Rockford & Moline Personal Injury Lawyers - Legislation

Citizens Wonder if “The Price is Right” for Proposed Spay and Neuter Ordinance

Nick Avgerinos — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:56:00 GMT

It’s not every day Bob Barker comes to Chicago. His long-running stint as host of “The Price is Right” was punctuated by his signature sign-off: “Help control the pet population. Have your pets spayed and neutered.” So when he learned of Chicago’s proposed city ordinance that would require cats and dogs over 6 months old to be spayed and neutered, it was essentially a moment of “Bob Barker, come on down!”

And that’s what he did. Mr. Barker attended a three-hour hearing at City Hall, where he was a strong proponent of the ordinance. Despite his speech, the City Council’s License Committee took no action, postponing any decision until a later date. There are impassioned supporters on both sides of the debate. The ordinance is backed by PAWS Chicago, as well as the Humane Society of the United States. Notably, however, it is opposed by the Chicago and Illinois State Veterinary Associations, which maintain that the decision to spay or neuter is best left up to the pet’s owner and veterinarian on a case-by-case basis.

The ordinance is sponsored by Ald. Ed Burke (14th), chairman of the Finance Committee, and Ald. Ginger Rugai (19th). They support the ordinance due to its potential for keeping Chicago residents safe from animal attacks, citing evidence that sterilized animals are less likely to be vicious. Animal attacks, especially dog bites, are a widespread problem and can be very dangerous. In April, a woman was attacked by five pit bulls while on her way to pick up her children at school on the southwest side; that incident apparently prompted this legislation.

Previously, the Chicago City Council considered an ordinance mandating that dogs be microchipped in an effort to track down the offending dog’s owner. That proposed ordinance was prompted when two female joggers were attacked, one fatally, in Dan Ryan Woods in 2003. That legislation failed, however; widely criticized as being too invasive, policing private conduct. Some citizens have similar feelings about this proposed ordinance, including serious doubts about enforceability.

If passed, the ordinance would require dog and cat owners to have their pets sterilized by the time they’re 6 months old. Those who failed to comply could be fined $100, while those who intend to breed their pets could obtain a permit to do so, provided that they submit to a criminal background check and pay a fee. The city already requires that owners license their dogs, which costs $5 or $50, depending on if your dog is sterilized. Unfortunately, there’s widespread non-compliance with that ordinance. So, the question remains whether the proposed legislation would be any more effective.

In theory, it’s a great idea. As Bob Barker explained: “It will help the animals themselves. It will prevent tremendous animal suffering. But beyond that, it will save taxpayers in Chicago thousands, millions of dollars probably. In California, it is now costing $250 million a year to capture the animals, house the animals and kill the animals.” The question is whether it’s feasible in practice. And, for some, whether the legislation goes too far with infringing on personal freedom. No matter what the City Council ultimately decides, though, it’s important that we take responsibility for our own pets, making every effort to prevent possible personal injury and property liability issues. Because the price is always right if it means promoting safety.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

Creative Commuters: Many Turn to Scooters and Motorcycles to Ease Pain at the Pump

Nick Avgerinos — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:07:00 GMT

Our slowing economy and climbing oil prices explain the panic that many people are feeling when it comes time to fill up at the pump. Some are driving less, others are carpooling , and a surprising number are opting for Metra . But some of us are taking a more creative approach to commuting; these individuals are trading in their gas guzzlers to tool around on two wheels. No, I’m not talking about those grabbing their bicycles. Rather, I’m referring the spike in sales of motorcycles and scooters .

It’s not just a few people making the switch either. According to the Motorcycle Industry Council , sales are up 24% in the first few months of 2008 alone. Yamaha reports that its scooter sales are up 65% from this time last year. And Vespa set an all-time sales record in May, selling 2,758 in the United States alone. That nearly doubled its previous record. It makes sense that as gas prices continue to climb, so will these sales.

But, for drivers steering toward these creative commutes, how much savings is there really? Of course, it depends on what kind of mileage these motorists used to get; in other words, is the switch from a Hummer or a Prius ? But the manufacturer mileage claims are pretty astonishing: anywhere from 40 to 100 mpg. And with the relatively low cost of these vehicles, the savings are even greater.

But how safe are these trendy two-wheelers? Not very. In fact, in the past 10 years, fatalities have increased 127%. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration , a motorcyclist is 34 times more likely to die in an automobile crash than someone in a regular car. 34 times! That’s a pretty big risk just to save a few bucks in gas.

It makes sense that motorcycles are more dangerous given the relative size and weight of these vehicles compared to traditional cars and trucks. And with the growing number of SUVs and other oversized vehicles on the road, the size ratio is increasingly unfavorable for motorcyclists. Many motorcycle accidents are avoidable, though, simply be wearing a helmet. Not wearing a helmet might not be against the law in Illinois , but it is against good old common sense. Many Injury Board members have been writing about the importance of bike safety , particularly the importance of helmets .

Don’t think it looks cool? Well, it’s a lot cooler than sustaining preventable injuries while riding. To give you an idea of the difference wearing a helmet makes, let’s take a look at Florida , a state that used to require helmets when riding. According to Consumer Reports, “ During the 30 months after Florida repealed its helmet law in 2002, there were 40 percent more hospitalizations and a 24 percent increase in deaths compared to the 30 months before the law was changed.” That’s a pretty big difference.

So, we’re left with this question: is making the shift to two wheels worth it? Well, that’s up to you. And it has a lot to do with your personal circumstances and commitment to being a safe driver. Consumer Reports intends to develop increased testing of motorcycles, and has this blog where you can discuss the triumphs and tribulations of buying and riding motorcycles with both novice and veteran riders. If you ultimately do decide two wheels are better than four, do yourself a favor and ride off into the sunset wearing a helmet.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

Does Congress Afford too many Protections to Makers of Medical Devices?

Nick Avgerinos — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:33:00 GMT

Technological advancements add lifesaving and revolutionary products that enhance the practice of medicine. Doctors can save lives with devices such as artificial pacemakers and dialysis machines, or improve one’s quality of life with a joint replacement procedure. However, there can be problems with these medical devices that may cause harmful injury or death to the patient when they are either defective or malfunctioning.

The major problems with medical devices come through a defective product, incorrect use of the device, or medical incompatibility. According to the Institute of Medicine , about 1.3 million Americans are seriously injured each year by adverse events involving medical products.

In order to regulate these potential dangers, the FDA has regulations with which these medical devices must comply. To use the device should be logical and not confusing, with a minimal dependence on the memory or mental calculations of the patient. There should be appropriate warnings, labels, and alerts, and the devices should be well tested and re-checked regularly. If these regulations are not followed, a patient typically has the right to sue the manufacturer to recover for their injuries.

In February, the Supreme Court decided 8-1 that makers of medical devices that have passed the most rigorous review standards and approved by the FDA are protected from lawsuit. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion of the majority based on the principle that federal law preempts imposition of liability for such manufacturers under state law. Those who support this decision see the protection of the companies as crucial in furthering more medical advancements. Also, in a lawsuit, a jury is not confronted with the benefits a device may have for millions of people, not just how a malfunction harmed one person.

While the decision is narrowly tailored for devices that have passed the highest level of scrutiny, it can be potentially dangerous for those who have been wrongly injured. Such protections could encourage a greater sense of carelessness on the part of the manufacturers. Traditionally, lawsuits have acted as a check to ensure that quality standards are kept high when human lives are at stake. Furthermore, even the FDA admits that in many areas they are understaffed and under-funded . If this is the case, defective devices might gain FDA approval, harm someone, and the manufacturer would be immune from liability, leaving victims with no means to seek justice in the courts.

In the past few months, highly publicized petitions to Congress have been made to reform laws to make sure negligent companies are held liable for medical devices that are either defective or not properly labeled to ensure that patients can easily use them. Many members of Congress , such as the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform , want to pass legislation to protect the rights of the wrongly injured.

In the meantime, doctors and patients should continue to do everything they can to avoid tragic accidents. Patients should research medical devices on which they rely, and be sure to report any malfunctions, so they can hopefully be improved. They should also be sure to read and understand any warning labels and instructions, and treat even a simple device with the utmost care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

AEDs: A Lifesaving Tool in the Workplace

Nick Avgerinos — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:04:00 GMT

June 1-7, 2008 marked the first annual American Red Cross CPR and AED Awareness Week. The Red Cross sponsored activities and educational services nationwide with the goal of encouraging “states, cities and towns to establish organized programs that provide CPR and AED trainings and increase public access to AEDs.”

An automatic external defibrillator (AED), is a computerized medical device which can be used to restore natural heart rhythm to someone in cardiac arrest. AEDs are easy to use devices that, if readily available, can increase survival by as much as 49% and prevent many instances of severe brain injury. Legislation in 2006 established guidelines requiring AEDs to be placed in buildings owned or leased by the federal government.

The American Heart Association recommends AEDs to be placed in public areas such as office complexes as well as training several people in the workplace how to perform CPR and operate AEDs if necessary. In Illinois, recent legislation provides funding for public facilities such as parks to become equipped with AEDs, but the choice to place AEDs in private workplaces remains at the discretion of the employer.

Employers should seriously consider placing AEDs in the workplace. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in Illinois, and many of these deaths can be prevented if the person is treated quickly. At a cost of about $2000, they can be important life saving devices if easily accessible.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

A Dangerous Combination: Driving While Text Messaging

Nick Avgerinos — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:24:49 GMT

It is not news that in our modern world we find ourselves increasingly dependent on our cell phones and BlackBerrys for communication on the go. While Chicago has banned cell phone use while driving for several years, new technologies have created a growing issue of the prevalence of text messaging, which can be even more distracting to a driver than talking on the phone. Two weeks ago, Washington banned text messaging while driving, and Chicago may be soon to follow. Talking on a cell phone or using one to send text messages can triple the risk of getting into a car accident.

The issue becomes particularly interesting as more and more companies issue BlackBerrys to their employees in order to conduct business and stay in contact through emails while out of the office. If an employee is sending a business email, employers could be held liable, as the employee is acting within the scope of his employment.For this reason, employers need to properly train employees about BlackBerry use in order to protect themselves from this foreseeable action. They should not only require that employeesnot use their phones for business purposes while driving, but also refrain from certain requirements or incentives for employees to work while on the road.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos