A recent lawsuit filed in Baltimore reminds us that operators of automobiles and other vehicles on the road must recognize and be cognizant of the fact that smaller, some times hard to see vehicles share the road with us. There, a truck driver making a right hand turn struck and killed a bicyclist that was lawfully and properly using the roadway when the cyclist became entangled in the trucks rear tandem.
New Jersey's Motor Vehicle Statutes permit bicyclists to share the public roadways with the operators of motor vehicles. However, it must be pointed out that people riding bicycles upon the public roadways also have a general duty to follow the "rules of the road" and abide by roadway markings, traffic signs and signals. The failure of a cyclist to do so may be construed as negligence or an improper action by that individual that can be held against them in the event of an accident or claim for personal injuries. Further, it is conceivable that a bicyclist who fails to abide by traffic laws, signals or signs and causes a motor vehicle accident could be legally held responsible for money damages to compensate an injured party.
Another question that is raised is whether a child operating a bicycle will be required to abide by motor vehicle laws. There is not one clear answer under the law. The answer will depend on the facts of each case including the age of the child, the type of bicycle being ridden and sometimes the law of the local municipality. Generally, however, children are required to act reasonably under the circumstances for their age.
Accordingly, in light of the above, if you regularly operate a bicycle on public roadways, it may be wise to determine whether you have available insurance coverage in the event your operation of the bike causes an accident and either property damages or personal injuries. Most, if not, all automobile insurance policies exclude coverage for injuries or damages unless they are caused by the operation of a motor vehicle. Bicycles would be excluded. Homeowners' policies, if you have one, differ widely on the subject but may provide coverage for "vehicles powered by human means." To be definitive in this regard, you should contact your insurance agent and change your coverage if you believe you require it.

A recent jury verdict in Staten Island, New York highlights medical malpractice cases focusing on cosmetic surgery. A jury awarded a Staten Island woman 3.5 million dollars during medical malpractice litigation over an alleged botched breast implant surgery. As part of her allegations, the woman alleged that she suffered significant disfigurement of her breasts as a result of a "double bubble," and claimed that her 17-year marriage came to an end because of her embarrassment of undressing in front of her husband. She underwent two separate additional surgeries in trying to correct the condition.

Claims related to cosmetic surgeries are often one of the most difficult type of medical malpractice claims to pursue. First, often times juries are not receptive to such claims due to the fact that the surgeries are generally elective in nature to correct a cosmetic "deficiency" which the jury may not view as "problematic". Rhinoplasty (nose jobs) and breast augmentation (breast implant) surgeries are typical types of surgeries that lend themselves well to this theory. If the jurors perceive that the original surgery as unnecessary or undertaken solely as a result of the vanity of the plaintiff, the jury may not be sympathetic to the plaintiff's claims. Although this does not relieve a medical doctor of his duties to abide by the appropriate standards of care, such non-sympathetic jurors may give the doctor the "benefit of the doubt" when it comes to deciding the issue of malpractice.

Another potential problem with these types of cases relate to the often subjective nature of the claim. While the plaintiff may view the surgery as unsuccessful for some reason (it doesn't look like he or she thought it would), the medical doctor may take the position that the surgery was a success. Because "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," there may be an issue as to what the doctor "promised" and what they actually delivered.

Finally, such cosmetic type malpractice claims are no different than every other medical malpractice claim, in that it must be proven that the doctor somehow deviated from the accepted standard of medical care in the treatment of the plaintiff. Despite the potential problems described above, there are many valid cosmetic surgical malpractice claims, which should be pursued as indicated by the above Staten Island jury verdict. As in all areas of the law, the nature of each claim is dependent upon the specific facts and circumstances under which it occurred and must be thoroughly reviewed by an attorney.

A recent settlement in a nursing home malpractice wrongful death claim raises questions as to the current state of the law in New Jersey concerning nursing home malpractice. Although the terms of the settled case were confidential, the decedent's family alleged that he was mis-treated while he was a resident in the defendants' nursing home, which resulted in his death. Specifically, the family alleged that the 87 year old fell to the floor when nursing home staff improperly handled his transfer from bed to wheelchair. He developed a blood infection thereafter, due to the staff's improper care of his resulting pressure sores, and the blood infection directly caused his death.

In New Jersey, nursing homes and their staff will be responsible for negligent care of a resident. A large majority of the cases that are filed today allege injuries arising from negligent supervision of the patient, improper bed-to-chair or chair-to-bed transfers of the patient, or improper treatment of pressure sores or bed sores. Through the course of litigation, due to the fact that generally, these claims are filed against licensed individuals such as nurses or patient care assistants, a nursing, medical other health care medical expert will usually be required to establish that a standard of care has been breached.

Nursing homes have their own standards by which their nurses, care assistants and employees must abide. Further, governmental entities such as the Department of Health and Human Services also promulgate regulations by which nursing homes and their staff must abide. Many times, however, discovery in nursing home litigations reveal that the nursing home is understaffed and the professionals working there are unable to meet the requirements of policies and procedures put in place by management or the government regulators. Sadly and unfortunately, it is the patient that ultimately suffers.

Of course, patients who are injured as a result of nursing home malpractice are entitled to the same measure of damages that one would be entitled to in any personal injury or medical malpractice case - past and future pain and suffering, past and future disability and impairment, and loss of enjoyment of life. Given the relative age of the average nursing home patient, however, prospective future damages are generally limited. Thus, the New Jersey Legislature has passed a statute that allows for punitive damages and an award of counsel fees in the event that an attorney can show that the nursing home staff has violated either Federal or State regulations resulting in injuries to a patient.

Accordingly, in the event you suspect that a nursing home staff is mis-treating you or a relative, you should immediately contact an attorney. A skilled attorney will likely alert the appropriate state agency as soon as possible, so that an investigation will be conducted and any and all necessary evidence to establish malpractice will be preserved.

A jury recently awarded $25.8 million to a family of a Florida mother who died after suffering a massive stroke. The massive stroke was the result of a wrongly filled prescription at a Florida Walgreen's' store. Unfortunately, it was learned that allegedly a high school student who was reportedly assisting the pharmacist on duty made the actual mistake with the prescription medication.

Like other New Jersey malpractice cases, most that allege pharmaceutical malpractice require the use of an expert to identify what standards of care the pharmacist or the pharmacy employees may have violated. Most pharmaceutical malpractice cases arise when the pharmacist or pharmacy staff dispenses the improper medication. This may occur, as it did in the above jury verdict, where the pharmacy staff dispenses the wrong medication or the right medication and the wrong dosage. It may also occur where the pharmacist mis-reads the prescription provided by the medical doctor. Although the pharmacist usually has a duty to clarify what the prescription says, the pharmacist may not know that an error has occurred. Other such cases occur where the pharmacist fails to recognize a potential adverse drug interaction where a patient's new prescription is contraindicated to a prescribed medication that they are currently taking.

The second part of a pharmacist malpractice case deals with the damages sustained by the person that was prescribed the wrong medication. Damages can range from short-term effects of the improper medication to long-term effects to wrongful death. The other factor that must be considered is the length of time that the patient did not take their correct medication and whether the patient suffered as a result of not taking he proper prescription for his or her medical condition. For instance, there may be an increased incidence of recurrence of a disease if the proper medication is not taken in correct dosages or within the correct time frame. Evidence showing that the claimant suffered because he or she wasn't treating his or her medical condition could support an award of damages.

The important thing to remember as a victim of such malpractice is to preserve any and all evidence including, but not limited to, all paperwork received from the pharmacy, all paperwork received form your medical doctor, the prescription pill bottle with all labels attached and any unused portion of the improper medication. These steps may allow an attorney to quickly and efficiently evaluate any potential case.

A recently filed lawsuit alleging that improper construction led to the existence of mold asserts both property damage claims and personal injury claims. Generally, cases of this type assert that either the builder or their sub contractors were negligent in the construction of the plaintiff's dwelling or that a landlord or maintenance company were negligent in failing to properly maintain the premises. Under either scenario, the basis of these claims is that water was allowed to infiltrate into the buildings and provide optimal conditions in which mold is able to grow and thrive. Oftentimes, the mold is hidden in areas such as crawl spaces and attics and may not be discovered for some time.

With regard to personal injury claims, the existence of certain types of mold cause the inhabitants of the building to will suffer from various illnesses which are usually respiratory in nature. The key to successfully litigating such cases is establishing the causal link between the complained of illness and the mold that exists. Thus, it is important for the injured person to obtain and retain samples of the mold once it is found. Usually a medical mycologist will be able to test the mold to determine its genus and species and to establish as causal relation between the mold and the illness.

Once a causal connection is made between the mold and the illness it is then important to have an expert determine the cause of the mold's existence. It must be determined if the mold's presence was caused by improper or negligent construction of the premises, the improper or negligent maintenance of the premises or some other reason. It must be mentioned that a builder may not be sued in New Jersey more than ten years after the Certificate of Occupancy of the building was issued.

Accordingly, it is important to seek the advice of both medical and legal professionals as soon as one believes that they are suffering an illness from the existence of mold. Failure to do so may result in the inability to properly pursue certain rights under the law.