Ianello & Brittain P.C. located in Western Massachusetts, with offices in Springfield, represent you in personal injury and criminal cases.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Hardship Licenses - You Can Get It Sooner Than You Think
In past articles I have indicated that a hardship license is a 12-hour license which can be for any 12-hour period, but must begin and end on the hour. It cannot be on the half hour. Usually when the Registry of Motor Vehicles sends a Notice of Suspension it will also contain a clause that you may apply for a hardship license after you have served 50% of your suspension. In a second offense OUI case, you will also be required to have an interlock device installed on your vehicle for the entire length of the suspension plus two years following. The important thing to remember is that even though the Registry's letter indicates when you can apply for the hardship license, we at Ianello Legal Associates can, in the event of extreme hardship, obtain a 12-hour work or school license before the 50% time period has elapsed. A hardship license is usually crucial to preserving your home and employment.
$4.6 Million Settlement
A $4.6 million settlement was reached for an electrician's apprentice who was crushed by a mechanical lift.
We have all seen those scissor-type mechanical lifts used in the construction industry. The interesting legal theory which resulted in the settlement was that the provider or lessor of the scissor lift failed to provide any instructions, safety precautions, or warnings relative to the use of the machine.
The failure to do so provided the plaintiff with enough factual and legal basis to persuade the insurance company to settle. The injuries were substantial in that the plaintiff had a closed head injury, bi-lateral femur fractures, a left acetabular fracture (socket of the hip joint), multiple facial fractures, teeth evulsions, partial vision loss, and multiple scarring which resulted in the plaintiff being permanently disabled for the rest of his life.
We have all seen those scissor-type mechanical lifts used in the construction industry. The interesting legal theory which resulted in the settlement was that the provider or lessor of the scissor lift failed to provide any instructions, safety precautions, or warnings relative to the use of the machine.
The failure to do so provided the plaintiff with enough factual and legal basis to persuade the insurance company to settle. The injuries were substantial in that the plaintiff had a closed head injury, bi-lateral femur fractures, a left acetabular fracture (socket of the hip joint), multiple facial fractures, teeth evulsions, partial vision loss, and multiple scarring which resulted in the plaintiff being permanently disabled for the rest of his life.
Hip Procedure Causes Severe Nerve Damage
The plaintiff, 64, was experiencing increased pain and stiffness in his right hip and was deemed a candidate for a total hip replacement. During the procedure his sciatic nerve was lacerated, which probably occurred when the electrocautery came too close to the nerve. After the surgery the plaintiff was numb from his hipto his foot and had severe pain.
An EMG and nerve conduction study revealed the plaintiff suffered sciatic nerve damage with severe right-sided sciatic neuropathy and severe axonal loss. The plaintiff experienced decreased sensation and motor function and persistent numbness and burning pain from his right knee to his toes. He was required to use a cane to walk and to wear a compression dressing on his right foot up to his knee. The plaintiff alleged that the hospital and its employees and/or agents deviated from the applicable standard of care and caused permanent damage to his sciatic nerve during surgery.
The case settled for $450,000 prior to filing suit.
An EMG and nerve conduction study revealed the plaintiff suffered sciatic nerve damage with severe right-sided sciatic neuropathy and severe axonal loss. The plaintiff experienced decreased sensation and motor function and persistent numbness and burning pain from his right knee to his toes. He was required to use a cane to walk and to wear a compression dressing on his right foot up to his knee. The plaintiff alleged that the hospital and its employees and/or agents deviated from the applicable standard of care and caused permanent damage to his sciatic nerve during surgery.
The case settled for $450,000 prior to filing suit.
Infant Suffers Stroke During Birthing Process
The plaintiff presented to the hospital for induction of labor at 37 weeks. The defendant doctor assumed her care at approximately 6:30 p.m. The plaintiff began the second stage of labor, also known as the pushing stage, at approximately 2:40 a.m. By 5:15 a.m. the baby failed to descend any further due to the plaintiff's abnormally narrow pelvic outlet. Additionally, the fetal heart monitor had changed from a normal heart rate to troubling patterns of slow rates. The defendant did not perform another exam until 7:45 a.m. at which time there was no improvement in the baby's positioning and the heart rate had become rapid. Despite this the defendant continued with vaginal delivery efforts until his shift ended.
The next doctor to assume the plaintiff's care examined her at approximately 9:15 a.m. and immediately decided to perform a C-section as there was no progress made in over six hours, the pelvic outlet was too small, and the changes in the baby's heart rate. The baby was delivered by C-section and appeared to be healthy; however, by nine months the plaintiff noticed that the baby was not using his right arm and leg as much as his left and notified his pediatrician who referred him to a neurologist. The neurologist determined that the baby suffered a prenatal stroke.
At trial the plaintiff's expert testified that the stroke was caused by a lack of blood flow to the “watershed” area of the brain. The expert also opined that this was caused by the decreased fetal heart rate and intracranial pressure caused by the many hours of contractions. The expert testified that had the defendant performed a Csection in a timely manner the child's permanent injuries would have been avoided.
The child has undergone many years of physical and occupational therapy; however, he only has minimal use of his right hand and arm and walks with a limp.
After four hours of deliberation, the jury awarded the child $1.8 million and each parent $250,000.
The next doctor to assume the plaintiff's care examined her at approximately 9:15 a.m. and immediately decided to perform a C-section as there was no progress made in over six hours, the pelvic outlet was too small, and the changes in the baby's heart rate. The baby was delivered by C-section and appeared to be healthy; however, by nine months the plaintiff noticed that the baby was not using his right arm and leg as much as his left and notified his pediatrician who referred him to a neurologist. The neurologist determined that the baby suffered a prenatal stroke.
At trial the plaintiff's expert testified that the stroke was caused by a lack of blood flow to the “watershed” area of the brain. The expert also opined that this was caused by the decreased fetal heart rate and intracranial pressure caused by the many hours of contractions. The expert testified that had the defendant performed a Csection in a timely manner the child's permanent injuries would have been avoided.
The child has undergone many years of physical and occupational therapy; however, he only has minimal use of his right hand and arm and walks with a limp.
After four hours of deliberation, the jury awarded the child $1.8 million and each parent $250,000.
Operating Under the Influence of Drugs
Recently the Supreme Court announced that a person who is charged with operating< under the influence of drugs includes narcotics, stimulants, or depressants, but only those specifically defined pursuant to Chapter 94C of the Massachusetts Controlled Substance Act.
Our Supreme Judicial Court reversed the conviction of a defendant who had stimulants and depressants in her system which were discovered from a hospital blood test. The Commonwealth could not prove that the drugs in the defendant's system were those specifically required for a conviction.
The interesting part about this case is that there have been many individuals over the years who have pled guilty or been found guilty who may have been innocent. In the event that your criminal record is affected, you may want to go back to court to have your guilty plea withdrawn or your conviction overturned, if it has affected your criminal record. Call us if we can be of any assistance.
Our Supreme Judicial Court reversed the conviction of a defendant who had stimulants and depressants in her system which were discovered from a hospital blood test. The Commonwealth could not prove that the drugs in the defendant's system were those specifically required for a conviction.
The interesting part about this case is that there have been many individuals over the years who have pled guilty or been found guilty who may have been innocent. In the event that your criminal record is affected, you may want to go back to court to have your guilty plea withdrawn or your conviction overturned, if it has affected your criminal record. Call us if we can be of any assistance.
Sobriety Checkpoints
Sobriety checkpoints were deemed to be constitutional. In two cases the defendants attacked the sobriety checkpoints as unconstitutional because the first stop is made by an officer or state trooper who inquires as to whether someone has been drinking or not. It is at that point that the trooper makes a determination as to whether or not you are to be directed to a second checkpoint where you are asked to perform field sobriety testing< as well as a breath test.
The lower courts both felt that the checkpoint was unconstitutional because it was purely discretionary on the part of the first officer or state trooper's judgment as to whether or not you should proceed to the second checkpoint. The Supreme Judicial Court, however, reversed the lower court and decided that it was constitutional as long as the officer's training and experience will allow him to differentiate between someone who is merely drinking (which is not a crime) and someone who may be under the influence as noted by the smell of alcohol, the responses from the person, and observations about speech, movement, etc.
The court did not change the existing law that a person instructed to proceed to the second checkpoint does not have to submit to any field sobriety testing or breath testing as such refusals are still constitutionally protected.
The lower courts both felt that the checkpoint was unconstitutional because it was purely discretionary on the part of the first officer or state trooper's judgment as to whether or not you should proceed to the second checkpoint. The Supreme Judicial Court, however, reversed the lower court and decided that it was constitutional as long as the officer's training and experience will allow him to differentiate between someone who is merely drinking (which is not a crime) and someone who may be under the influence as noted by the smell of alcohol, the responses from the person, and observations about speech, movement, etc.
The court did not change the existing law that a person instructed to proceed to the second checkpoint does not have to submit to any field sobriety testing or breath testing as such refusals are still constitutionally protected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)