Traverse City Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Most Popular

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

Dog Bite Basics in Michigan

Timothy Smith — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:13:50 GMT

DOG BITE

In Michigan, when a dog bites a person, the person must sue the owner of the dog within three years from the date of the dog bite under MCL 600.5805(10). Proper plaintiffs would include:

· Person the dog bit and injured, as well as their spouse, child, or parent;

· Personal representative of the person killed in a dog attack, who would be a stand-in for the deceased and could recover on behalf of the dead person’s estate.

The proper defendant in a dog bite case includes:

1) the “registered owner” of the dog, or person who has represented him or herself to be the “owner”;

2) the “keeper,” or the “temporary caretaker” of the dog.

The jury will determine the fact question of whether the defendant having possession of the dog rises to “keeper” status and is usually defined as exercising the type of control over the dog that the owner would exert.

Three common potential causes of action for dog bite cases include:

1) The dog bite statutory action, applying to an owner of a dog

The good news in these cases is that generally if a dog bites a plaintiff, the plaintiff must only prove these facts:

· The dog bit the plaintiff and the plaintiff was injured as a result;

· The plaintiff did not provoke the bite, typically a fact question for your jury;

· The defendant owned the dog; and

· The plaintiff was lawfully at the location where the dog bite occurred.

2) Common law strict liability action against the dog owner and “keeper”

When the dog bite occurs while the dog is under the control of an owner or a “keeper,” who knew or should have known of the dog’s dangerous propensities, the plaintiff must prove in addition to the facts listed above.

3) Common law negligence

The same facts as listed under number 1 above plus that the owner or “possessor,” or temporary caretaker of the dog had the dog long enough to know of the dog’s dangerous propensities, breached a duty to the plaintiff of controlling the dog, and therefore was negligent.

More good news for Michigan victims related to defense of dog bite cases:

· Provoking the dog, an issue the jury will decide, is the only defense under a statutory claim

· Reacting to a dog’s viciousness does not constitute provocation under the statute.

If you or someone you know has been attcked by a dog, click here for a prior article I authored on how to treat bite injuries.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Timothy Smith elected to the Board of Directors to the Brain Injury Association of Michigan

Timothy Smith — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:05:15 GMT

I'm honored to announce that I was elected to the Board of Directors of the Brain Injury Association of Michigan [BIAMI]. This state organization is the Michigan branch of the Brain Injury Association of America.

Founded in 1980, the Brain Injury Association of America (BIAA) is the leading national organization serving and representing individuals, families and professionals who are touched by a life-altering, often devastating, traumatic brain injury (TBI). Together with its network of more than 40 chartered state affiliates, as well as hundreds of local chapters and support groups across the country, the BIAA provides information, education and support to assist the 3.17 million Americans currently living with traumatic brain injury and their families.

This position on the state board will not only allow Smith and Johnson to better represent and serve families who have been confronted with TBI, but also supply you, the readers of InjuryBoard Traverse City timely and important information regarding medical advances in the diagnosing and treatment of closed head injuries, legislative initiatives that seek to protect the rights of those that have been affected by a traumatic brain injury and information relating to the safety of you the consumer and the prevention/avoidance of closed head injuries.

We here at Smith and Johnson look forward to providing you, our readers, with weekly updates from both the state and national Brain Injury Association. Stayed tuned.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Survive Black Friday?

Timothy Smith — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:19:54 GMT

A number of years ago, I represented a young woman who was injured by a crowd that had gathered outside a Wal-Mart in Cadillac Michigan after reading about a new home video gaming system that was being released. My client was 7 months pregnant and had hoped to surprise her husband with a new video gaming system for his birthday.

By 5am, the crowd was nearly 100 and the Walmart had advertised that quantities were limited to 25 gaming units. As the store approached the opening hour, the crowd was getting restless. Bullies in the back of the line began pushing forward and tempers began to flare. You'd think that Wal-Mart would have recognized this and set up a system to ensure that the sale of the systems occurred in a safe manner to the 25 first individuals in line. Simple measures such as handing out wristbands to the first 25 or any number of approaches would have spared the crowd from what came next.

At the time of the opening, a Wal-Mart employee came forward and simply unlocked the front door. The crowd surged forward as it became every man and woman for themselves. My client, who was 8th person in line, was pushed to the ground and trampled by the folks behind her.

By the time the dust settled on the stampede, my client lay on the floor of the entry to Wal-Mart - bruised, battered and going into labor from the trauma. Emergency medical technicians from Cadillac were called to the scene and transported her to Cadillac Mercy Hospital where the doctors were able to stop the labor. She wasn't able to have any x-rays of her injured pelvis, hips and back because of the risk to the fetus. She spent the next 2 months on her back wondering if her unborn child was going to be okay.

When I sent my first notice of claim letter to Walmart, they responded by denying that their store or it's employees had done anything wrong. Suit was filed against Walmart in Wexford County Circuit Court. I was able to secure a copy of the security tapes from the front door. The tapes showed the Walmart employees laughing at the crowd gathered outside and then laughing at the stampede that ensued once the front doors were unlocked. The video was very similar to this YouTube clip from a Black Friday Stampede in Grand Rapids Michigan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeSgBL7gpAk

It's shocking to me that this happens every year at the Big Box stores like Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, Best Buy and others. Even more shocking are the security regulations that each store has drafted and implemented which are rarely followed when the store is releasing a new limited quantity gaming system or on the morning of Black Friday. Through extensive discovery [which Walmart fought every step of the way], my office obtained internal safety rules and regulations that, if followed, could have prevented my client's injury.

What's even more shocking is that Wal-Mart and other big box stores not only endanger the lives of their customers, but evn their employees aren't safe during these Black Friday Riots. In fact, one Wal-Mart employee was killed during one of the Black Friday riots like you just watched above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S6UKRaM5fA

Wal-Mart called this death of it's employee "an unfortunate event". That's an understatement. Every big box store knows that Black Friday brings big crowds and that big crowds can cause big problems. So why is it that every year we have people getting injured and even killed while trying to shop? Why aren't stores following the rules and regulations they themselves have implemented to provide a safe shopping experience for it's customers? I suppose we can answer that question in a single word - Profits. Proper security measures are expensive to implement....

My client was one of the lucky ones. The money that Wal-Mart paid to her at the conclusion of the litigation more than covered her medical bills and her pain and suffering. More importantly, after laying in bed under doctors orders for 2 months, her child was born healthy. She still has days where she has aches and pains in her pelvis and low back from where she was trampled, but she knows that it could have been worse. Much worse.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Disbursing Funds under Michigan's Wrongful Death Statute

Timothy Smith — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:01:22 GMT

Recently, we've resolved a number of wrongful death cases here in Northern Michigan. In Michigan, these types of cases are governed by a statute that controls every aspect of the case, including how the recovered funds are distributed to the family members that survive the deceased. One of the families that I represent asked me to explain to them how the distribution of the monies we recovered would take place.

In order to fully answer their question, I turned to Andrew Shotwell, a probate specialist with my office here in Traverse City, Michigan. I asked Andrew to draft an informative letter to the family to answer the question and thought I'd share the substance of it with my readers in case they were facing a similar issue.

The procedure and applicable law depends on various facts. First, if a complaint has been filed in circuit court, the distribution is governed by MCL 600.2922. Essentially under that statute, if no conscience pain and suffering was present or to the extent an award is for other than conscience pain and suffering, the circuit can distribute under 600.2922. The Court approves distributions “to those…who suffered damages and to the estate of the deceased for compensation for conscious pain and suffering, if any, in the amount as the court or jury considers fair and equitable considering the relative damages sustained by each of the persons and the estate of the deceased.”

If there is conscience pain and suffering awarded, the award passes to the estate and is distributed in accordance either with the decedent’s last will and testament, or by intestate succession [this is the law that governs how an individual's estate passes when they have no will]. There is no precise formula for determining the damages for the loss of a loved one’s society and companionship. In re Claim of Carr, 189 Mich App 234, 471 NW2d 637 (1991). The measure of damages is gauged by the relationship the decedent had with the claimant, including the amount of time the decedent and the claimant spent together. McTaggart v Lindsey, 202 Mich App 612, 509 NW2d 881 (1993).

If a complaint has not been filed and settlement has been reached, the distributions occur pursuant to MCL 700.3924, which is similar to 600.2922, requiring the distributions to be fair and equitable. The persons entitled to notice and an opportunity be heard in a wrongful death case under both 700.3924 and 600.2922 are as follows:

1) The deceased's spouse, children, descendants, parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters, and, if none of these persons survive the deceased, then those persons to whom the estate of the deceased would pass under the laws of intestate succession determined as of the date of death of the deceased.

2) The children of the deceased's spouse; and

3) Those persons who are devisees under the will of the deceased, including beneficiaries of a trust under the will, those persons who are designated in the will as persons who may be entitled to damages under this section, and the beneficiaries of a living trust of the deceased if there is a devise to that trust in the will of the deceased.

In any case, an estate would need to be opened with the probate court in the county of residence for the decedent. If a will exists, it is submitted to probate and a Personal Representative appointed, as nominated in the will. If no will exists, or the will fails to nominate a Personal Representative, the Court will appoint one according to the priority schedule, starting with the surviving spouse. Notice is required to be sent to all the people indentified above as having an interest in the distribution.

Once a settlement or an award has been granted, if all of the potential distributees are competent, nondisappeared adults, they may stipulate to a specific distribution scheme. If all of the interested persons stipulate to a proposed allocation, the court must order that distribution. However, if a disagreement exists, a hearing would be required.

If a minor is involved a guardian ad litem may be required to advocate on the minor’s behalf.

If after reading this summary of the approaches to distribution under the wrongful death statute, you still have questions, feel free to shoot me an email or call with further questions.

In my next article, I'll address and give some examples of what happens when the family can't agree on the distribution and an evidentiary hearing is required.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Texas Grocery Store Sued for Slip and Fall

Shannon Weidemann — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:16:55 GMT

A man that fell at a Texas Grocery store has filed a slip and fall lawsuit. The man was shopping at a H.E.B. grocery store in September when he allegedly fell and hurt himself.

According to the plaintiff's original petition, on Sept. 23, 2007, Jones was a customer at the H.E.B. in the 3900 block of East Lucas when the incident occurred. The suit says the fall caused Jones to suffer "extensive injuries" but does not state what those injuries entail.
In his suit, Jones says H.E.B. owed him a duty to inspect its premises and maintain the store in a reasonably safe manner.

The man is asking for damages for all medical expenses, his pain and suffering, and loss of income from his injuries. He claims a foreign object caused him to fall. He is asking for his case to be heard by a jury.

If you would like to read more about slip and fall lawsuits, please visit InjuryBoard's Property Owners' Liability information page.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shannon Weidemann

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

Fair Labor Standards Act Violations - getting cheated out of overtime pay.

Timothy Smith — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:04:07 GMT

The Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA] states very clearly that qualifying employees who work over 40 hours per work week are to be paid at time and one-half for that over time. Some employers have gone to great lengths to avoid this rule and many have paid the consequences.

Most recently, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta Georgia upheld a $35.6 million dollar judgment against Family Dollar Stores Inc. for denying employees overtime pay by re-classifying them as managers when they clearly were simple employees. In the original lawsuit which was tried in Alabama, nearly 1,500 employees were working 60-70 work weeks and were denied overtime pay.

Family Dollar claimed these employees who were stocking shelves, operating the cash register and mopping floors were "managers" in an attempt to avoid paying overtime. The jury and the 11th Circuit disagreed and found that it was clearly a wage and hour violation by defendant Family Dollar.

This wasn't the first time that Family dollar was caught with its hands in the over-time jar.....

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in favor of the employees in Brown v. Family Dollar Store of Indiana. In this case, the Federal Appeals Court held that a more lenient standard of proof applies to an employee's claim for uncompensated overtime if the employer fails to keep accurate time records. The plaintiff in this case brought forth evidence that the employer had altered the time records to avoid paying overtime to its employees; a plan that evidently backfired on the defendant.

All employees should keep in mind the following:

1. Employers that are subject to the FLSA are required to keep detailed records for both non-exempt and exempt employees concerning wages paid.

2. For non-exempt employees, employers must keep track of total hours worked each workday and workweek as well as total wages paid for each period.

3. Employers are required to keep these records for two or three years depending on the type of record involved.

4. If you work more than 40 hours in any 7 consecutive 24-hour work periods, you are entitled to time and a half or "overtime" if you are a non-exempt employee under FLSA.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Update on Insurance Bad Faith Reform Package in Michigan

Kevin Elsenheimer — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:47:40 GMT

I've been asked to talk briefly about the manner in which the insurance reform package left the Michigan House of Representatives, and to give an update as to its status in the Michigan Senate.

House Bills 4244, 4844, 5020, and 5144-5151 were passed out of the House on what was essentially a partisan vote (most Democrats voting for, Republicans mostly opposed) in the early Fall. The bills were referred to the Committee on Economic Development and Regulatory Reform in the Michigan Senate. My staff has communicated with the staff of the committee's chairman, Sen. Alan Sanborn, and we have been advised that the bills will not be taken up by the Senate committee, which means that the issue is likely dead for this legislature.

To my mind, it is a shame these bills moved in such a poor state. I think there was a middle ground that could have been reached on the issue which might have led to an improved policy. Unfortunately, policy took a backseat to politics and there was no opportunity given for compromise.

When the bills were voted on by the House, I issued a strongly-worded press release as Republican Leader in the House chastising both the actions of the Insurance Commissioner, Butch Hollowell, and the House Democrats in moving bills that were so one-sided they virtually gauranteed no action in the Republican-led Senate. Let me address each one of these comments.

On the day of the vote on the bills, my office began receiving contacts from Republican members of the House complaining that their offices had been contacted by the Office of the Insurance Advocate regarding clearly political matters, such as who the member's key supporters and donors were, when the members conducted office hours and the names of their political opponents. My members viewed this contact as a poorly-vieled threat on the part of the Insurance Advocate's Office, and by proxy, the Granholm Administration, to seek out political retribution on those who would oppose the Bad Faith Reform package. That this was being done on the taxpayer's dime made the matter even more infuriating.

It should be noted that Butch Hollowell has said he knew nothing about the calls made to my members' offices. I take him at his word, but the actions of his department had a lot to do with the attitude that House Republicans brought to this particular set of bills. But it wasn't the only cause of that attitude.

There are several members of my caucus who would support some kind of bad faith fix. No member of my caucus, however, was willing to support the one-sided language that suddenly came from the House Committee on Insurance. I am told that we had at least one member that was working with the chair to come up with compromise language that would actually have the potential of moving in the Senate. When the bills were suddenly moved to the floor of the House, my Insurance Committee members felt like the rug had been pulled out from under them.

In my experience, this kind of rushed work only happens when a powerful special interest group demands some kind of action. The Justice League (or whatever the trial lawyers call themselves now) was the prime mover of this package, and I called out the House Democrats as pushing the legislation as a pay-off to trial lawyers.

Not surprisingly, I received some contacts from some fellow attorneys about my comments. Tim Smith, who blogs regularly on this site, was particularly unhappy and was kind enough to ask me to explain in this forum what happened on the ground.

In hindsight, my press release was a bit strong, but there is more than an air of truth in my comments. This package moved before its time. It did so without meaningful compromise and as a result is dead in the Senate. The fact that House Democrats moved it in this way, which is unusual, and that the Insurance Advocate's Office was involved led me to believe at the time that the real goal of moving this package was to have political ammunition for future campaigns. I still believe that is the case today. The fact that the MAJ gave 99.73% of the $591 thousand-plus that it spent from July of '08 to July of '09 to Democrats isn't lost on me either.

Someone needs to ask, is the goal here to enact real policy reform or to advance a political objective? This and other policy objectives can be achieved - again, let me stress that I have members who are willing to enact bad faith reform - if the MAJ and the insurance lobby are willing to compromise. That means both sides will need to move. In this instance, I saw those on one side of the argument pick up their toys and go home.

Thanks again to Tim Smith for the opportunity to blog, and I'm sorry for the delay in doing so.

Kevin Elsenheimer

House Republican Leader

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Kevin Elsenheimer

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