Preventing Hospital-Associated Illnesses

Posted on July 6, 2011 by Kristine Meredith

The failure to timely diagnose and treat a hospital-acquired illness (HAI) can, of course, be considered medical negligence. If doctors and nurses stick their heads in the sand and fail to recognize the signs of a serious infection, it can tragically worsen the patient’s condition. That sort of neglect can form the basis of a viable malpractice claim.

As it turns out, infection rates vary considerably between hospitals. The difference in infection rates is now being traced to whether the hospital has adopted a culture of “attentive hygiene.” When hospitals take steps to improve that hygiene, infectious disease doctors and hospital quality and safety research groups are finding that most hospital associated illnesses can be prevented.
That doesn’t mean that every hospital-acquired infection is the result of the hospital’s mistakes.

However, the research does mean that in a case where hospital acquired infection has caused severe harm, it may be well worth investigating whether the hospital had any of these common sense infection control protocols in place, and more importantly, whether the hospital made a real effort to strictly comply with the protocols on a daily basis.
 

Tags: , , , , ,

San Bruno Residents' Right to Compensation for Emotional Distress

Posted on September 18, 2010 by Kristine Meredith

Many of the San Bruno residents evacuated on September 9th may be categorized as “survivors,” having escaped the Glenview fire without being burned.  But even though they suffer no physical injuries, the gas explosion will leave dozens with emotional injuries that will persist for a long time to come.

Generally the law does not require a wrongdoer to compensate the victim for the emotional distress it has caused a victim unless it has also caused the victim to suffer some sort of physical injury.  And certainly PG&E will argue that the general rule should apply here -- that unless a victim suffered physical injury, PG&E shouldn't be required to compensate him for any emotional injury that it may have inflicted.

But in a special situation like this one, everyone who suffered serious emotional injuries should be entitled to compensation, regardless of whether they suffered any physical injuries.   That's because PG&E knew that if its negligence led to a gas line explosion, people would fear for their lives and for those of their loved ones.   PG&E's behavior was morally wrong and the laws are designed to hold wrongdoers accountable for all the harm they cause, even if that harm is "only" emotional distress.

Seeking compensation for emotional distress (or "post traumatic stress disorder") does not mean you are weak or can't handle a stressful situation. Nor does it mean you are piling on or taking advantage of the system.   People who suffer from emotional distress suffer real losses.   Often because they can't concentrate, they lose their jobs or do poorly in school.  Their family situations may deteriorate because they begin to snap at those they love.  They suffer from anxiety – feel constantly "on edge" -- and that can lead to depression.  

Lawyers experienced in PG&E explosion cases can assist the San Bruno residents who are suffering emotionally from this haunting catastrophe.

Tags: , , , , ,

Negligence Per Se -- When the Wrongdoer Violates a Statute

Posted on April 1, 2010 by Kristine Meredith

To win a lawsuit, the victim must prove that defendant was negligent --  that is, that he did not exercise "due care."  That can be difficult.  But it can also be easy, such as when the doctrine of negligence per se comes into play.

When the doctrine of negligence per se applies, defendant's conduct will presumed to have been negligent with no need for plaintiff to present any further proof.  A defendant's conduct is negligent per se if:

  1. The conduct violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation;
  2. The violation caused the injury;
  3. The statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent the type of injury that occurred; and
  4. The person suffering the injury was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted.

The doctrine of negligence per se may apply when a victim is injured on a construction site (or even a home remodeling project). For example, if the wrongdoer has violated an OSHA regulation, that may be enough to prove the wrongdoer was negligent.  The victim must still show that the violation caused his injury, that the regulation was designed to prevent his type of injury, and that he was of the class of persons for whose protection the statute was adopted.  But he need not prove, as he would need to in most cases, that the wrongdoer did not exercise due care.

If a jury determines that a defendant violated a regulation, the defendant can be found negligent per se even if the governmental agency did not charge him with a violation. Therefore, an attorney investigating a client's case must conduct his own research and investigation into whether the defendant may have violated any applicable statute, ordinance or regulation. 
 

Tags: , , ,

Compensation for Injury on Another's Property

Posted on June 30, 2009 by Kristine Meredith

A property owner must keep his property in a reasonably safe condition. He must discover any unsafe conditions and repair, replace or warn of any condition he could expect to harm others. 

His reasonableness will be measured by the following factors:

  • Location of the property
  • Likelihood that someone would come on to the property as the victim did
  • Likelihood of harm
  • Probable seriousness of such harm
  • Whether he knew or should have known of the condition that created the risk of harm
  • Difficulty of protecting against the risk of such harm
  • Extent of his control over the condition that created the risk of harm.

But if the city, state or the federal government owns the property, then the rules are different and getting compensation for an injury is more difficult.
 

Tags: , , ,