Category: Legal News

Slip and Falls and Qualified Municipal Immunity

Posted on May 15, 2007 by James Sabatini - Legal News, Slip and Falls

Slip and fall lawsuits can be complex when the injury took place on municipal property. This lates case is an example of the hurdles the injured plaintiff faces when injured in a slip and fall on town or city property. In the case of Durant v. Hartford Board of Education, plaintiff slipped on a water in a stairwell while picking up her son from an after school day care program at a Hartford public school. She was injured and filed a personal injury suit against the Board of Education. The Superior Court held that plaintiff’s action was barred by General Statutes 52-557n, which gave the Board a qualified municipal immunity for discretionary acts. The Appellate Court reversed, holding that the plaintiff fell within the identifiable person-imminent harm exception in General Statutes Section 52-557n (a) (2) (B) because the puddle in the stairwell was limited in both its duration and location and because the potential for harm resulting from a fall in a stairwell was significant and foreseeable. Durrant v. Board of Education, 96 Conn. App. 456 (2006) (Schaller, J. dissenting). The case is now before the Connecticut Supreme Court.

Medical Malpractice Crisis – A Fiction

Posted on May 9, 2007 by James Sabatini - Legal News, Medical and Dental Malpractice

There is no empirical evidence to support the much-publicized notion that the tort system amounts to a lottery for injured plaintiffs, as President Bush and others have long maintained, writes Philip G. Peters Jr. in the May edition of the Michigan Law Review. If anything, the system appears to be biased against injured plaintiffs.

To read more about the fictional medical malpractice crisis, click here.

Car Accidents and Teen Drivers

Posted on May 7, 2007 by James Sabatini - Car Accidents, Legal News

Over the past decade, Connecticut, in response to teens involved in car accidents, has increased restrictions on teen drivers.? The following restrictions are now in place in the State of Connecticut:

During the first three months of driving, the teen may only legally drive with one or both of his or her parents or guardians, one driver’s education instructor, or one person older than 20 who has held a license for four or more consecutive years.

During the second three months, the teen may drive with members of his or her immediate family.

They may not drive a vehicle that requires a public passenger permit, such as a bus.

They may not drive with more passengers than there are seat belts in the vehicle.

They may not drive between midnight and 5 a.m., except for special circumstances or with their parent or guardian.

They may not drive while talking on a cell phone.

To learn more about teen driving restrictions, click here for the DMV website.

Medicaid Liens After the Ahlborn Decision

Posted on May 6, 2007 by James Sabatini - Legal News

One issue that often arises is the extent to which a third-party can assert a lien. In Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Servs. v Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268 (2006), the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of what amount of the proceeds of a settlement can be used to satisfy a Medicaid lien. In Ahlborn, the Supreme Court held that the statutory exception to the anti-lien provision in the Medicaid statute, which permits states to enforce statutory liens on settlements, judgments or awards of monies to Medicaid recipients, applies only to the portion of the settlement, judgment or award allocated to past medical expenses.

Since the Ahlborn decision is relatively new, it has not been applied in many reported cases. Recently, however, in Chambers v. Jain, a New York trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the full value of the plaintiff’s case versus amount for which it settled, and reduced the Medicaid claim on pro rata basis.

I anticipate that when a Connecticut court is presented with the same issue, that an evidentiary hearing will be ordered as well to determine the full value of the case versus the amount it settled for.

J&J’s Damage Control Over Ortho Evra Birth Control Patch

Posted on May 6, 2007 by James Sabatini - Defective Products, Hot Topics, Legal News

The maker of the widely used Ortho Evra birth control patch, Johnson & Johnson, is trying to prevent negative attention over its dangerous contraceptive by purchasing the rights to domain names like Orthoevrakills.com and Deathbypatch.com.

In late 2005 when the Food and Drug Administration urged that a heightened warning alerting users to the risk of potentially fatal blood clot and stroke be added to the drug’s label. In February 2006, a study showed that women using the Ortho Evra birth control patch faced double the risk of blood clots than women who use oral contraceptives. The increased risk is due to the fact that the patch exposes users to higher levels of hormones–60 percent more–than oral medications.

Johnson & Johnson purchased and registered the domain names but is not using them. The move was strictly an attempt to preempt critics of Ortho Evra from attracting negative attention to the dangerous drug.

Free Consultation