Justia Lawyer Rating
badge - Top 100 Trial Lawyers, The National Trial Lawyers
badge - Lead Counsel Rated
badge - Avvo Rating 10, Gregory J. Brod, Top attorney
badge - American Bar Association
badge - Member of San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association
badge - Super Lawyers

One of the biggest decisions faced by relatives of an aging individual is nursing home placement. Recent reports by the Sacramento Bee of legal record-keeping and other violations are a harsh reminder of the importance of active involvement in care and, when necessary, consultation with a skilled Sacramento nursing home abuse attorney.

When a vulnerable patient is unable to fully defend his or her own rights, the responsibility to act as an informed advocate often falls upon the shoulders of a child or other relative. California law appreciates this and provides that relatives or legal representatives can assert the rights of nursing home residents who are unable to do so for themselves. Ailing individuals who anticipate needing help in advocacy have the legal right to appoint a specific power of attorney for healthcare. This includes the right to participate in treatment planning and the right to refuse a plan of treatment offered by the medical providers. seniors%20on%20bench.jpg

On the most basic level, nursing homes are required to treat patients with respect and dignity and to provide quality treatment and care without discrimination. Abuse, corporal punishment, and neglect are illegal. Advocates should also be aware that facilities may only use medical or physical restraints when needed for patient safety and that using restraints for the convenience of the facility is a form of Sacramento nursing home abuse. In order to monitor care and be an active part of the care process, patients or their representatives have the right to review health records within 24 hours of a request. Although you may be charged for copies of these records, the charge must be only a reasonable copying fee and there may not be a charge for merely reviewing patient records.

California law also protects the financial rights of nursing home residents, a key concern for anyone involved in the caregiving decision process. It is illegal to require a cosigner for payment but facilities may require a relative or other individual to ensure payment from the patient’s own resources. Nursing homes must provide detailed information on the cost of services and the facility’s participation in Medicare and Medi-Cal programs. Involved advocates for nursing center residents should know that patients have a right to apply for and receive information on Medi-Cal or Medicare rights. A facility may not ask a patient or involved representative to delay or abandon these rights. Those who are entitled to Medi-Cal or Medicare cannot, under California law, be required to provide a security deposit for care.
Continue Reading ›

Yesterday, a 22-year-old bicyclist suffered life-threatening injuries when he was hit by a taxi that ran a red light in the Mission District. While the cyclist was crossing at Cesar Chavez and Guerrero streets just before 2 a.m. Sunday, a 56-year-old driver of a Yellow Town Taxi heading east on Cesar Chavez ran a red light and struck the him with his Ford Escape Taxi. The bicyclist was not wearing a helmet and was taken to San Francisco General Hospital with life-threatening head injuries. According to a report, the cyclist was laying face down and bleeding badly from the mouth, and many people rushed to his aid. The paramedics were also quick to respond.

This accident is yet another reminder that San Francisco taxi drivers are some of the most negligent drivers on the planet. Taxis are often seen speeding, challenging traffic signals, failing to stop at stop signs, and changing lanes or pulling away from the curb without looking at the road. Therefore, there is a high probability that a taxi will hit a bicyclist at some point. Cyclists are most likely to be injured in an intersection because negligent or impatient taxi drivers are notorious for running lights. Also, taxis often sideswipe cyclists when they change lanes without looking. Many times a cyclist injured by a taxi will have substantial damages from medical bills and lost wages, and, usually any attempt to collect damages from the taxi driver are futile because drivers usually don’t have a lot of money. For that reason, it becomes necessary to recover damages from the company that provided the cab.

Each taxi-bicyclist case presents its own special set of challenges, all of which our firm has the experience and expertise to handle. We are committed to working hard for our clients, whether that be in mediation, arbitration or trial. If you or a loved one suffered painful injuries and/or a permanent disability, you will need fair compensation and a competent injury accident attorney to reprsent you. Our firm represents residents throughout the Bay Area, including visitors to the area and has been helping injured bicyclists and pedestrians in the San Francisco Bay Area for more than 10 years. If you were injured or a family member was killed in by taxi driver negligence, contact us for a free no-obligation consultation. We handle all taxi injury cases on a contingent fee basis, which means you pay no attorney’s fees unless we are successful in achieving a financial recovery in your case

Highway%20trucks.jpgThe San Francisco Gate reported last week on a bizarre Oakland motorcycle accident that apparently was caused intentionally by a paratransit van driver. A thirty-one year old Oakland man, Eddie Hall was recently charged with homicide following his conduct which caused the death of fifty-one year old George Lopez of Stockton. The incident occurred late last month on Interstate 580 in San Leandro.

The accident is still under investigation, however police believe that Mr. Hall was driving an East Bay Paratransit van in the right hand lane of the highway with a group of motorcycle riders immediately to his left. Witnesses report that Mr. Hall “aggressively” swerved his van into the left hand lane, colliding with the cycle being ridden by the victim, Mr. Lopez. The rider was knocked off the bike, ultimately falling into the path of the van which ran over him. His motorcycle was wedged underneath the van. Apparently the van driver continued driving for at least a mile with the motorcycle wedged underneath the vehicle, before the motorcycle burst into flames. At that point, Mr. Lopez got out of the vehicle and fled the scene on foot. He was eventually apprehended by a sheriff’s deputy. He has since been charged with homicide for the death of George Lopez, as well as for attempted homicide for another motorcycle that was in the group when he veered into their lane on the highway.

Unlike other highway crashes, this Interstate 580 accident was no accident at all. Questioned after the event, Mr. Hall admitted that he intentionally drove into the motorcyclists because he was upset at the way that the motorcyclists and other drivers were behaving on the road. In other words, this seems to be a case of extreme road rage with deadly consequences.

A person in a wheelchair suffered life-threatening injuries Saturday morning after being hit by a pickup truck in a South of Market intersection, San Francisco police said. Most drivers on Harrison waited for the wheelchair to cross, but the driver of a Toyota pickup truck pulled forward and struck the victim, who was in the closest crosswalk, according to one report. People in a crosswalk have the right-of-way even when the light for cross-traffic turns green. Both drivers and walkers need to obey traffic laws to avoid stiff penalties. Motorists who fail to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk can face a $212 fine. Likewise, pedestrians who cross against a red light can be issued a $108 citation. To avoid accidents, drivers should avoid using cell phones to talk or text while driving, and pedestrians should look for cars even when they have the right-of-way. CC Section 21950 describes pedestrian right-of way:

21950. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.
(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

The SOMA district where the accident occurred is notorious for its dangerous intersections and has the highest incidents of fatalities and injuries. The injury that happened Saturday is a good example of how dangerous our intersections are. Have you notice how many of SOMA’s streets look and feel like four lane mini freeways? And doesn’t it feel like you are risking your life trying to cross them? I can’t tell you the number of times I have seen pedestrians begin to cross at an intersection and then have to turn around and head back to the curb because light changed to quickly or because a car was speeding through the intersection. At the same time, as a driver, I have had to slam on the brakes many times in order to avoid hitting someone who walked into the middle of a busy SOMA street without looking. Whether you travel by foot or car, navigating San Francisco requires care and vigilance for the sake of pedestrians, especially the disabled.

Pedestrian safety in the SOMA district gets a lot of lip service for the fact that it does have some of the most dangerous intersections. A 2007 SFMTA Collision Report studied the number of intersection auto collisions with pedestrians and cyclists and found that six of the ten intersections with the most collisions are located in this district. The reason this seems to be so, in our minds, is because most streets in SOMA connect drivers who want to enter and exit local freeways. As such, SOMA’s streets have many speeding cars and large trucks, which are not compatible with pedestrians. Also, the booming development of housing and business in that area has caused its population to grow, along with that the area has seen a rise in accidents. Sadly, pedestrians are often hit in this thriving district as drivers negligently travel toward their destinations. But don’t forget accidents can occur when a pedestrian is distracted-and that pedestrian safety is a two-way street!.
Continue Reading ›

As we reported earlier today, a parolee fled in a pickup truck yesterday after Concord police tried to stop him for talking on a cell phone crashed into a car and killed the driver. More information has just been released on the accident. At around 6 p.m. yesterday an officer saw a man in a white pickup truck talking on his cell phone without the required hands-free device and tried to pull him over, according to reports.

The man, who has been identified as Mauro Gutierrez, age 25, of Concord refused to stop, which caused the officer to pursue him by chasing him. Tragically, the pursuit ended when Gutierrez crashed into a 1985 BMW on Solano Way near Highway 242. The man driving the BMW died as a result of the crash. Gutierrez then exited his car and fled on foot and was apprehended and arrested a short time later. He was booked at Contra Costa County Jail in Martinez on suspicion of manslaughter, being a felon in possession of a firearm (as a gun was found in his truck), evading arrest, causing great bodily injury or death, vehicle theft and obstructing police.A gun was found in the truck, authorities said. The case is under investigation by police and the Contra Costa County district attorney’s office and the driver’s death will also be the subject of a coroner’s inquest.

It turns out the news of innocent motorists being killed in accidents caused by suspects being chased by the police is nothing out of the ordinary. Recently, throughout the Bay Area, places like Berkeley, El Sobrante, Hayward and San Francisco have become familiar with this kind of tragedy. Most law-enforcement agencies allow officers to chase suspects in stolen cars or those wanted for serious crimes. According to Concord police, it was unclear why Gutierrez allegedly fled when they tried to stop him. They investigated details of the chase, including how long it lasted and how fast the suspect was going, and it appears the officer acted within policy. Lt. Darrell Graham stated to the media, “When people choose to flee from the police, it sets into motion a very unpredictable and potentially set of circumstances. Our sympathies go out to the victim and his family.”

This would be a good time to point out the public safety issue of police pursuits, as they are a major threat to anyone on the road-including pedestrians and bicyclists. According to statistics nearly one in four chases statewide ends in a crash-something to be hyper aware of because they occur hourly. So a crash as result of a police chase could happen potentially every day. After an unrelated incident earlier this month, Police Chief Al Franz of the San Diego Police Department told the media that police chases are the most dangerous things they do. Remember that next time you head out the door to you next destination, especially if you hear a police siren.
Continue Reading ›

car%20crash.jpgCell phones are all but unavoidable in the United States these days. People use their cell phones while walking down the street, in stores, and while driving. Talking on the phone while driving is the subject of much debate. Many safety experts insist that drivers using cell phones invite accidents. Others insist that talking on the phone while driving is no more dangerous than playing with the radio or talking to a passenger in the back of the car. Nevertheless, many states, including California, have strict laws regarding the use of cell phones by motor vehicle drivers. Still, as our San Francisco car accident attorney has experienced, the use of cell phones can be an integral part of a legal battle after a San Francisco car accident. An accident that occurred in Concord last night may an example of that conflict.

As the San Francisco Chronicle reported this morning, one driver was killed last night when a driver using a cell phone crashed into his car. The events began around 6pm Tuesday night when the Concord police saw a man in a white pickup truck conversing on a cell phone without a required hands-free device. The officer attempted to pull the driver over, but instead of stopping, the truck driver led the police officer on a chase. The chase ended when the truck hit a BMW on Solana Way, near Highway 242. The driver of the BMW died as a result of the collision. Police chased the pickup truck driver on foot and apprehended him. Officials have not released the name of either man.

Scenarios like this are ripe for lawsuits, because much neglect and reckless was involved. Not only was the driver of the pickup truck violating the law when used his phone without a hands-free device, but he likely violated several traffic laws during the police chase. While any criminal charges would have be filed by the Contra Costa County’s district attorney’s office, surviving family members can file a civil suit against the truck driver.

One frequently used legal tool in cases like this is wrongful death action. A wrongful death claim allows surviving family members to collect damages, or money, to compensate them for the death. For example, the family can try to recover financial support to make up for the salary the deceased would have earned. A successful suit can also cover funeral expenses and the value of household services the late family member would have performed. In some instances, family members can also recover for noneconomic damages, such as loss of companionship.

When family members face the death of a loved one, contacting a lawyer is typically not high on their list of priorities. But finding legal representation sooner rather than later can be important since wrongful death actions have a statute of limitations. With some exceptions, a suit must be filed before the second anniversary of the person’s death.
Continue Reading ›

Most people who live in a city have rented an apartment at one time or another. Apartment living is often accompanied by some annoyances. Many renters can share stories about bad experiences in an apartment – from the occasional unwanted mouse to the loud landlord who is constantly renovating other units in the building to an apartment with a broken elevator. The ultimate apartment hardship, however, is being evicted. As our San Francisco apartment lawyer knows, our area has its share of landlord-tenant conflicts. Recently one of San Francisco’s older residents experienced the ultimate rental nightmare, eviction. yellow%20apartment.jpg

As The New York Times reported, 75-year-old Ernesto Hernandez was recently forced out of his apartment by the building’s new owner. Mr. Hernandez had lived in a rent-controlled apartment on Green Street for almost 30 years. He moved into the building in 1982 to live with Richard Whalen, who had already lived there for years. In 2005, the building was sold and purchased by Paul Marino. Mr. Whalen died several years later, and Mr. Hernandez continued to live in the apartment alone.

The original lease had long expired, so Mr. Hernandez rented month to month. State law permits a landlord to institute “house rules” when a tenant is renting month to month. According to the state law, a tenant must comply with the new rule within 30 days. But San Francisco’s local ordinance requires that all parties must agree on the new rule before it goes into effect. Despite the local ordinance, Mr. Marino instituted a new rule that banned subletting. Mr. Hernandez ignored the rule, subletting space in the apartment. After a legal battle that included an appeal, Mr. Hernandez lost. He now lives in downtown hotel for seniors.

San Francisco landlord-tenant conflicts are all too common. Because of chronic housing shortages in the area and an increase in the number of tech jobs, many landlords are tempted to create new rules to drive out rent-controlled tenants, and other tenants paying below market rent. The court decision in Mr. Hernandez’s case shows that landlords have significant legal protection, despite claims to the contrary. Still, San Francisco landlord-tenant law protects renters from unreasonable landlords. For example, building owners must keep rental units in a condition fit for human occupancy, including keeping plumbing and electricity in good working condition. Apartments must also be free of vermin at the time they are rented. And landlords cannot evict tenants themselves, but must use the legal process to remove them.
Continue Reading ›

Quite often, serious accidents are the final and tragic result of a long chain of events consisting of bad luck and small mistakes. When many factors contributed to the accident, determining the most important cause of the accident can be a daunting task for a San Francisco car accident attorney. In other cases, it can be obvious what caused the accident, but determining who is more responsible for the mishap can be a challenge. For example, in a recent San Francisco car accident, two drivers bear some responsibility for a collision that injured both drivers and six passengers.

limo%20accident.jpgLast night, as described in an article in the Mercury, there was a two car accident. At 12:39 am a minivan broadsided a car in San Francisco’s South of Market neighborhood, at the intersection of 10th and Howard streets. The sedan was stopped a red light when the speeding van ran a red light and struck the car. In addition to the driver, the sedan contained five passengers, while the van had two occupants. All eight individuals were taken to local hospitals for serious injuries. Everyone is expected to recover fully.

For the drivers, however, the event did not end with a trip to the hospital. When police arrived
on the scene, they arrested both drivers. Officials suspected that both had been driving while intoxicated. In addition, police arrested one of the van’s passengers for possession of cocaine. Officials are also investigating whether or not the van was involved in a hit-and-run accident earlier in the evening.

After accidents like this, injured parties are often reluctant to seek legal advice. Many people believe that if they contributed to the events that injured them, such as getting into car with a driver who had been drinking, the legal system will not help them. Depending on the facts of the specific situation, however, contributing to the accident is not always an absolute bar to legal recovery. Traditionally, under the theory of contributory negligence, defendants who had a role in causing an accident could not sue the plaintiff and recover.

But today, in most state, including California, contributory negligence is no longer the rule. Instead, comparative negligence governs lawsuits. Under the comparative negligence system, plaintiff who played a role in causing an accident can recover in a lawsuit, but their recovery is limited by the amount of their fault. So if a passenger was 15% at fault for getting into the car with an intoxicated driver and damages are determined to be $10,000, the plaintiff will only receive $8,500. So the plaintiff will not recover his or her full damages, but could still collect a significant amount of money.
Continue Reading ›

Last week, an Amtrak train traveling 15-20 mph crashed into a train unlading passengers at an Oakland station injuring 17 people, all whom suffered only minor and non-life-threatening injuries, according to reports. The crash happened around 10pm on Wednesday, October 12th and victims were taken to local hospitals. A train went through a red light and hit a stationary train. At the time of the crash the wheels of each lead engine went off the track. According to one report, an Amtrak representative state that the moving train should have never continued past the red signal because that signal is the equivalent to a red light.

Amtrak and the owner of the tracks, Union Pacific Freight Railroad, will monst likely work with federal officials to investigate the crash. After any train accident many important questions must be answered. Was the conductor negligent or the train company? Were the brakes not working properly? Was the conductor negligent in operating the train? Was he under the influence of any drugs or alcohol or did have any intent to cause the accident? In this particular case it is doubtful that negligence has anything to do with lack of training. What training do you need to know to stop at a red signal? But you never know. The fact is that proving mere negligence here is not a problem, but it might to prove anything more than that, such as proving reckless disregard of the safety of the passengers. State of mind of the conductor will most probably be examined.

Luckily none of the injuries suffered in this particular accident were catastrophic. Often train accidents involve serious injuries and even fatalities. When that does happen, victims and their surviving family members may be eligible to file a claim for compensation. After such an accident, victims and their families should contact a knowledgeable attorney with experience handling claims against public entities such as Amtrak. Anyone who has suffered an injury after being involved in a train accident should contact our experienced train accident attorney who can inform them of their rights. Also, anyone who has suffered an injury significant enough to cause them to see a doctor, take time off work, pay medical bills, go through lengthy pain and suffering, and seek physical rehabilitation, could find relief by hiring our personal injury attorney to file a claim on their behalf.

car%20fire.jpgTraffic is a part of life for those of us who live in a dense urban area. In addition to be annoying and frustrating for those who are stuck in it, as our San Francisco car accident attorney knows, it can often be a symptom of a much more serious problem. The gridlock encountered by many who were driving on the 101 on Wednesday morning was a sad reminder that traffic can be more than just a headache for drivers – it can mean a serious injury or loss of life for those involved in the traffic-causing accident.

As the San Francisco Gate reported, all southbound lanes of 101 were closed for several hours Wednesday morning due to a fiery crash. The accident occurred around 5 am, when big-rig carrying cement overturned and caught fire. Several other cars were involved in the accident. One woman who was forced to stop pulled the truck driver out of the vehicle. The truck driver was then taken to San Francisco General Hospital. His condition is currently unknown. It is also unclear if any other drivers were harmed.

Before the highway was reopened, officials had to ensure that all debris had been cleared and that the road was structurally sound. This entailed removing the truck from the road and cleaning up all spilled fuel. In addition, Caltrans engineers were brought in to inspect the elevated freeway and guardrails before the traffic was allowed on the road.

In accidents like this, it is not always clear who is at fault, but those involved can benefit from seeking advice from a San Francisco truck accident lawyer. Investigations can take time and victims may not initially have enough information to determine if a negligence suit is appropriate. But experienced truck crash attorneys know that depending on the nature of items being transported, and what occurred, a variety of liability theories are possible.

For example, if a truck crashes which was carrying certain material, an ultra hazardous activity suit may be appropriate. Ultra hazardous activity liability differs from a negligence liability in that the level of care does not matter. In order to find a breach of duty in a negligence claim, the plaintiff must show that the defendant did not take the proper precautions. In contrast, in an ultra hazardous activity claim, the level of care taken is immaterial. No matter how careful the defendant was, if explosives, radioactive materials or wild animals were involved, the defendant can be strictly liable. For example, imagine the case of a truck driver transporting explosives. If the truck is rear-ended and catches fire, the driver may still responsible for the damages, even if he was not responsible for causing the accident, because the activity of transporting explosives is so dangerous.
Continue Reading ›

Contact Information