Traverse City Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Most Commented

Update on Marvin Schur's tragic death

Timothy Smith — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:21:57 GMT

If you read my prior post on this tragedy in Bay City, I found some updated information about how and why this happened.

1. The "limiter" device had been in use through DTE in Metro Detroit, but they stopped after the Michigan Public Service Commission recommended against their use.

2. This is the first time in 18 years that the deputy chief medical examiner in Oakland County performed an autopsy on someone who died from hypothermia inside a building.

3. The limiter shut power to the residence off shortly after installation and was never reset.

4. Neighbors of Marvin Schur believe that the workers from Bay City who in stalled the "limiter" failed to advise him on resetting it if it did shut off.

5. Neighbors of Marvin Schur believe the 93 year old gentleman may have had difficulty understanding directions regarding the limiter if the Bay City workers tried to explain the device due to possible early stage dementia.

6. When Marvin Schur's body was discovered by the neighbors, the overdue electrical bill was sitting on his kitchen table......... with some cash clipped to it so that he could pay his bill.

I light of the gross negligence by Bay City officials, who many say are directly responsible for Marvin Schur's death, the officials are probably glad that Mr. Schur was an elderly widower who had no children. They probably are quietly hoping that if there are no surviving family members, that there will be no-one to hold them accountable in a court of law for killing Marvin Schur.

In Michigan, Marvin Schur's estate would have the right to bring an action against Bay City and those that were responsible. The personal representative would be named in his will. If Marvin died intestate [without a will], then any descendent's of his parents - such as nieces and nephews of Marvin Schur- would have legal standing to bring the claim and hold the City accountable.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

National Plan for Pediatric Acquired Brain Injury/Pediatric Closed Head or Traumatic Brain Injury

Timothy Smith — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:53:15 GMT

As some of my readers know, I recently accepted a position on the legal advisory board to the Sara Jane Brain Foundation. It's is an amazing group, founded by an amazing father who wanted a better approach to the diagnosis and treatment of his infant daughter who suffered a severe brain injury as an infant. This article will educate you the reader on how this group came about and how we plan to implement a uniform and standardized approach to the diagnosis and treatment of Pediatric Acquired Brain Injury on a nationwide basis.

On June 5, 2005, Sarah Jane Donohue was born. When she was just five days old, she was shaken by her "baby nurse" and sustained three broken rips, both collar bones and a severe brain injury. This nurse pled guilty and was sentenced to 10 years in prison but young Sarah Jane was sentenced to a lifetime of difficulties due to the damage to her brain. Just last month, Sarah Jane turned four years old. She cannot crawl, walk, speak words or eat solid foods. She receives weekly physical therapy, occupational therapy, vision therapy, feeding therapy, and speech therapy. She also attends a special full time preschool where she receives special instruction.

The injury sustained by young Sarah Jane is a "Pediatric Acquired Brain Injury". A traumatic brain injury is an injury to the brain caused by external physical forces. Other brain injuries are caused by an internal occurrence which damage the structure of the brain itself from the inside.

What prompted the launch of the Sarah Jane Brain Project was the tireless efforts of Sarah Jane's father, Patrick B. Donohue. What Mr. Donohue has come to learn is that we, as a society, know less than 5% of what we will eventually know about the brain itself. The field of neurology is very fractured worldwide. When I say fractured, I mean there is very little shared knowledge going on between the different locations of research and investigation. If you think of the computer science field back in the 1950s, there were many brilliant people working worldwide, yet no one knew what everyone else was doing. Today, in the field of computer science, there are open source principals and concepts involving shared knowledge such as Wikipedia and Linux Operating System. This allows many people who are researching or investigating the same issue to share their knowledge so that other researchers aren't "reinventing the wheel". As of today, no one is really using these same principals in the field of pediatric neurology. It was the idea of Mr. Donohue when he launched the Sarah Jane Brain Project in October 2007 to begin an open source initiative by placing all of the Sarah Jane's medical records and therapy sessions on line in an open source forum. Mr. Donohue felt that the more "eyeballs" that were on her case, the more likely she was to benefit from all of the information out there worldwide.

Once Sarah Jane's medical records were placed online in an open source forum (www.thebrainproject.org), Phase II of the National PADI Plan commenced. In this phase, Mr. Donohue and those involved in the Sarah Jane Brain Project began to recruit families to develop a national advisory board. Mr. Donohue felt that the more families who had a child with a pediatric acquired brain injury, the more information that can be shared and the more change that can occur within the field. It was clear at the time that every family, when they are first confronted with a child who has sustained a closed head injury or traumatic brain injury, has the exact same learning curve and must reinvent the wheel. It was believed that 85% of what all families go through in the care, treatment and understanding of pediatric brain injury is identical. This National Familial Advisory Board was developed to "standardize the wheel". But, not only were families recruited, but also medical practitioners within the field and attorneys within the field. Almost every single major medical institution and research university is represented currently on the National Advisory Board to the Sarah Jane Brain Project.

Once the National Advisory Board was cemented, Phase III began, where this same Board developed a National PABI Plan. Over 65 leading experts gathered in New York City to draft a PABI Plan. The intent was to create a seamless, standardized, evidence based system of care which would be universally accessible for all PABI families regardless of where they live in the United States. The first draft of this Plan was sent as "the First Official Letter to President Barack Obama" on January 20, 2009.

Phase IV of the National PABI Plan commenced just last month. Within each state, a lead center of excellence was established. These centers within each state would be a resource for families to look to when a child sustains a traumatic brain injury or closed head injury. The implementation date was June 5, 2009 which happened to be Sarah Jane's fourth birthday present. At that same time, the Sarah Jane Brain Project began funding the state lead centers and case management systems to assist families in need.

Some of you at this point may be asking, "Why does each state need a lead center and what responsibilities and/or categories of care would those centers have?" Well, despite the existence of generic "medical standards", there is chaos when it comes to the diagnosis and treatment of pediatric brain injury. There is no uniformity of approach, there is extreme regional variation, there are varying degrees of interest and commitment between states, there is confused nomenclature, there are poorly defined and understood immediate therapeutic goals, and there are unnecessary procedures being implemented as well as wasted money and time, which ultimately leads to incomplete family care.

The question then is: "What can the Sarah Jane Brain Pediatric Acquired Brain Injury Plan do?". In a nutshell, it is a network built on commitment. By putting this network to work, we can define priorities for evidence based improvement, we can coordinate efforts among disparate centers with similar strengths and we can facilitate integrative research efforts through grant writing support staff, coordinated federal and private support work as well as assistance in orchestrating the national priority itself. Attorneys here at Smith & Johnson are glad to be not only a part of the National Legal Advisory Board, but also proud to be spear heading the construction of this network here in the State of Michigan.

The mission or goal of the National PABI Plan is to disseminate via each state a master plan. There will be collaboration within each state and with other states to teach, train and track public awareness, citizen involvement and the long term needs of the victims and survivors of pediatric acquired brain injury. Each state will staff a center representative, an individual in charge of basic science, a staff person in charge of education, one in charge of training, one in charge of prevention, one in charge of case management, and the last to be in charge of registry. Within each regional center, there will be a national center with each state having a representative to the national center. That regional center will be charged with staffing the following areas: prevention, acute injury, reintegration, adult transition, mild TBI, rural needs and family registry. The concept will be that families, through the internet, can reach out and find the Sarah Jane Brain Project via the internet and then be assigned to their lead center within their respective state. The lead center will then be able to direct the family immediately to the assistance they need as it relates to education, training, case management, etc.

Stay tuned as I plan on going into greater detail regarding these phases and what it will mean to Michigan families who are dealing with these issues.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Supreme Court Justice Taylor's final slap in the face to Michigan

Timothy Smith — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 11:57:21 GMT

Justice Taylor was soundly beaten in the recent election. First time ever in Michigan that a sitting Chief Justice was defeated. Ever.

In interview after interview since the election, he has shown the true cut of his jib, his true colors, if you will. He has griped, and whined and "pissed and moaned" about how unfair the election was, about how his was mis-treated and mis-represented in the election. Maybe I missed, it but never once did he congratulate his competitor Judge Diane Hathaway - a former prosecutor and Circuit court Judge - for her victory.

So as most citizens in the state were saying, "Goodbye and good riddance...... don't let the door hit you in the ass", Justice Taylor and his fellow activist Judges Young, Corrigan and Markman gave one last parting shot to the citizens of Michigan before Taylor left the bench. On December 30th, these four justices authored Moore v. Secura. Here's how it all played out.

In a nutshell, it's a case about medical benefits under the Michigan No-Fault Act. The law says you're entitled to lifetime medical benefits when you're involved in an auto accident here in Michigan as long as the treatment was "reasonable and necessary". 'Reasonable" refers to the fee charged by the doctor for the procedure. "Necessary" refers to whether or not the treatment was "necessitated" by the injury from the car crash.

In almost every case, insurance companies will send you out to one of their insurance doctors if you need more than a few weeks of treatment. In fact, when the No-Fault Insurance statute was made law, the insurance companies, through their lobbyists fought hard to have it spelled out right in the statute itself that they have a legal right to send you to any doctor they choose.

In the Moore case, Secura Insurance Company sent Hattie Moore to see Dr. Charles Xeller, an insurance company doctor who's credentials and bias against plaintiffs is well known and well documented. Dr. Xeller examined Hattie and he authored a 7 page report which said plaintiff didn't need any more medical treatment. The problem was that this one-time exam by Dr. Xeller and his opinion that Hattie needed no more treatment, this totally contradicted plaintiff's own doctors who had been treating her for over a year. You see, in the accident, her knee was badly damaged. It was fractured and it needed surgery to be fixed.

So, based on Dr. Xeller's opinion that Hattie needed no more treatment, Secura cut off all medical benefits. Hattie asked them to reinstate benefits, but they refused so she had to get an attorney and sue them to reinstate her medical benefits. Her attorney argued that Secura had a duty to treat each of their insured fairly which required them to reconcile conflicting medical information before cutting someone off.

What Hattie's attorney argued to the jury was a simple bit of good old common sense. Insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to pick one of their doctors, have them do a one time exam and then cut-off benefits based on that one insurance doctor's biased opinion. Hattie's attorney argued that insurance companies have a duty to reconcile conflicts in the medical records that are created by the insurance companies doctors. Simply put, if Hattie's doctors have been saying for over a year that the car crash caused an injury to her knee and that she needed care and treatment, it wasn't fair for Secura to cut Hattie's benefits off based on Dr. Xeller's opinion, especially when it contradicted the opinions of all her treating doctors.

The argument was successful. The jury agreed. So did the trial judge and he sanctioned Secura and ordered them to pay Hattie's attorney fees. The case went up to the Court of Appeals. They agreed too. They held that insurance companies can't cut someone off based solely on their insurance company doctor when the insurance company doctor's opinion conflicts with all the treating physicians.

But, as has been the case so often with Justice Taylor, Justice Young and the other activist judges on the Michigan Supreme Court, they saw things differently. They held that it wasn't unreasonable for Secura to look only at Dr. Xeller's report when they decide to terminate Hattie's medical benefits. In doing this, they over-ruled the Michigan Court of Appeals AND prior case law in Liddell v. DAIIE, a case that had been standing precedent in Michigan since 1981. This wasn't unusual as Justices Taylor and Young have made a career out of overturning existing law in Michigan, especially when the existing law protected individuals from insurance companies and large corporations.

With the flick of a pen, 28 years of case law was thrown out the window. If that wasn't bad enough, for Justices Taylor and Young to further say that it was reasonable for Secura to rely on Dr. Charles Xeller......... well, that's just adding insult to injury.

Why? Here's what attorneys in Michigan have uncovered while deposing Dr. Charles Xeller over the last few years.....

1. He's an orthopedic Surgeon licensed in Michigan, Texas, California, New York, Nevada and New Jersey.

2. He lives in Houston Texas.

3. He was first licensed in Michigan in 1997. He stopped practicing in Michigan in 1999.

4. He was traveling to Michigan for one week per month for the purpose of performing exams for insurance companies. He does the same for one week per month in California.

5. He averages around 80 exams per month for insurance companies.

6. In 2004, he was paid $419,904.43 for doing workman's Compensation exams in Texas alone.

7. In the two years he practiced in Michigan, he was sued 5 timed for malpractice. He lost every case.

8. 15 malpractice suits against him in Texas.

9. The Michigan Attorney General filed an Administrative Complaint against him to revoke his Michigan license.

10. On October 23, 1997, he admitted during a deposition in his divorce that he had lied during his previous divorce deposition about his extra-marital affairs. In Michigan we call this perjury. It's a 4-year felony.

11. During his divorce proceedings, he was arrested by the Houston Police Department at gunpoint on August 28, 1997 for driving to his ex-wife's attorney's office and throwing a rock at the building. He was in his hospital scrubs at the time and had $10,000 cash in his car at the time he assaulted the building.

12. By the end of the divorce, his ex-wife obtained a $1,000,000 judgment against him for assaulting her during the marriage including choking her and shoving a rag down her throat....

According to Justices Taylor and Young, this kind of doctor - a doctor that lies under oath, that has Administrative Actions filed by state Attorney Generals to revoke his license, that travels from Texas, to California to Michigan to make a buck doing insurance exams - this kind of doctor is the type that insurance companies can rely on to cut-off benefits.

28 years of precedent, down the drain. 28 years of protection for the citizens of this state from unscrupulous doctors, out the window. 28 years of a rule that required insurance companies to simply play fair, gone. It's a wonder some of these Justices can even look at themselves in the mirror in the morning.

The citizens of this state took the first step to taking back their highest court from activist judges who are protecting the special interest groups that put them in power. The next step is Justice Young in 2010. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out Cliff....... good riddance.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Wal-Mart Settles Wage and Hour Claims/FLSA Violations

Timothy Smith — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:38:24 GMT

On Christmas Eve 2008, Wal-Mart agreed to settle nearly 65 state and federal class-action lawsuits filed by current and former employees. The heart of the claims made by the plaintiffs included allegations that they were forced to work through breaks and denied overtime pay that they had rightfully earned under federal law.

According to sources, Wal-Mart agreed to pay as much as $640 million to settle these suits. While this may seem like a large number, it is less than .1% of Wal-Mart's $378.8 billion in revenue from 2008; revenue earned by multiple violations of Federal Wage and Hour laws and discrimination against it's own employees.

This settlement comes right on the heels of the 12/9/08 settlement in Minnesota where Wal-Mart agreed to pay $54.3 million to settle a case where the sitting judge found that Wal-Mart had committed more than 2 million wage and hour violations and ordered Wal-Mart to pay it's employees over $6 million dollars in back pay. This 12/9/08 settlement avoided a January 2009 trial where plaintiff's were ready to document nearly $2 billion dollars in unpaid wages owed by Wal-Mart.......

A smart move by Wal-Mart considering their trial record on these employment/wage and hour cases:

1. In 2006 a Pennsylvania jury awarded Wal-Mart employees $78 million in unpaid wages;

2. In 2005 a California jury ordered Wal-Mart to pay $172 million in wrongfully denied wages arising out of meal breaks owed to it's employees.

Wal-Mart isn't the only Fortune 500 giant who has put profits ahead of it's people. It seems that the worse this economy gets, the greater the lengths that employers will go to in an effort to earn a buck, including cheating it's own employees.

If you, a friend or family member has been denied wages or have been discriminated against by your employer, contact an attorney immediately.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Michael Sincic: Brain Injury Survivor & Artist

Timothy Smith — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:49:25 GMT

One of the nicest things about editing the Traverse City InjuryBoard.com blog is the people I've met and the relationships I've developed as the editor of this site. One of those people is local artist Michael Sincic.

His love of art began in Junior High and High School and continued into college. His approach to art was drastically altered in 1995 when he was diagnosed with a brain tumor. Prior to the tumor, he was regularly sketching and drawing cartoons. But, this passion was paused while he focused on address this serious injury to his brain.

Thanks to his parents and an incredible neurosurgeon in New York, his life was saved and he has continued in his love of art through painting and sculpting. Unfortunately, he lost most of his sight and his pituitary gland due the removal of the tumor, but he has learned to "feel" with his hands as he continues to create his art.

He began his company, "Michael's Unique Visions" in the fall of 2000. One of his original art works was commissioned for Steve Yzerman, captain of the Red Wings Hockey team which spends summers up here in Traverse City at their training camp. His art is sold throughout northern Michigan at DeYoungs in Traverse City, Elements Gallery in Charlevoix and Harbor Springs and Main Street Gallery in Milford.

I will be in Lansing next week at the Annual Conference of the Brain Injury Association of Michigan. Look for the Smith & Johnson booth in the vendors area. Michael has been kind enough to allow me to take some of his art work with me to Lansing and we'll have it on display at our booth.

Michael is an amazing brain injury survivor, a very polite and thoughtful young man and a very, very talented artist.

To quote Michael:

"People with disabilities are still people. We all accomplish things, like to have fun, and can communicate in some way. We can do just about everything anyone else can do - maybe just in a different way."

I hope to see some of you there.

-Tim

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Teen Driving Tips

Timothy Smith — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:04:35 GMT

I've got one and two more on the way. Teens that is.......

Next summer my oldest will take driver's education. It's a little scary. I saw an interesting statistic recently that really opened my eyes to what I'm getting myself into. Evidently, your average 16 year old soccer player has 1,500 hours of instruction in soccer by the time they reach that age. But, we're handing these same kids drivers licenses and unleashing them on the road with only 50-100 hours of instruction.

This is disconcerting for a number of reasons:

1. In 2006, drivers age 15-17 were involved in approximately 974,000 accidents that injured 406,427 people and killed 2,541.

2. Auto accidents are the leading cause of death among U.S. teenagers as it accounts for 36% of all deaths in that age group according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

3. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has claimed that the 16-19 year old age bracket has a greater risk of an accident than any other age group.

4. The risk of an auto accident for a 16 year old is double that of a 18 or 19 year old.

5. This rate of injury for 16 years old increases every time another passenger is placed in the vehicle.

6. Lastly, 33% of teenage drivers are involved in a car crash in their first year of driving and somewhere in the United States, a teenage driver is killed every 6.5 minutes and injured every 55 seconds according to teensafety.com.

So what's a parent to do?

More instruction is one thing. Some options would include:

1. The Mid-Ohio School in Lexington KY which offers a Honda Ten Defensive Driving Program and teaches the dynamics of driving including wet braking techniques, emergency lane change maneuvers, and a skid drill that simulates driving on ice, snow and rain.

2. Tire Rack's Street Survival Program will be held in 50 cities across the country through November 15th. It costs $60 and is open to permitted and licensed drivers between the ages of 16-21.

3. Driver's Edge - another touring school which is free and blends classroom and on course driving experience with a focus on real life emergency situation. It was founded by former race driver Jeff Payne.

Another helpful tool to reduce the risk to your teenager is a Graduated Drivers License program. All states have it to some degree, but perhaps your own family implementing one might help even more.

There should be a period where they can only drive under the direct supervision [in the car] of an adult. Then, once you're comfortable [and the State you live in allows it] allow the teen an intermediate period where they can drive alone under limited circumstances such as during daylight hours and with no passengers. Lastly, when you as the parent are comfortable with your teens skills and maturity behind the wheel, full privileges.

I think the bottom line for parents is you have to be involved. You can't rely on some course by the State and a few hours behind the wheel to properly prepare your teens for the dangers of driving a vehicle. Know where and when your teens are driving. Get involved. It may be the difference in whether or not your teen sees their 20th birthday.

If any readers have other good ideas for parents, I'd love to hear them.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act: timely help for employees

Timothy Smith — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:28:54 GMT

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act have reached critical mass in Congress and looks to become law under our next administration. So, what are they and how does this affect you?

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was named after a female employee at Goodyear Tire named, Lilly Ledbetter. She had worked for Goodyear for nearly 18 years when she found out that men at the company, who did the exact same job, were being paid more money for the same work.

Well that doesn't seem fair?

Lilly didn’t think so either, so after talking with her bosses failed, she filed suit in 1998 alleging discrimination in pay based on gender which was prohibited by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. She alleged that Goodyear, as far back as 1992, was paying her less than men and it was discriminatory.

Goodyear argued that the 1964 Civil Rights Act required a claimant to file their claim within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act and that if it occurred first in 1992, she was too late. Since she filed in 1998, Goodyear asked the court to throw her case out.

Lilly responded with common sense…… How was it possible to file in 1992 when she didn’t find out that her employer was discriminating against her till 1998?

The case wound it’s way up to the highest court of the nation, the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in 2007, interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to hold that Lilly had 180 days, whether she knew about the discrimination or not. Our congress took immediate action to correct what they felt was a legislative error in the original act.

Congress felt that each and every time an employer discriminates against an employee by paying them less due to gender, that this was discrimination and a violation of the act. Accordingly, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will restore the long standing rule that each and every discriminatory paycheck is a violation. This means that employees won’t be punished when their employer hides the discriminatory activity from them for more than 180 days which, under the old rule, would insulate them from any claim.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is another act that will level the playing field between employees and employers. This act will amend the 1963 Equal Pay Act and strengthen current laws prohibiting wage discrimination. It will also require that the federal government become more pro-active in identifying and prohibiting wage discrimination.

Once enacted, the Paycheck Fairness Act will strengthen the 1963 Equal Pay Act in the following manner:

1. It will strengthen the remedy provisions of the act to provide greater punishments for those employers that discriminate.
2. It will mandate that the EEOC survey available pay data and issue regulations which will increase their ability to discover violations of the law and improve their ability to enforce the laws.
3. It will bar employers from retaliating against employees who share wage information with fellow workers. Some companies actually do this! How else will an employee know if they are being discriminated against if they can’t ask a co-worker, “How much you getting for this job?”
4. The Act will mandate collection of gender-based information in the Current Employment Statistics survey and will standardize an analysis of systematic wage discrimination which will become an important tool for detecting violations in gender based wage discrimination.

As our economy continues to suffer, we are seeing more and more employers cutting costs at the expense of it’s employees. These two important bills, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the the Paycheck Fairness Act, will give employees the tools they need to identify discrimination when it’s occurring and give them the opportunity to take corrective action against their employers.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Safe Driving Tips When Sharing the Road with Semi's

Timothy Smith — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:49:17 GMT

A young Traverse City resident recently lost her life when the car she was riding in was involved in an auto accident with a semi truck on Garfield Ave. In any accident between a car and semi truck, the car is typically going to lose. With roads as icy as they are this time of year, drivers need to take extra caution when traveling on area roads and highways, especially when there are large trucks sharing the roads with you.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA], a division of th U.S. Department of Transportation, has a website dedicated to safety tips for drivers that share the road with semi trucks. Click here for the site.

Here's a quick recap of some of the tips offered by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

1. Cutting in front of a semi truck or a bus can cut your life short

Because busses and trucks take longer to stop than a car, you may create an emergency braking situation for vehicles around you if you suddenly cut in front of them. If, by quickly cutting in front of a semi, you force it to attempt to stop quickly, this might cause a serious or even fatal accident. FMCSA cautions drivers that are passing semi trucks and urges them to wait until you can see the front of the truck in the rear-view mirror before pulling back into that lane of travel. This will avoid emergency braking conditions.

2. Always wear your seat belt

The FMCSA advises that your seat belt is your best protection in case of a crash, especially when that crash involves a a semi truck. If you are struck from behind by a semi, or any other vehicle for that matter, only your belt can prevent you from being injured while you are rocketed about the vehicle. I had a case a few years ago where a client who was belted was struck from behind by a dump truck that was traveling just 40 mph. But, because of the mass of the truck, as her car was propelled forward, her seat back collapsed and she shot out from under the lap belt and into the back seat. The EMT's found her unconscious in the back seat [she struck her head on the rear roof area] and they couldn't figure out who had been driving the vehicle. This is one of the dangers of a car crash with a semi truck. With their mass, they don't have to be going that fast to cause alot of damage. In the case described above, a 40 mph dump truck literally shot the car right out from under my client. Even though the seat belt didn't protect my client in that case, FMCSA says that wearing the belt is the single most important thing you can do to protect yourself in a crash with a semi.

3. Watch out for blind spots

Every semi truck has a blind spot. Cars do as well, but the blind spot on a large truck is quite a bit bigger. FMCSA refers to these blind spots as 'No-Zones" meaning don't linger in these spots. If you can't see the semi driver's side mirrors, he can't see you. Many drivers are injured because a trucker simply couldn't see them. Click here for an example of where these zones are.

4. Look out for the "Squeeze Play"

Because of their length, semi trucks need to make wide right turns. Often times, a semi driver will swing wide left before initiating a right hand turn. If you have driven up into the curbside lane between a truck and the curb and that semi driver is going to turn right, you're going to get "squeezed" between the truck and the curb and could suffer a serious injury as a result. Pay attention to a semi's turn signals and give them plenty of room.

For other tips - many of which are obvious: don't drink and drive, don't drive aggressively, stay attentive and off your cell phone - visit the site link above. Or this one.

I know that these tips couldn't have saved the life of Kara Kirchler, the young woman I mentioned at the beginning of this piece. The Traverse City Record Eagle reported that the driver of the car she was in crossed the centerline and hit the semi head-on. But this horrible story should serve as a reminder to the rest of us to be careful when driving area roads, especially when there are semi's or other large trucks about.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Mass Lay-offs and the WARN Act - you have a right to notice!

Timothy Smith — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:41:12 GMT

It seems that every week here in Northern Michigan, we're reading about layoffs. People are losing their jobs left and right. Many folks think that just because they are at will employees [they don't have an employment contract] that they have no rights when their employer institutes a massive lay-off.

But you do.

Under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, workers have an absolute right to a number of things including 60 days written notice prior to the lay-off. Workers deserve better than a 5pm Friday pink slip and you're out the door before you even know what hit you.

If your employers has more than 100 full time employees, federal law requires them to provide you with written notice, 60 calendar days in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs. This law was put into place to protect workers, their communities and more importantly, their families from the complications caused by a sudden plant closing.

This notice requirement includes not only low-level employees, but managers and supervisors as well - hourly and salaried alike. And, if the employer is running a union plant, notice is required to the employee's representatives, the state dislocated worker unit and the local chief elected official.

This notice gives workers and their families time to transition and adjust to the closing, and time to locate other employment - including the training needed to successfully compete in todays job market.

Times are tough for Michigan workers right now. Don't let your employer make them tougher. If you, your friends or family members are unemployed due to plant closures or lay-offs AND that plant or employer had more than 100 full time employees, AND you didn't get the legally required notice, you should contact an attorney immediately to determine what legal options you may have.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Chief Justice Taylor "fixes" Judicial Appointment

Timothy Smith — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:43:45 GMT

Another example of "unprofesional, improper and unfair conduct as chief justice". This is how a fellow justice described recent actions by Chief Justice Cliff Taylor that improperly influenced a judicial appointment that Michigan's Supreme Court was required to make in appointing a new Chief Judge to Michigan's 37th District Court.

Michigan's Supreme Court is required to appoint "Chief Justices" for all of the State Court benches from probate, to district, to circuit. The process typically involves the judges of a particular court throwing their hat into the ring to be considered for the position of Chief Judge of their particular county court. The 7 justices on the Supreme Court meet to consider the candidates, discuss their position regarding the particular merits or each and then vote.

In this instances, the 37th District Court had a female sitting as current Chief Judge Pro Tem. Her name was Judge Jennifer Faunce. She was a former state representative and, unfortunately for her, a female.....

Initially, both Judge Faunce and Judge John Chmura submitted their names to the Supreme Court for consideration for the chief judge position. Later, on October 7th 2008, Judge Faunce withdrew her name from consideration by faxing the withdrawal to State Court Administrator Carl Gromek. Since it was unusual for a judge to remove their name from consideration, just days before the decision was to be made, Justice Weaver called Judge Faunce to find out why she had so abruptly withdrew her name from consideration when she was the current Chief Judge and the Supreme Court Justices hadn't even met yet to discuss who would be appointed.

On October 8th, Judge Faunce returned Justice Weaver's phone call and explained that she had been called directly by Justice Taylor on the 7th and told by Justice Taylor that there were already 4 votes against her [out of 7 Justices] and that she was going to lose. Judge Faunce informed Justice Weaver that this was why she withdrew her name.

One hour later, at an administrative conference, Justice Taylor announced that the only candidate remaining for the Chief Judge position in the 37th District was Judge Chmura. When Justice Kelly pressed him on what he knew of Faunce's withdrawal, he admitted that he had called her and told her that there were already 4 votes against her and that she might want to withdraw her name.

The thing is, at the time of that phone call, no discussion had been had regarding the position, nor, had any vote been taken.

Chief Justice Taylor's actions in telling Judge Faunce that she might want to withdraw, directly interfered with the chief judge appointment process. The impropriety of his actions are best described by the dissent to the appointment of Judge Chmura which stated:

Chief Justice Taylor’s action of telling Judge Faunce that there were four votes for Judge Chmura and that Judge Faunce was welcome to withdraw or stay, before the justices had ever met to discuss and vote on the chief judge appointment, is another example of his unprofessional, improper, and unfair conduct as chief justice.

Chief Justice Taylor’s actions effectively interfered with the chief judge appointment process because what he told Judge Faunce during his telephone call caused her to withdraw her name before the justices of this Court had even met to discuss the appointment.

Chief Justice Taylor has too often mismanaged the business of this Court. Harmful to the proper functioning of the justice system is Chief Justice Taylor’s inclination to act secretly, not openly and transparently with respect to the administrative business of this Court. Administrative appointments of chief judges—judges who are elected public officials—constitute public administrative business, not personnel matters. Judges are not employees of the Michigan Supreme Court. They are elected officials of their counties or jurisdictions and are effectively only employees of the people of their counties or jurisdictions within the state of Michigan. This inclination toward secrecy also deprives the people of the information they need to properly make judgments on the justices’ performance of their duties. The Supreme Court should not be a secret club run for the benefit of justices and judges.

The fact that Justice Taylor manipulated the appointment process isn't surprising considering the abusive manner that he has historically treated female justices on the Supreme Court bench and the disregard for the legal rights of female litigant's who have been sexually harrassed at their place of employment.

Chief Justice Taylor is up for re-election next month. If you agree with the dissent filed by Justice Weaver and want more accountability, more transparency and less secrecy in our Supreme Court, then cast a vote for Judge Diane Hathaway who is running against Justice Taylor. Her past experience as a criminal prosecutor and current expereince as a Circuit Court Judge combined with a committment to restore fairness and integrity to the court is exactly what Michigan needs right now.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith