San Francisco Injury Lawyer Blog

California Personal Injury Law Firm Reminds Drivers to Exercise Special Care in Construction Zones

December 16, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

Road construction and maintenance is a necessary part of life in our times, especially here in California where driving is such a necessary part of our daily lives. At the Brod Law Firm, we represent Northern California automobile accident victims. As Sacramento car accident lawyers, we know that construction zones can be particularly dangerous and that it is especially important to exercise care when driving through work zones or when traffic is detoured to a less travelled route to accommodate road work.

This week Caltrans and the Sacramento Bee urged caution and asked drivers to slow down when using the current Highway 65 detour. Traffic-shifting to accommodate the Lincoln Bypass construction began in June and currently includes a 20mph speed limit in the northbound lanes of the highway in Lincoln near Sterling Parkway. The $325 million project is scheduled to be completed next summer and detours will likely remain in place until the new 11.7 mile span of roadway is opened. When it is finished, the roadway should be an asset to the region’s commuters but the construction process can be frustrating and carries an increased danger of automobile accidents.

According to statistics compiled by federal authorities, there were 680 fatalities in construction zone automobile accidents in 2009, a decrease from 720 the prior year. The studies indicate that at least 46 of the 2009 deaths occurred here in California. Additionally, the 2008 study found 20,000 individuals were injured nationwide in work zone car accidents. Surveys suggest that the most dangerous part of a construction area is the beginning of the designated zone, perhaps due to drivers driving too quickly and having difficulty merging into a new traffic pattern.

Vallejo Accident Reminds Residents of the Importance of Exercising Caution as Drivers Age

December 14, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

As your Oakland automobile accident attorneys, the Brod Law Firm team knows that many factors go into an automobile accident. Impaired or distracted drivers, aggressive maneuvering and poor road conditions can all increase the chance of a tragic outcome. Our Oakland car accident lawyer knows that one of the most complicated and sensitive factors in automobile accidents in the age of the driver. While age affects each individual differently, advancing years can impact reflexes and otherwise impair driving skills resulting in an increased danger of an inadvertent collision.

This week, The Vallejo Times-Herald reported on a car accident that may have age-related roots. In this incident, an 80 year-old driver reported that his foot slipped off the brake and landed on the accelerator. The slip caused the pickup truck to crash into the Safeway store located at 122 Robbles Way. Thankfully, no one was hurt when the truck went through the glass doors, passed by the register lanes and ended up plowing through the aisles until stopping at the far end of the aisles. As of the time of the report, the driver (also unharmed) had not been cited by the police.

With a large population of aging individuals across the nation, concerns about elderly drivers are on the rise. In June 2009, the National Highway Traffic Safety Association conducted a study of older drivers, based on data from 2002 to 2006. The study notes that, in many regards, seniors are often very safe drivers. Drivers over sixty are less likely to be involved in accidents involving alcohol or speeding. However, the study noted that drivers over seventy were more likely to be involved in accidents than their younger counterparts when faced with complex driving situations. This category includes tasks such as making left turns, navigating intersections, or responding to an imminent collision. The study noted this danger increased significantly at age seventy and was less prominent for drivers in their sixties. Drivers over seventy also had greater difficulty driving at dusk, in contrast to higher accident rates at dawn for younger drivers.

Palo Alto and San Francisco Hospitals Fined for Putting Patients in Danger

December 13, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

The California Department of Public Health issued a list on December 8, 2011 of 14 California hospitals that received administrative fines for not properly following hospital policies and procedures meant to ensure the health and safety of its patients. Out of the fourteen hospitals cited, seven were fined for leaving behind foreign objects in patients during surgery, four hospitals were fined for improperly administering medication, and three hospitals were fined for other reasons.

In total $850,000 in fines were issued for five different types of medical errors. Agents of the California Department of Public Health are trained to look for 28 different adverse events that range from performing surgery on the wrong body part to using medical equipment for a purpose other than its intended use to patient falls in the facility while care is being provided.

Amendments to California Health and Safety Code §1280.1 and §1280.3 were passed in 2007. The statutes now allow the California Department of Public Health to issue administrative fines to hospitals whose noncompliance with safety policies and procedures put a patient in immediate jeopardy of serious injury or death. In 2009, the fines were raised in accordance with the statute. The penalty for first offenses increased from $25,000 to $50,000 and implemented fines up to $100,000 for multiple offenses. These fines are only applicable to General Acute Care Hospitals, Acute Psychiatric Hospitals, and Special Hospitals.

Of the fourteen hospitals fined by the California Department of Public Health, four are located in the Greater Bay Area. San Francisco General Hospital received its second administrative penalty of $50,000 fine for performing a partial mastectomy on a woman who had requested a full mastectomy. UCSF Medical Center was fined $75,000 for its sixth administrative penalty because a surgeon mistakenly made an incision under the patient’s left eye, but closed it after he realized the incision should have been made under the patient’s right eye. The Kaiser Foundation Hospital in South San Francisco was given its first administrative fine of $50,000 for storing vaccines and some other medicines at an improper temperature, which could decrease their effectiveness. The compromised vaccines and medicines were administered to almost 5,000 patrons of the hospital. Finally, the Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford was fined $50,000 for its second administrative penalty for administering an improper dose of medication to a patient, causing the patient to seizure.

The California Department of Public Health looks at eight factors when determining whether a fine should be issued to an acute care provider and how much the fine should be. These factors include the risk to the patient from the non-compliant action, financial harm to the patient, the hospital’s record on compliance with safety policies and procedures, and the hospital’s responsiveness to the problem. Licenses and certification may not be revoked based on the number of administrative penalties, but hospitals are required to submit a plan of correction, which demonstrates how the hospital will attempt to prevent future occurrences of similar medical errors. The hospitals may file an administrative appeal within 10 days to request a hearing.
Continue Reading ›

Legal Perspective on Property-Related Accidents

December 11, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

According a report in The Oakland Tribune, a poorly constructed chimney was the likely cause of a fire in West Oakland that left at least three residents unable to return to their homes. A home fire is tragic at any time but is especially difficult to imagine as the holidays approach. As your Oakland property damage lawyers, the Brod Law Firm believes in helping residents recover after such an untimely event.

The fire sparked in the early morning hours of Tuesday December 6 in a West Oakland duplex. The home, a Victorian-style two-story located at 30th and Chestnut, had recently been remodeled with an apartment on each floor. In addition to displacing three residents, the fire caused at least $30,000 in damages. According to the reports, the fire was caused by faulty chimney construction. The chimney had been built without a flue and the fire started after the upper-level residents used the fireplace in their unit. The embers from the fireplace were unable to exit and sparked a fire in the attic that then spread to the roof. Luckily, no one was injured and a team of twenty firefighters were able to control and extinguish the flames.

Every accident has its own story. Part of the reason you should always seek out an Oakland accident attorney when you suffer a physical injury or economic loss due to someone else’s wrongdoing is to be sure you explore the full range of legal claims. Thankfully no injury occurred in the West Oakland fire, but the Brod Law Firm notes several different claims that might arise from a property-related accident, especially one that does result in physical injury. A lawsuit might include claims based on:

The Legislation of Road Rage-Comparing California to Rest of the Country

December 10, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

Road rage, also called aggressive driving, is particularly dangerous because it combines feverish emotion with bad decision-making. While most of us know what road rage looks like, it is more difficult to construct a concise definition for it, as aggressive driving usually involves multiple or sequential actions. Some states have attempted to create a statutory definition of aggressive driving to allow law enforcement to pull over drivers engaging in such bad behavior. As of November 2010, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Nevada, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia had enacted aggressive driving laws. The Rhode Island definition of aggressive driving is representative of most states who have created road rage legislation. It states:

“Aggressive Driving” is defined as operating a motor vehicle in violation of any speed law and a violation of two or more of the following traffic law provisions: (1) obedience to traffic control devices; (2) overtaking on the right; (3) driving within a traffic lane; (4) following too closely-interval between vehicles; (5) yielding right of way; (6) entering the roadway; (7) use of turn signals; (8) relating to school buses, special stops, stop signs and yield signs; and, (9) use of emergency break-down lane for travel.

The problem with the definition is it simply lists behavior that is already in violation of the vehicle code and lumps it under one phrase, although it does allow for one citation instead of burdening officers with issuing two or three at one time. The fines imposed for aggressive driving by different states varies widely- from $100 to $5000 (Such high fines are only imposed if the driver caused bodily injury through disregard for others’ safety).

Indiana has one of the strictest aggressive driving policies, making it a Class A misdemeanor to intentionally harass or intimidate a person in another vehicle and engages in aggressive driving as defined by the statute.

By comparison, California has not pursued specific road rage legislation. However, Vehicle Code Section 23103 does prohibit “reckless driving”, defined as “A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway [or off-street parking facility] in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.” Instead of requiring the driver to violate two or more Vehicle Code sections, the California definition of reckless driving allows law enforcement to look at the totality of the circumstances, including intention, when taking action against an aggressive driver.

In 1999, the Department of Transportation held an event called Aggressive Driving and the Law: A Symposium. Its goal was to promote enforcement against aggressive driving at the state level. In addition, the Department of Transportation conduction two studies- The Aggression Suppression Program in Milwaukee, Wisconsin completed in May 2001 and Ticketing Aggressive Cars and Trucks in Washington State: High Visibility Enforcement Applied to Share the Road Safely from May 2006. The symposium and the studies came to the same conclusion that enforcement is key to reducing aggressive driving and resulting accidents.

More than ten years after the Department of Transportation’s symposium, California and the country as a whole is still struggling with road rage. The AAA: Foundation for Traffic Safety’s 2010 Traffic Safety Culture Index states that 52% of drivers said driving feels less safe today than it did 5 years ago, a 17-percentage-point increase over 2009. The Aggression Suppression Program study encouraged law enforcement to look beyond speeding citations and widen their enforcement of bad driver behavior. It found that areas with increased enforcement saw a significant decline in aggressive driving in the future. Further, it encouraged states to advertise widened efforts to crack down on aggressive driving and to increase driver education about the dangers of road rage. Legislation that prohibits aggressive driving is a good step, but publicizing these laws and increased enforcement is essential to have a real impact on the safety of our streets.
Continue Reading ›

The Dangerous Mix of Money and Medicine

December 9, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

As San Francisco medical malpractice lawyers, the Brod Law Firm is keenly aware of the many ways in which money and other financial factors can influence medical decision-making. Sadly, sometimes patients are harmed when doctors make decisions based on cost rather than focusing on what is best for the patient. When patients are harmed, whether as the result of a decision made by a doctor or an insurance company, a San Francisco medical injury attorney can help determine if improper financial motivations resulted in medical care falling below the required standard of care.

It seems like every few weeks we come across a new story about the way money and medicine intersect. The San Francisco Chronicle recently explored the link between changes in Medicare payments and an increase in a specific diagnosis. Unfortunately, this practice is common enough to have its own name and is referred to as “upcoding” in the insurance field. The Chronicle’s article focused on the Chino Valley Medical Center in San Bernadino County and its parent company, Prime Healthcare services. The companies deny any wrongdoing but authorities are investigating a suspicious surge in the hospital diagnosing “acute heart failure.” In the 2008 to 2010 time frame, 35.2% of the hospital’s Medicare patients were listed as having the condition, six times the state average. The diagnosis triggered bonus payments from Medicare of thousands of dollars for every patient. This surge followed a rule change entitling a hospital to increased payments for patients with certain major complications.

It is not clear whether the alleged upcoding impacted patient care or just resulted in changes in paperwork filing. Of course, improper reporting does have a financial impact, particularly concerning when it involves a public program like Medicare. However, the financial influence on medicine can also have a direct impact on the quality of care. There are many factors at play including the rates at which insurers reimburse for different procedures and concerns related to medical malpractice insurance fees. These factors can influence the decision-making process, either at the physician or the insurance company level, and patient care can suffer.

Good news for California Life and Disability Insurance Consumers

December 9, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

Our San Francisco insurance attorneys know how to deal with insurance companies who are wrongfully trying to deny consumer’s the benefits they paid for. We know how frightening it is to hear that an insurance claim is denied when you were counting on that money for critical expenses. But 2012 holds promise for a more fair insurance litigation environment when a company improperly denies a life insurance or disability claim thanks to a new law- California Insurance Code Section 10110.6. It is important to note this new law relates only to life insurance and disability insurance, and not other types of insurance. It was sponsored by Senator Ron Calderon with the support of California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, unanimously passed the Legislature and was signed by Governor Jerry Brown in October. A similar bill was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2010.

As of January 1, insurance companies in California will no longer be able to reserve discretionary authority to the themselves to determine or interpret a policy and decide if a policyholder is entitled to benefits. It applies to all life and disability insurance policies that are issued, delivered, or renewed to a California resident starting in January. This gives discretion in these matters to judges, which is as it should be. Judges know the law and are impartial observers. It is common sense that it is unfair to have a party to the dispute- one who stands to earn money depending on the outcome- be the final arbitrator of that dispute. Insurance Commissioner Jones likened it to a “fox guarding a henhouse.” But that is exactly how these scenarios worked until the passing of this new law. Insurance companies used these discretionary clauses as a shield from liability for valid claims and therefore nullified bargained for benefits. Suing the insurance companies over inappropriately denied benefits was often useless. If the policy included a discretionary clause, the judge’s hands were tied and he or she had to assume the insurance companies acted correctly unless the policyholder could prove that the company’s denial of benefits was arbitrary or capricious. Even if a judge believed the policyholder should have received the denied benefits, unless the company was arbitrary or capricious the judge could offer no remedy to the policyholder, who was left disabled or grieving for a loved one often in dire financial straits.

As San Francisco insurance denial attorneys, we are thankful the new law addresses this obvious inequity and helps level the playing field for consumers. It stops the practice of biased insurance companies ignoring or overriding a doctor’s opinion about whether a policyholder qualifies for disability benefits based on their own greedy concerns for their profit margins.

Oakland Accident Law Firm Comments on San Jose Pedestrian Fatality

December 7, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

Marking a sad milestone, The Oakland Tribune reported on the twentieth pedestrian or bicyclist fatality to occur this year in San Jose. As your Oakland personal injury law firm, we are particularly dismayed to note that this pedestrian death comes only a week after a cyclist was killed on the very same road.

The victim, a 34 year-old man whose name has not been released, was killed Monday evening. He was crossing a busy stretch of road just south of downtown Jose near where Monterrey Highway and Old Tully Road intersect. It is unclear whether he was in a marked crosswalk when he was hit and killed by a Toyota Tundra. The female driver did remain at the scene and alcohol does not appear to have been a factor in the crash. As of the time of the Tribune’s report, the driver had not been arrested or identified.

Although it is unclear whether the pedestrian in this accident was utilizing a crosswalk, the Oakland pedestrian accident attorney at The Brod Law Firm wants to remind readers that California law requires that drivers yield to pedestrians in a marked crosswalk. This rule also applies at unmarked crosswalks at our intersections. Pedestrians are required to exercise caution and the law does prohibit a pedestrian from suddenly leaving the sidewalk or otherwise stepping into the path of automobile traffic. However, the law does place the bulk of responsibility on drivers to prevent the injury or death of a pedestrian who is using appropriate precautions. While the law does prohibit pedestrians from crossing roads outside of intersections or marked crosswalks, that does not alleviate the duty of all drivers to be alert for pedestrians and exercise care at all times.

San Francisco DA George Gascon Issues Press Release on the Prevention of Holiday Season Accidents

December 6, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

The sparkle of elaborate display windows makes the San Holiday%20Shopping%20Pic.jpg

Francisco Bay Area a popular destination for holiday shoppers. Downtown San Francisco, Walnut Creek, and malls everywhere see an influx of cars and pedestrian traffic eager to share in the deals and the holiday spirit. Urban cities like San Francisco see an increase in bicycle traffic every year as well. The crowds and the jostle of bags are part of the holiday fun, but they can also lead to claustrophobia and frustration as people unexpectedly duck in and out of the bustle and rush across streets and parking lots to get to their next destination.

San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon is calling for heightened awareness from residents and visitors to prevent tragic accidents. He has teamed up with the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and Walk SF to promote safe conduct in order to prevent accidents during the busy holiday season.

Accusations and Indictments in Fake Foreclosure Help Case

December 5, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

Our economy continues to leave many homeowners nervous about meeting their mortgage obligations and fearing the loss of their home. Sadly, as both The Sacramento Bee and The Sacramento Business Journal reported this weekend, it appears that unscrupulous individuals have taken advantage of these tough times for their own financial gain. Alongside the criminal investigations of such deplorable tactics, Sacramento victims of bankruptcy fraud should reach out to experienced Northern California mortgage fraud lawyers for help recovering their financial loss.

In the case reported in both papers this weekend, a federal grand jury has indicted five people: Jesse Wheeler (34, Roseville), Bernadette Guidry (43, Irvine), Cynthia Corn (58, Oakland), Brent Medearis (45, Modesto) and Jewel Hinkels, also known as Cydney Sanchez (61, Los Angeles). Court filings cite a network of companies, including Horizon Property Holdings LLC and JW Financial Solutions, that purportedly offered to help homeowners avoid foreclosure and save their homes. The companies and individuals allegedly marketed their services to homeowners who were struggling to make scheduled mortgage payments on their homes. Authorities suggest the companies and individuals promised to negotiate mortgage sales or payment reductions that would help the distressed homeowners. Per the charges, the defendants did not deliver on these promises. The indictment also references fraudulent bankruptcy petitions filed by the accused that may have allowed them to collect more fees by prolonging the foreclosure process.

The motive for these crimes appears to have been financial. For the services they claimed to provide, the companies charged substantial upfront and monthly fees. Prosecutors suggest that more than 1,000 distressed homeowners were charged over $5 million in fraudulent fees.