurt people living in vulnerable demographics, as cuts to service make it difficult to get work, school or doctor appointments To that, the president of Genesis Reverend Scott Denman says this: “Our government says it is concerned about greenhouse gases, claims that government is by the people, for the people. Nonetheless, Federal policy currently encourages more cars on the road and less help for those who have no cars.”

Just last week, The Mercury News put out a special report on the devastating effects of service cuts on Bay Area residents who rely on public transportation. In the report a graphic depicts just how slow and expensive common regional commutes are on transit. What more will public transit agencies need to pay their bills? Here in San Francisco, Muni has raised fares twice in one fiscal year, increased parking rates and reconfigured service on its bus and train routes to deal with budget problems. If things do not change at the national level and state transit funding is not reinstated, then AC Transit and other regional transit operators will continue to be forced to cut service, raise fares, and continue to debase the transportation system— and consequently remove it as viable option for Bay Area residents. At this point, almost $22 million is still needed to close MUNI’s projected budget deficit, a dilemma that has forced the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), the agency that oversees Muni, to ask its commercial vendors to help ease the transit agency’s debt. The department is requesting that private businesses voluntarily reduce their contracts with the agency by a minimum of 3 percent for the next 2 ½ years. Judson True, spokesman for the agency, believes this will save the agency “several million dollars.”

Another way the (SFMTA) could have raised millions in annual revenue would have been by extending parking meter hours to Sundays and nights, but that recommendation was recently rejected by the mayor. What is truly sad about this crisis is that the people who depend on public transit most are paying higher fares for less service, as some routes have had parts cut or were completely eliminated. As pointed out above, some of the most vulnerable people are now faced with walking longer distances or drive their cars to reach their destinations. MUNI may also become less safe and clean in the future. The SFMTA announced last week that it is going to lay off 24 parking and control officers and four mechanics, 10 people who clean trains and buses and a few others. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we wonder if fewer people will ride MUNI due to all the cuts to service and safety—which may lead to a complete melt down of the system, traffic congestion (that is if those left stranded even own a car)and poorer air quality.

Legislation was introduced this month that would prohibit smoking in public spaces, spaces such as farmers’ markets, outdoor seating areas of restaurants, cafes and coffee shops, and common areas of multiunit housing complexes. Smoking would also be banned from entrances, exits, and windows and vents of all buildings, while waiting in lines at ATMs, theaters, athletic events, concert venues and cab stands. Smoking would be allowed at the curb of sidewalks, streets and alleys. And if there is no curb, then smoking would be prohibited within 15 feet of entrances or exits. Also, smoking would be allowed at least 20 feet from transit shelters, boarding areas and ticket lines. Under the legislation, smokers who break the rules would face a $100 fine for the first offence and up to $500 for multiple offenses. All of these provisions have been introduced to protect residents from second hand smoke.

No one will deny that secondhand smoke is harmful . A recent report put out by the Institute of Medicine has confirmed that exposure to secondhand smoke is a significant cause of heart attacks among nonsmokers and that relatively brief exposure to second hand smoke can cause acute coronary events. And the CDC declares that, in addition to protecting people from secondhand smoke, smoke-free laws also help decrease cigarette consumption rates. If the ban passes, the tobacco industry and some businesses will probably challenge the ban, over fears of losing customers.

Here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe smoking bans are good for both smokers and non-smokers. But we wonder, if the legislation passes--and it probably will, as public support, awareness and implementation of similar bans is on the rise in cities around the globe-- how city officials will enforce the law? Will heavy fines be enough of a deterrent? We are guessing that enforcement will be driven by complaints made to the police (it is hard to imagine health officials hiring smoking patrols). More than likely, though, the pesky cigarette and smoker will be gone by the time they receive a call or before they have a chance to respond. So it seems a more formalized system of enforcement would still be needed, especially with provisions that have specific distance requirements, such as 20 feet from a bus shelter. What if a smoker is smoking 20 feet and one inch from a bus shelter or only 19 feet? How will anyone know the difference? Will the police start carrying measuring tapes? Plus, there are no guarantees that smoke will completely dissipate once it has lingered up to a distance of 20 feet. Smoke that lingers toward a bus shelter from 19 feet away will not know, under the new law, it is only allowed one more foot. And besides, everyone knows smoke does not have feelings or care if it breaks the law.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is back in the spotlight. Recent testing by Consumer Reports of canned foods found that most of the 19 name-brand foods they tested contained measurable levels of (BPA). BPA has been used for years in clear plastic bottles and is restricted in Canada and some U. S. States and municipalities because it has been linked to a wide range of health effects. It turns out BPA is also used to line the inside of canned goods so the metal does not interact with the food and deteriorate. A different report put out by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, back in May, found that participants who drank for a week from polycarbonate bottles, including baby bottles, showed a two-thirds increase in their urine of BPA, suggesting that drinking containers made with BPA release the chemical into the container’s contents-- enough to be measured in urine. The results also showed that the participants’ urinary BPA concentrations increased 69% after drinking from the polycarbonate bottles.
Federal guidelines currently put the daily limit of safe exposure at 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight---based on experiments done in the 1980’s. But scientific evidence confirms that BPA at lower doses can be dangerous. Environmentcalifornia.org researchers found that BPA at low doses is associated with developmental problems, lower sperm count, breast and prostate cancers, diabetes and obesity, heart disease, Down Syndrome, behavioral changes, and miscarriage. According to a FOX News report, Dr Urvashi Rangan, the director of Technical Policy, at Consumers Union, a nonprofit publisher of Consumer reports, said,” The lack of any safety margin between the levels that cause harm in animals and those that people could potentially ingest from canned foods has been inadequately addressed by the FDA to date.” The good news is that efforts to bring about change are being made. The Consumers Union recently sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, requesting that the agency act this year to ban the use of BPA in food and beverage-content materials. And the FDA is expected to reassess the safety of BPA and issue its findings by the end this month. Currently, bills are pending in Congress that would ban the use PBA in all food and beverage containers. Here at the Brod Law Firm we would like to see a day when the FDA imposes stricter regulations not just on BPA, but on all toxic substances. All of us born under the nuclear and DDT age have been exposed far too long to too many toxins--such as radiation, pesticides, as well as medications and vaccines--that, now, it’s time for a change.

For the past 34 years, California has had a cap on the amount of non-economic damages that an injured person may recover in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Under the current law in California, if a doctor is supposed to repair a knee injury but amputates the leg due to being drunk, for example, the maximum amount of non-economic damages (pain and suffering) that can be recovered in a personal injury case is $250,000.00. If that person’s one passion in life was dancing, and a jury awards $500,000.00 in non-economic damages, the award gets reduced to $250,000.00. If that person had jogged every day to alleviate stress, keep their weight down and maintain a healthy heart rate, and a jury awards $650,000.00 in non-economic damages, the award gets reduced to $250,000.00. It is absurd to think that the value of $250,000.00 in 1975 is anywhere close to the value that same amount represents today, which essentially means that the maximum an injured person can recover, has steadily gone down in the State of California.

The cap on medical malpractice lawsuits was supposed to help both consumers and doctors by keeping insurance premiums from rising, which the insurance industry likes to blame on lawyers, juries, and our civil judicial system, in general. It is more than doubtful that health care premiums, as well as medical malpractice premiums for doctors, have consistently risen in California, despite this cap in medical malpractice lawsuits.

The constitutionality of the law that caps these damages was recently upheld in a California Court of Appeal decision, and the California Supreme Court refused to review the decision, which means that the cap will remain in place. The insurance industry is very powerful, has tremendous resources and influence, which is important to take into consideration whenever it sends out its claims of “tort reform” and “lawsuit abuse” in our system.

New research blames changes in cigarette design for fueling a certain type of lung cancer, according to an article put out by the associated press. In the article Dr. David Burns of the University of California says that “up to half of the nation’s lung cancer cases may be due to those practices.” Researchers conclude that it is riskier to smoke cigarettes today than it was a few decades ago. In the 1960’s there was a movement toward lower-tar cigarettes. Consequently, that movement changed cigarettes so that they contained less tar and more Nitrosamines, a type of carcinogen. Nitrosamines are a byproduct of tobacco processing and levels vary for a variety of reasons, one of which is curing techniques. The research states that while the nation’s total lung cancer cases have inched down as the numbers of smokers has dropped in recent years, the individual smoker’s risk of getting cancer is higher. The research shows that when smokers switched to the lower tar cigarettes, they began inhaling more deeply to get their nicotine jolt, which pushed cancer causing smoke deeper into their lungs.

Congress is currently debating the issue of whether the FDA should regulate tobacco. President Obama supports legislation that would allow the FDA powers over tobacco products. The Office Management and Budget states: “Cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States and is a contributing factor to scores of diseases and conditions inflicting misery upon millions of our citizens…Further, Tobacco products—including nicotine and possibly after the study, menthol.” Under new proposed legislation, the FDA would have the power to decide such things as whether to set caps on certain chemicals in tobacco smoke. The FDA would also be given the power to approve or reject new tobacco products and to expand market restrictions and warning labels. Here at the Brod Law firm we see the issue as problematic. The problem with the FDA regulating cigarettes and having its name on warning/safety labels is that it will give the impression that the FDA is saying it is safe to use. Also, tobacco companies may try to protect themselves against any liability by claiming they are in compliance with FDA standards. But we do believe that any regulation is a start in the right direction and that it is better than no regulation at all. Any effort by the government to protect the public from product injury is always a good idea no matter how politically heated the subject.

With unemployment on the rise and the current economic downturn expected to stay with us in the New Year, there has been little to look forward to in 2009. However, there are several laws which will take effect on January 1st, laws that will protect workers, consumers and the environment and improve public safety and health access. Here in San Francisco, there will be some positive changes specific to the safety of our community. On January 1, fines will double for traffic violations on 19th and Van Ness Avenues—two of the busiest and most dangerous streets in San Francisco. Tickets will range from $137.00, for speeding, and $2, 750, for reckless driving. The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported each avenue, between 2003 and 2007, was the site of more than 500 collisions, a dozen of which involved pedestrians. And according to the examiner.com, 19th Avenue has been dubbed a death trap for walkers, serving 85,000 vehicles and 80,000 pedestrians each day, while Van Ness Avenue serves about 80,000 commuters each day. As part of his signing this bill, Schwarzenegger has pledged that public safety is his top priority, pointing out how critical it is to ensure the safety of everyone on our roadways. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe these new penalties will encourage drivers to pay attention and slow down, which should, in turn, begin to put an end to the loss of innocent lives. For we have seen enough wrongful death, car accident and motorcycle accident suits-- which have been the result of careless driving on these two roads-- not to take note of the importance of this new, and long overdue, law.

Text messaging is the new way millions of Americans communicate. The American Medical Association (AMA) voted this month to advocate for state legislation prohibiting the use of hand held devices used to text message while driving. An AMA board member, Peter Carmel says that texting while driving takes the driver’s attention off the roads, which leads to accidents. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we feel that fact is an obvious one, one that pretty much goes without saying. However, when Peter Carmel stated that text messaging while driving causes a 400 percent increase in time spent with eyes off the road, we felt that fact is a less obvious one, is one that all drivers should be aware of—mostly because it means our roads that much more unsafe while we share the road with texting drivers. Currently, seven states, California included, have bans on text messaging while driving because of the risk to public safety. The AMA says it will continue to support additional states in the mission to ban text messaging by motorists. We applaud the AMA and their efforts to keep the public safe from injury, as we know all too well of the inherent dangers that exist for drivers, and how a catastrophic or death related accident can happen in a split second after a driver takes their eyes off the road.

After we read the news regarding the AMA’s efforts to ban texting while driving, we felt it is not only drivers who text while driving that pose a health risk. We thought: what about walking and texting? While we support raising public awareness regarding issues of safety and text messaging while driving, we also feel it is important that public awareness is raised regarding pedestrian safety and texting while walking. Over the past year we have come across many articles relating to pedestrians being injured while texting. The American College of Emergency physicians issued alerts regarding these types of accidents . Most injuries related to texting and walking are minor, such as head injuries from bumping into poles or sprained ankles from twisting as they stepped off a curb. Some injuries, however, are quite serious or even deadly. For example, according to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, a San Francisco woman was killed earlier this year when she stepped off the curb while texting. We believe the message here is very clear: when you are mobile, please keep your eyes on where you are going, not on a hand-held device. Also, don’t underestimate how safe you feel while driving or walking. And lastly, accidents can occur out of nowhere --so the more alert you are while you are mobile, the better chance you have of not injuring yourself.