The article below, published in Wolters Kluwer Health is important for everyone - especially for people who need a knee replacement because someone else carelessly injured them.
Our law puts a duty on the accident victim to “mitigate” his or her damages by doing reasonable things that will help them recover from the injury. It’s a big gray area, but I can already hear insurance companies blame their customer’s victim by arguing that the victim should have “rehabbed” themselves in the manner this article suggests.
One more reason why, if there is such a thing as reincarnation, I want to come back as an insurance company.
Below is an exerpt. Click here to read the full article.
Philadelphia, PA (March 1, 2011) - A comprehensive "prehabilitation" exercise program for patients with severe knee arthritis can improve strength and functional ability before knee replacement surgery, reports a study in the February issue of The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
The physical gains from exercise before knee replacement may translate into improved recovery after surgery, suggests the new study by Ann M. Swank, Ph.D., CSCS, and colleagues of University of Louisville, Ky.
The study included 71 patients scheduled for knee replacement surgery because of severe osteoarthritis that could not be managed with pain medications. One group was randomly assigned to a comprehensive prehabilitation program, consisting of light resistance training, flexibility and step exercise, and light walking.
Patients in this "pre-rehab" group exercised three times per week, in the clinic and at home, for four to eight weeks before knee replacement surgery. Patients in the comparison group received standard preoperative care, with instructions to continue their usual activities. The two groups were compared for knee strength and performance on standard functional tests.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
Test Your Accident Acumen
Preventable or
Non-Preventable?
Non-Preventable?
Take this quiz to find out if you could have avoided these collisions.
The following scenarios are based on National Safety Council guidelines and actual collisions documented by insurance companies and fleet administrators. Check your grasp of your responsibilities as a driver by giving your opinion as to whether you, as the driver of the blue vehicle, could have prevented the collision. Make a note of your answers, and then compare them to the explanations.
1. You're stopped in the fast lane in stop-and-go traffic. The traffic starts to move again, and you reach 20 miles per hour, trailing the vehicle ahead of you by 20 feet. A car slightly ahead and to your right suddenly darts into your lane without signaling. You apply the brakes, but hit the car's left rear bumper.
Preventable or Non-preventable?
2. You're in the right lane approaching an intersection with your right turn signal on and a red car is about 50 feet behind you. You have a red light, but right turns are allowed on red. You stop to let a car in the cross street go by, and then begin to turn. Part way through the turn, the red car veers onto the shoulder to avoid rearending you and hits your right rear passenger door.
Preventable or Non-preventable?
3. You're driving a few minutes after sunset on a two-lane, country road with unpaved shoulders. You're going 5 mph under the speed limit with your headlights on. Far ahead, a car coming toward you with its headlights off is passing a pickup truck. The twilight makes it hard for you to judge how far away the car is. You maintain your speed and position in the lane, but it takes the car longer than you expected to pull completely back into the other lane, and your cars collide.
Preventable or Non-preventable?
4. Considering that close to 100 percent of the miles we ever drive are moving forward, it's no wonder that cars are built to travel better in that direction than to the rear. Forward motion takes advantage of a feature of vehicle suspension called "caster," which makes your car more stable, but does just the opposite in reverse, making your vehicle harder to control. The faster you go in reverse, the more unstable your vehicle becomes.
Preventable or Non-preventable?
5. You're the only car on an undivided, four-lane road, obeying the speed limit at 50 mph. From the right, an eighth of a mile ahead, a vehicle pulls out of a cross street and illegally stops in the middle of the road, partially blocking both lanes in your direction. Since you see no oncoming traffic beyond the intersection, you expect the driver to promptly finish crossing the road, and so maintain your speed.
But as you near the intersection, the car still hasn't moved. You hit the brakes and swerve toward the right, but spin out of control and hit the other car.
But as you near the intersection, the car still hasn't moved. You hit the brakes and swerve toward the right, but spin out of control and hit the other car.
Preventable or Non-preventable?
Answers
1. Preventable. At 20 miles per hour, you were too close to the vehicle ahead of you. The proper trailing distance was 60 feet, which would be a two-second gap. By following too closely, you didn't leave enough space for the red car to complete its move or for you to stop without impact.
2. Non-Preventable. You obeyed all traffic laws and were aware of your surroundings. The other driver failed to maintain safe following distance, which is why he had to try to pass you on the right to avoid the collision.
3. Preventable. You had the right of way, but didn't take any precautions to avoid the accident. Proper actions would have included slowing down, honking, flashing your high beams, or moving as far to the right as possible to give the other vehicle room to maneuver.
4. Non-Preventable. With two cars out of control ahead of you and heavy traffic preventing a lane change, slowing down quickly was your best bet. By maintaining a safe following distance you avoided hitting the car in front of you. Too bad the same can't be said for the driver behind you.
5. Preventable. It was illegal for the other driver to stop in the middle of the road, but you had plenty of time (in fact, nine seconds) to slow down or steer away from the vehicle to avoid the crash. Spinning out of control meant you waited to the last second to react.
*Sources:National Safety Council, www.auto-insurance-claim-advice.com, New Mexico Department of Public Education, State Farm Insurance
Monday, March 7, 2011
Sovereign Immunity Protects Government But Harms All of Us
In a recent Seattle Times article guest columnist Mickey Gendler argues that a proposal which gives special legal protections to state government when its negligent conduct results in harm to citizens should be rejected. Agreed!
Here's the story:
THE Washington state Legislature is currently considering special legal protections for state government when its reckless and careless conduct inflicts preventable harms and injuries onto the people of our state.
The Seattle Times has published editorials and a column by Attorney General Rob McKenna endorsing these proposals. It's ironic that my case has been cited to support the concept of sovereign immunity that I personally oppose.
Proponents of special protections for government argue that the state gets sued even when it follows all the rules. This is categorically false.
In our legal system, government is never judged on any failures or bad choices except for its own. The legal standard is that unless an injury would not have occurred but for the government's negligence, the government is not liable. Without meeting this standard, there is zero liability assessed against the government. It is deliberately deceptive to say otherwise. For the government to be liable, it must be directly responsible for the injury. Any claim against the government that cannot meet this standard is dismissed.
My case is a great example of how government accountability is an important catalyst to change government behavior and fix dangerous conditions to make all of us safer. I sustained a life-changing spinal cord injury due to a defective road condition. The state knew the road was defective and dangerous because of a similar crash that occurred there but did nothing to correct it. The state Legislature is now considering whether to cap damage-award limits at $1 million to $2 million, calling these caps "very generous." But the state admitted that my future medical expenses alone will exceed that cap. McKenna even called my settlement "appropriate" because the state "erred." McKenna added, "If the state messes up, then someone who is harmed ought to be compensated by the state."
The same state official who supports changing the law to deny victims like me even their medical expenses recently agreed that the state should pay when it damages property. Property should not have greater protection against government wrongdoing than life and health. Just recently the Seattle Times editorial board praised a $10 million settlement as a wise government decision where egregious acts by police caused a catastrophic brain injury and paralysis, emphasizing that the case should lead to changes in police training and behavior. Two years after my crash, the state fixed the defective road condition for a mere $7,000.
Numerous bills have been circulating in the Legislature to give immunity to various state agencies where they have failed to do their job. In fact, the Legislature is still examining the possibility of capping damages for cases like mine as lawmakers move through budget negotiations. This is the wrong way to go.
Aggressive risk-management and loss-prevention programs are the best deterrent to preventable injuries and harm to innocent citizens. It's also the best way to save taxpayers' money. In 2003 and 2004 when these programs were modeled after best practices from private and public sector experience, costs dropped an astonishing 75 percent in one biennium, and stayed in that range for five years. Only when that emphasis on loss prevention faded, did these costs start to rise — costs driven by preventable and egregious harms that the state was responsible for.
We need to insist our state government works to prevent injuries and suffering as the means to reduce these costs and not relinquish our power to hold government responsible under the law.
Thanks to Mickey Gendler for writing this important article. Mike is an attorney in Seattle.
Here's the story:
THE Washington state Legislature is currently considering special legal protections for state government when its reckless and careless conduct inflicts preventable harms and injuries onto the people of our state.
The Seattle Times has published editorials and a column by Attorney General Rob McKenna endorsing these proposals. It's ironic that my case has been cited to support the concept of sovereign immunity that I personally oppose.
Proponents of special protections for government argue that the state gets sued even when it follows all the rules. This is categorically false.
In our legal system, government is never judged on any failures or bad choices except for its own. The legal standard is that unless an injury would not have occurred but for the government's negligence, the government is not liable. Without meeting this standard, there is zero liability assessed against the government. It is deliberately deceptive to say otherwise. For the government to be liable, it must be directly responsible for the injury. Any claim against the government that cannot meet this standard is dismissed.
My case is a great example of how government accountability is an important catalyst to change government behavior and fix dangerous conditions to make all of us safer. I sustained a life-changing spinal cord injury due to a defective road condition. The state knew the road was defective and dangerous because of a similar crash that occurred there but did nothing to correct it. The state Legislature is now considering whether to cap damage-award limits at $1 million to $2 million, calling these caps "very generous." But the state admitted that my future medical expenses alone will exceed that cap. McKenna even called my settlement "appropriate" because the state "erred." McKenna added, "If the state messes up, then someone who is harmed ought to be compensated by the state."
The same state official who supports changing the law to deny victims like me even their medical expenses recently agreed that the state should pay when it damages property. Property should not have greater protection against government wrongdoing than life and health. Just recently the Seattle Times editorial board praised a $10 million settlement as a wise government decision where egregious acts by police caused a catastrophic brain injury and paralysis, emphasizing that the case should lead to changes in police training and behavior. Two years after my crash, the state fixed the defective road condition for a mere $7,000.
Numerous bills have been circulating in the Legislature to give immunity to various state agencies where they have failed to do their job. In fact, the Legislature is still examining the possibility of capping damages for cases like mine as lawmakers move through budget negotiations. This is the wrong way to go.
Aggressive risk-management and loss-prevention programs are the best deterrent to preventable injuries and harm to innocent citizens. It's also the best way to save taxpayers' money. In 2003 and 2004 when these programs were modeled after best practices from private and public sector experience, costs dropped an astonishing 75 percent in one biennium, and stayed in that range for five years. Only when that emphasis on loss prevention faded, did these costs start to rise — costs driven by preventable and egregious harms that the state was responsible for.
We need to insist our state government works to prevent injuries and suffering as the means to reduce these costs and not relinquish our power to hold government responsible under the law.
Thanks to Mickey Gendler for writing this important article. Mike is an attorney in Seattle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)