Rockford & Moline Personal Injury Lawyers - Personal Injury

Where Can You Turn When Workers’ Compensation is not Enough?

Nick Avgerinos — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:21:00 GMT

If you are injured on the job, there is a section in the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act called the Exclusive Remedy Provision. It provides that there is no common law or statutory right to recover damages from the employer other than workers’ compensation. A recently published article by the American Association for Justice in their Trial Journal publication, discusses the possibility of a products liability claim within a workers’ compensation case. It advocates, “every workplace accident that involves a product should be reviewed to determine whether there is a potential products liability cause of action.”

What does this mean for an injured worker? If the injury involved a defective product, the worker may have a claim against the manufacturers, distributors, or retailers responsible for their injury. Products liability refers to the liability of any or all parties along the chain of manufacture of any product for damage caused by that product.

What can make a company liable for a defective product? First, there could be a design defect. That is, if the product is unreasonably dangerous and technology exists that could be used to make the product safer. Or, there could be a manufacturing defect if the product does not work as it should or is not manufactured as it is intended to be. If the product does not have a sufficient warning about possible dangers, it could also be defective in its ability to protect the product’s user from injury.

In any case, if a worker is injured using a product, a products liability cause of action may be an important action to consider and possibly investigate. The theory behind a products liability claim is that by holding the manufacturers, distributors, or retailers responsible for producing a dangerous and defective product, industry standards will remain high.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

Credit or Debit? Workers Comp for the 21st Century

Nick Avgerinos — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:12:25 GMT

These days, everything runs on plastic. In fact, that’s our nation’s problem. I’m not going to talk about the woes of our economy or engage in the credit vs. debit debate, though; there is a plethora of other blogs doing just that already. Believe it or not, this all relates to workers’ compensation.

JPMorgan did something interesting recently; it introduced a workers’ comp debit card. No, it’s not something that workers can hold and use at their discretion, whenever they’re feeling a bit sore. Rather, it’s a card that insurance companies can sign-up for in order to streamline payment processing for injured workers once a claim has been filed and acknowledged. JPMorgan is the first major financial institution to enable insurance companies to use prepaid debit cards to deliver workers compensation benefits to injured or disabled workers.

Beyond its benefit of reducing the paper trail for insurance companies, the card potentially represents two major benefits for injured workers. First, symbolically, companies are recognizing that these workers are involved in an arduous trade and injuries are bound to happen. By enrolling, companies are taking a step in the right direction, acknowledging that there is a problem and trying to streamline the solution. Second, it allows workers who have proved that their injury arose out of and in the course of employment to receive their payment more quickly and easily.

Injured workers are dealing with enough stressors, including learning to live with their new injuries and often adjusting work expectations. Waiting for a check to come in the mail or going to the bank to cash it are just extra to-do items. A workers’ comp debit card could take those items off the list. And it might not seem like a big deal, but it is. Anyone who remembers waiting for an employment check to come, hoping it makes it in time to pay this month’s rent, can relate to just how stressful waiting for a check can be. At a time when the last thing these injured individuals need is more stress, the debit card option comes as a great relief.

Less waiting means less stress. And having this type of streamlined system allows for quick enrollment into the card program as well as the ability to electronically deposit funds for quick access. Additionally, payments can be easily tracked, so there is documentation that injured individuals are receiving their payments on time. In short, it’s a way to make the whole payment process just a little more pleasant for people involved in a very unpleasant situation.

Only time will tell how widespread this process becomes, and whether other financial institutions will follow suit, but it certainly holds promise. It’s the little things that make a big difference when people are going through really tough times, and this could be a great opportunity for insurance companies to take a step in the right direction.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

Stay in Touch with the Cell Phone / Cancer Debate: 5 Tips to Limit Your Risk

Nick Avgerinos — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:34:00 GMT

With cell phones pressed to our ears, clipped to our belts, and putting email at our fingertips, it’s becoming hard to imagine life without them. And with our busy schedules, we don’t often take the time to consider whether that’s necessarily a good thing. Cell phone usage has exploded in the last decade, and while numerous studies have been done regarding possible health risks associated with cell phone use, the jury is still out, searching for more conclusive evidence.

The good news: most studies haven’t found any relationship between cell phones and cancer. The bad news: a new warning issued by the head of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute suggests otherwise, based on unpublished data. The new warning emphasizes the danger of cell phone use among small children, explaining that it’s most dangerous for young ones because their brains are still developing. Many have called this new warning alarmist and premature, but it seems too soon to tell its merits.

Devra Lee Davis, the director of the university's center for environmental oncology puts the point well: “The question is, do you want to play Russian roulette with your brain?” Of course, the answer is no. And we certainly don’t want to expose our children to undue health risks. (Unrelated note to parents: this new warning also offers a concrete reason for refusing to indulge your child’s premature desire to procure a cell phone.)

So, if we’re going to be safe, rather than sorry, here are 5 useful tips provided by CNN:

1. Use the speakerphone

This was, without question, the favorite alternative of the experts I talked to. Nothing is near your head. "Hold it away from a minimum of a few inches. A foot or two is ideal," said Magda Havas, an associate professor with the Institute for Health Studies at Trent University in Ontario, Canada.

Havas gives me a little math lesson. Every inch you can get away from your body, the radiation reduces very quickly. "Hold it out two inches, and the radiation drops by a factor of four. Hold it out four inches, and it drops by a factor of 16," she says.

In other words, said Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, "every millimeter counts."

2. Use a wired headset with a ferrite bead

No, this is not a piece of jewelry. A ferrite bead is a clip you put on the wire of a headset. The concern is that the wire itself emits radiation into your ear. The bead is designed to absorb the radiation so you don't. They're inexpensive and available at stores or online.

These clips are a favorite of Slesin's. "It's the way to go," he said.

Another fan: Lawrie Challis, physicist and former chair of the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme, a government panel in Britain. "They did tests at the University of York and found that under even the worst conditions, if you use a ferrite bead, you can't even measure the radiation coming off the wire. This common device kills the radiation."

Of course, if the phone is in your pocket or clipped to your belt, all bets are off, because the phone itself will be radiating into your body. So if you're worried about radiation, keep the phone as far away as possible, and Challis adds to do your best to make sure the wire isn't touching your body.

3. Use a Bluetooth earpiece

A Bluetooth earpiece still has radiation, but it's at least 100 times less than the radiation you get when you hold a cell phone to your head, Havas says.

Our experts were split on which was better: a Bluetooth headset or a wired one. Israeli government recommendations issued this week specifically suggest a wire; Havas likes the Bluetooth. But even she says not to wear it when you're not talking; it still sends out a signal.

"Bluetooth is only whispering radiation into your ear. The problem is, some people wear it all the time," she says. "At the very least, switch it from ear to ear so you don't have too much exposure on one side."

Michael Foley, Ph.D., executive director of the Bluetooth Special Interest Group, says Bluetooth earpieces radiate 200 times less energy than cell phones. "There is no evidence that a Bluetooth headset has any adverse effects on its users," he said.

4. Use a "hollow tube" earpiece

It's just like a regular wired earpiece, except the last six inches or so -- the part next to your ear -- is a hollow tube. There's no wire under the plastic.

"You're getting the sound through the air. You're not dependent on radiofrequency waves," said Dr. David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University of Albany.

Hollow tube earpieces can be purchased on several Web sites.

5. Get a phone with less radiation

Phone radiation is measured in specific absorption rate, or SAR. To look up the SAR for your phone, check this list on CNET.com.

You might think the experts mentioned above all use earpieces or a speakerphone. Not so. Several said they hold it right up to their heads because they use their cells so infrequently, they're not worried about radiation.

"I use it maybe once or twice a week, no more than 10 minutes," said Challis, the former head of the British committee that studied cell phones and radiation. "I use a land line whenever I can."

It's the exposure, day after day, year after year, that matters. As Challis, who's retired, puts it, "If I were younger, I'd take this much more seriously."

Only time will tell what research proves most accurate regarding the cell phone / cancer link. Until then, it’s a good idea to follow these tips: don’t put your safety on hold while we’re waiting for researchers to make the call.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

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

Faceless Foibles: Who’s To Blame For Medical Device Mishaps?

Nick Avgerinos — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:47:00 GMT

A lot of people see the legal arena as a battlefield. The goal? The attach blame to the enemy faction and extract compensation. But behind those battle lines, there are people. Mistakes have been made and everyone just wants to move on. What makes matters trickier is when there is no one to blame. No, I’m not talking about those rare “Act of God” cases; rather, I’m referring to medical devices gone wrong. Here are some common problems:

Prescription drugs
Heart valves and pacemakers
Implantable contraceptives and intrauterine devices
Prostheses
Latex gloves
Silicone implants
Surgical and physical therapy equipment
Respiratory devices
Contact lenses and dental care products
Laser and orthopedic tools

You assume that just because you’re treated at a well-respected hospital by a well-trained doctor, you’ll be safe. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Sometimes it’s not about human error. Instead, machines are to blame. And that makes your situation more difficult all around. There’s “no one” to blame, no face to attach to your pain. So what now? Do you have a personal injury claim? Are you the victim of medical malpractice? Well, it depends.

Of particular interest to patients is the recent Supreme Court decision of Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. As Injury Board member Dan Firth discussed in May, this case involved the bursting of a balloon catheter, manufactured by Medtronic, during angioplasty surgery. The result: Medtronic was not held liable. The suit was dismissed on grounds that the malfunctioning device had pre-market FDA approval and, thus, was barred by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

The Court reasoned that the FDA has the responsibility for evaluating the risks and benefits of a new device and assuring that it is safe and effective for its intended use. Thus, they should take the blame for the mistake. And while that may make legal sense to some, it doesn’t make much common sense to most. Why? The FDA approves devices for sale, but it does not guarantee that a particular product is safe. Seems like a game of hot potato, passing the buck as to who’s to blame.

So, where does that leave you? We don’t know yet. The legal landscape is still growing up around this fresh decision. But there’s little question that patients deserve more protection. Keep up-to-date on the latest recalls and always question your care. Until someone is forced to take responsibility for these faceless foibles, you’ll have to be extra aware of choices affecting your health.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos