New York Personal Injury Blog

A recent article in the New York Post titled 'Tort threat' is a tri-state jobs-killer, provides the insurance industry's take on tort law in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.  Once again, the New York Post has turned its opinion page over to a mouthpiece for big business and the insurance industry in an attempt to sway people's view against a right of recovery for those who have been injured.  In contrast to the New York Post, we think the right to make a claim for personal injury is one that needs to be protected rather than diminished.  The notion that so-called "tort reform" should be implemented as a means of economic stimulus is just plain silly.  No economist (unless big business and the insurance industry have managed to place one on their payroll) has ever suggested that such a plan makes economic sense.  But that won't stop insurance and big business from making the argument.  Shame on the New York Post, however, for publishing such propaganda.  Reducing the amount of money a plaintiff can be awarded  in order to create jobs or reduce taxes does not make economic sense.  Rather, such a concept simply shifts the burden and hardship for paying for this economic reshuffling, placing it squarely on the shoulders of those who have already been injured.  Where is the justice in that?  Furthermore, doing so would deprive an injured person of the opportunity to present his or her case to a jury of peers.  Our judicial system relies on people to come to a decision together and make a just determination.  Apparently, the New York Post believes that although our citizens are smart enough to decide life and death matters in criminal cases (literally), they are not smart enough to do so in civil cases.  We disagree; We believe that juries are more than able to decide cases.  Moreover, what the article fails to mention is that every case is already potentially subject to at least two layers of review.  Both the trial judge, and then an appellate panel of judges (if an appeal is taken) review a jury's determination both to see if it was supported by the evidence and to ensure that the award does not deviate from what has previously been awarded for similar injuries.  Such double layered review already ensures that so-called "frivolous" cases do not result in awards.  On the other hand, the article's proposal would do nothing more than shield people who hurt others from the consequences of their own negligence.  While big business and the insurance industry would certainly benefit from such mislabeled "reform," injured people -- and society as a whole -- would pay the price.  We firmly believe that all of us should continue to be responsible for our own actions.  Pieces like this are written for the purpose of keeping us -- trial lawyers -- from helping people who have been injured by outside forces that they cannot control.  Don't fall for it.

Finding a safe home or apartment to rent in New York City can be a daunting task. Renters face a myriad of hoops from finding a safe and secure building to access to transportation to affordability and amenities. One safety issue that the EPA is trying to clean up is that of lead paint within rental units and buildings.

Lead, whether in dust, soil or paint, is still the main environmental hazard for children in the United States despite its precipitous decline over the last two decades. Even at low levels, the metal can cause terrible neurological damage in young children, including a lowered I.Q., memory loss, hearing loss, kidney failure, increased aggression, and chronic muscle pain. Many children never fully recover after being poisoned and continue to exhibit symptoms throughout their life. Lead can also cause serious conditions in adults.

EPA Enforcing New Rules On Presence of Lead in Rental Units

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is strictly enforcing the new federal rules that went into effect in April 2010, which strictly regulate lead paint in rental units and require that a landlord disclose the use of lead paint in any rental constructed before 1978. Landlords must be sure that their rentals fully comply with lead-based paint requirements, or they will face significant fines.

A good example of the EPA's enforcement efforts on lead paint is the case of Wolfe Landau, a Brooklyn landlord. Landau has agreed to pay a $20,000 civil penalty for violating the new lead-based paint disclosure rules.

Buoyed by the new rules, the Center for Disease Control hopes to fully eliminate childhood lead poisoning in 2010. In 2006, an estimated 120,000 children had elevated lead levels nationwide - down from 890,000 in 1994. However, in a study published in 2009, nearly 60 percent of tenants in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Bushwick reported that their landlords had not complied with any of the proposed regulations. The CDC and EPA are looking to change that and have issued an enforcement alert to more than 235,000 contractors nationwide.

Contractors must distribute the EPA's pamphlet on lead safety before beginning any renovations on homes or apartments built before 1978, and must attain certification from the EPA in lead safety. Contractors must contain the work area; cover floors, furniture, heating or cooling vents; minimize dust; and clean up thoroughly.

What To Do If Your Home Violates Federal, State, or New York City Laws on Lead?

In New York City, laws also seek to mandate compliance for abatement of lead in multiple dwelling residences. The City has long been aware of the lead problem and advocates, including personal injury trial lawyers have pressed hard for tough laws to "get the lead out."

If you have reason to believe that a landlord or contractor working in your home or apartment is not complying with the new regulations, ask to see the contractor's lead safety certification, contact your local health department and a tenant's rights attorney, and call the EPA's hotline at 800-424-LEAD (5323).

Thanks to new guidelines soon to be implemented by the FDA, medical device-makers will need to provide detailed information and statistics as to why their devices should receive approval. The first device to face tighter scrutiny? The infusion pump. A common hospital and home device for automatically delivering drugs and food to patients intravenously, the infusion pump has recently come under great criticism.

One sticking point many FDA doctors had was the sheer number of complaints. Since 2005, more than 10,000 infusion pump-related complaints have been received each year, along with reports of 710 deaths, or roughly 142 deaths every year. FDA officials feel the actual number of deaths could be significantly higher. Also coming to a head were many FDA scientists, who had complained that their criticisms of certain devices had fallen on deaf ears. For many years, devices such as the infusion pump were allowed to skirt standard testing and clinical trials based on the manufacturer's assurance that a new device was similar to an older, already-approved device.

So, what is the problem with infusion pumps? There are two main areas, experts say, where problems can occur. The first is user error. This often happens with the home patient or hospital nurse inputting the wrong amount of medication. Device error can also happen, when the internal software inadvertently overdoses the patient. A combination of the two is what FDA officials believe could be the most common culprit, an event they call "key bounce." In this instance, the device interprets a single keystroke as two, so a nurse or patient requesting one unit of medication would instead receive 11 units.

The new crackdown on infusion pumps could be just the beginning for the FDA. Long considered a simple rubber stamp for new products, the Obama Administration has promised to pump new life into the FDA as a regulator. The initial outcome could be a slower approval process, but ultimately the hope is for safer drugs, more reliable medical equipment, and ultimately, healthier patients.