Unfortunately, some doctors performing these procedures are not proficient in the laparoscopic techniques, they may do many surgeries without any major complications or medical negligence, however, eventually their lack of skill and risky approach will result in a serious personal injury complication or wrongful death constituting medical malpractice in Missouri and under the medical standard of care.

Biliary injury is the most common reason for medical malpractice in gallbladder removal surgery. This is caused by the surgeons lack of knowledge or attention to the varying anatomy of the gallbladder and the surrounding arteries and ducts.

Prevention of gallbladder removal surgery malpractice from biliary injuries (injury to the bile ducts) requires the doctor to perform meticulous dissection so that only the ducts, arteries,and other structures that have been unequivocally and conclusively identified are divided, clamped, and cut. In my experience as a medical malpractice lawyer in St Louis Missouri, this would prevent most serious complications, injuries, and deaths related to gallbladder removals / lap cholis.

It is well known in the medical community that it is fairly common that different patients arterial and ductal anatomy will vary, and thus a doctor cannot "shoot from the hip" and do a simple quick dissection and cut the first duct that appears to by the cystic duct. It is medical malpractice when this approach leads to the cutting or serious injury of the common bile duct or hepatic artery, which can lead to the wrongful death or serious personal injury of the patient.

Currently our St Louis Personal Injury / Medical Malpractice Law Office is handling Gallbladder Removal Malpractice and Wrongful Death Cases - If you need a Personal Injury Lawyer in St Louis Missouri please call Personal Injury Lawyer Ben Sansone (314) 726-1817.

Essentially, surety bonds are three-party agreements between a surety company, a principal (the entity doing the work) and the obligee (the entity requiring the bond). Surety bonds help ensure that all applicable laws and regulations are followed, and act as a way to seek economic redress for those harmed.

Since both plaintiffs and defendants can appeal a decision, any party may be subject to purchasing a bond required for an appeal. Surety and insurance companies sell surety bonds in Missouri, and act as third parties between the court and appealing party. Most importantly, they guarantee that the court will be paid for the original judgment if the appeal fails. The cost depends on the first ruling of the court, and likely will cost the amount from that ruling plus interest and court costs.

Appeal bonds also protect the legal system in another way. When a party cannot pay a court-ordered sum, filing for an appeal gives them time. But filing an appeal that is time consuming but sure to be unsuccessful loses its luster thanks to appeal bonds. With the added cost of appealing and the original judgment fees, appeal bonds keep defendants and plaintiffs from filing useless appeals.

For example, when a defendant in a personal injury law case loses the judgment and owes a large sum to the plaintiff, they might consider filing an appeal simply to postpone paying the court-ordered amount. To file the appeal, the defendant must buy an appeal bond from surety. If the appeal is unsuccessful, the defendant must then pay the sum defined by the first proceeding and additional fees for the filing an appeal.

The party for whom the court ruled in favor gets a cushion from appeal bonds, too. If a losing party goes bankrupt during the appeals process—and therefore cannot pay its legal debts—the appeal bond ensures recompense to the winning party. If the defendant goes belly up while the court considers the appeal, the plaintiff still receives its payment as mandated by the appeal bond.
--
GUEST AUTHOR: Matt Bruns - matthew@suretybonds.com

Causes of Recent Increases in Motorcycle Injury Frequency

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, motorcycle accidents accounted for 13% of all traffic fatalities in 2007, and over 36,000 motorcyclists were killed between 1998 and 2007. Between 2000 and 2010, the percentage of traffic fatalities resulting from motorcycle accidents has risen by 123%. This drastic change can be explained by several factors:

• Increased popularity and purchase of motorcycles
• Heavier traffic in urban areas due to population increase
• Riding a motorcycle without DMV endorsement
• Drinking and riding
• More warm (motorcycle-friendly) weather throughout the year.

Prevention of Motorcycle-Related Injuries

Like car accidents, motorcycle injuries and fatalities can be prevented when riders make the effort to adhere to some simple safety principles. Motorcycle riders can:

• Be conspicuous with clothing and reflectors on bikes
• Ride defensively by keeping an eye out for potential risks posed by other vehicles
• Keep alcohol out of the equation
• Avoid speeding and exercise extra caution on undivided highways.

Since over half of motorcycle fatalities involve passenger vehicles, the general population of automobile drivers should also take responsibility for the rise in motorcycle injuries. It’s easy to brush off motorcycles because of their relatively small size, but they do share the road with passenger vehicles and must be treated as such. Motorists can help prevent motorcycle personal injuries by watching for motorcycles and by actively recognizing them as motor vehicles.

Steps to Resolution of Motorcycle Injury Issues

If you’re a motorcycle rider and have been unfortunately involved in an accident, there is help available to you. Many personal injury attorneys, including St Louis Injury Lawyer, Ben Sansone, have substantial experience with a variety of cases, including motorcycle accidents.

The U.S. government is also taking steps toward resolving the motorcycle injury issue, as reflected in Department of Transportation Action Plan to Reduce Motorcycle Fatalities, released in October of 2007. This plan introduces new national safety and training standards, measures to prevent counterfeit helmet labeling, a focus on motorcycle-specific road improvements, training for law enforcement officers to help them spot unsafe riders, and a broader public awareness campaign on motorcycle safety.

The government’s decision to address the increasingly urgent motorcycle injury issue with practical measures is a growing source of support for individual motorcycle riders. Causes of these injuries are being used to create prevention solutions with an ultimate goal of resolution.

Bio: Alexis Bonari is a freelance writer and blog junkie. She is currently a resident blogger at onlinedegrees.org, researching areas of online degree programs. In her spare time, she enjoys square-foot gardening, swimming, and avoiding her laptop.

At some point in the afternoon, while my St Louis personal injury client was walking out of the front door of the house, a negligent roofer threw a long and heavy “toe board” from the tall second story roof, that board speared my client directly in the head, giving rise to serious injuries and a St Louis Missouri personal injury claim as well as a Missouri worker's compensation claim. The toe board is heavy, 14 feet long, and consists of two 2x4s tacked together, the carpenter immediately suffered severe personal injury, collapsed to the ground in a pool of blood, and went into seizures.

See pictures below depicting the hard hat, toe board, and area of the house showing how high up the roof is.

My personal injury client suffered a severe head and neck injury, has ongoing post traumatic brain injury symptoms, and had several teeth knocked out requiring a dentist and oral surgeon. The carpenter's medical bills for treatment of his injuries are $66,070.

Allen Roofing and the roofer are liable for these injuries. The roofer negligently and recklessly tossed the toe board without any consideration for where it would land and who would be there. The carpenter was walking out the front door where a walkway path of plywood sheets was clearly marked and any reasonable person would expect people to walk on a construction site. Moreover, there were multiple other area the toe boards could have been dropped, as opposed to recklessly thrown, in the back and on the sides of the house where walkways were not established.

In addition to the claim against the roofer, my St Louis personal injury client also had a St Louis Missouri Work Comp claim as the injury sustained occurred at work. The St Louis work comp insurance carrier paid total benefits of just under $100,000.

The 3rd party personal injury claim against the roofer and his employer settled for $400,000.00 and thus a combined St Louis personal injury and worker's compensation settlement of just under $500,000.00.

The St Louis bicyclist suffered from bruises and abrasions and a dislocated shoulder. He received medial treatment at the emergency room and had to undergo shoulder surgery to repair a torn labium.

The cyclist's total medical bills we about $40,000 and he missed several months of work causing about $20,000 in lost wages.

In this case, St Louis personal injury lawyer Ben Sansone was able to make claims under multiple insurance policies which allowed him to secure several settlements for the personal injury victim of the St Louis bike accident totaling in excess of $200,000.00.

Extensive experience in the Personal injury field in crucial for investigating and seeking out all potential insurance policies that may cover an injury. Oftentimes many people stop with just the first policy. CONTACT: St Louis Missouri Personal Injury Law Firm - Sansone Law at (314) 726-1817

Recently, Jack Eigles was convicted of three counts of Felony invasion of privacy and sentenced to 120 days shock jail time, 5 years probation, with 4 years jail time possible if he fails to complete probation. See Article Detailing Plea and what transpired in court

St Louis West County Journal Article discussing St Louis Personal Injury Lawyer Ben Sansone's involvement with the civil case.

Above is a map showing each state’s current ban on text messaging while operating a motor vehicle. As you can see, more states are restricting all phone use while driving. 23 states and the District of Columbia ban all drivers from texting, while only 8 states ban novice drivers to use their phones for any purpose – talking or texting. Novice drivers are defined as younger than 18 or 21 years of age, depending on the individual state.

One of the largest personal injury wrongful death verdicts in a texting-while-driving wrongful death case was handed down in Texas. The defendant made 7 phone calls and sent 15 text messages during a span of 45 minutes before the accident took place. As a Missouri personal injury attorney firm, we are glad to see this ban happen. The family of the auto accident wrongful death victim is hoping to use this incident as a platform to make texting while driving illegal in the state of Texas. As you can see from the map above, they already have some restrictions on this – mainly directed towards novice drivers.

Missouri is currently one of the 8 states to have a ban on texting while driving for drivers 21 years of age or younger. If caught, they will be charged and given a fine not to exceed $200. Missouri is also working on a new bill (HB1202) that was first introduced in December of 2009. This bill will ban all drivers – no matter the age – of texting or talking on cell phones, without a hands free device, while driving on a paved road. As the bill reads, “A violation of this section shall be deemed an infraction and shall be deemed a moving violation for purposes of point assessment under section 302.302, RSMo.” The fine will also be $200. The only exceptions to this law would be if a driver is dialing a number in preparation of making a phone call or setting a GPS feature on the phone. Also, the provisions will not apply to a person operating:

(1) A motor vehicle on a private or public gravel road;
(2) An authorized emergency vehicle; or
[(2)] (3) A moving motor vehicle while using a hand-held electronic wireless communications device to:
(a) Report illegal activity;
(b) Summon medical or other emergency help;
(c) Prevent injury to a person or property; or
(d) Relay information between a transit or for-hire operator and that operator's dispatcher, in which the device is permanently affixed to the vehicle.
The bill has been referred to Public Safety and has yet to be calendared for a hearing. The proposed effective date is August 8, 2010. Rep. Jeff Roorda, D-Barnhart is in favor of the proposed revised law. However, as he stated, "The current law is incredibly subjective. Not only does (did) an officer have to look at a moving vehicle and determine whether the driver is 21 years of age or younger, but they must also determine if the device is being used for a prohibited or allowable use."

While it is clear that texting while driving is extremely dangerous, do we really need to add another law that will be almost impossible to enforce? Here are a few that keep Missouri’s finest quite busy implementing and kinda cover the effects of texting while driving: failure to drive in a single lane, improper passing, impeding the flow of traffic, following too close, failure to stop at stop sign, speeding, and so on ad nauseum – not to mention vehicular manslaughter charges. The Missouri Revised Statue 304.012. states, “Every person operating a motor vehicle on the roads and highways of this state shall drive the vehicle in a careful and prudent manner and at a rate of speed so as not to endanger the property of another or the life or limb of any person and shall exercise the highest degree of care”. Any person who violates this provision is guilty of a class B misdemeanor, unless an auto accident is involved, then is becomes a class A misdemeanor.

It was difficult enough to enforce when the law was directed to young adults under the age of 22 – some lucky souls just have good genes and look young. But now, with the exceptions like: dialing a phone number to make a call; receiving a call; and setting GPS locators, make it nigh impossible to make such a discretionary decision on the road. Why does texting-while driving wrongful death cases deserve more headlines, more punishment, and implementation of a new law than say….application of makeup-while driving being the basis for a wrongful death case? They both, technically, fall under the same definition and should be tried the same.

The second case, Edith C. Deck v. Delmar Teasley, SC90628, deals with an issue we have discussed in this Missouri injury law blog before regarding the amount of medical bills admissible as damages at trial; the amount billed by health care providers or the reduced amount an insurer pays to satisfy the bill. Again, this is a constitutional argument of a right to a trial by jury.

There is much more to this case than what is divulged in the different articles written about this. However, it is apparent that the defense had a good hand delivered to them and played it well. From the aces literally handed to them from the Plaintiff’s attorney during the trial, to the doctor’s sleight of hand, and finally the Circuit Court of Appeals decisions, the defense bluffed their way to a $2.4 million win that was justly due to the deceased’s family.

I encourage you to read this wrongful death decision and realize just another reason why you need to find an experienced and skilled Missouri personal injury attorney to represent you in a wrongful death case. It distresses me that the case I mentioned above was lost because of “bad lawyering” or inexperience. Sometimes a “friend-of-a-friend” or the guy that helped you out of a speeding ticket isn’t your safest bet.

The disparity in our system that the current law forces upon use is best described by Supreme Court Justice Teitelman's words in opining the law is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the constitution:

"The caps operate on a perverse irony -- those with relatively minor injuries are permitted full recovery, while the most severely injured among us are denied. It is difficult to conceive of the necessity of a health care policy that expressly relies on discrimination against the small number of unfortunate individuals who suffer the most debilitating, painful, lifelong disabilities as a result of medical negligence."

Earlier this year, a case finally made its way to the Missouri Supreme Court, while the case had many issues for the court to decide, one important potential issue was the constitutionality of Missouri medical malpractice caps on non-economic damages. See Missouri injury lawyer blog article: "Missouri Supreme Court Hears Constitutionality of Missouri Medical Malpractice Non-Economic Damage Caps".

The court found that the Missouri non-economic medical malpractice damage caps did not apply to the particular case because the case was initially filed prior to the new law becoming effective. Therefore, the issue of Missouri medical malpractice damage caps could not be addressed as the issue was resolved on the non-retroactive application of the law. See the Missouri Supreme Court opinion in Klotz v. St Anthony's Medical Center.

However, two of the Missouri Supreme Court Judges wrote concurring opinions wherein they addressed the constitutionality of the Missouri medical malpractice damage caps. While these opinions are not binding in this case, this sends a signal as to how the Missouri Supreme Court may rule on a future case wherein the issue will be reached.

Judge Wolff wrote a detailed and brilliant opinion that the caps violate the constitutional right to a trial by Jury. A very short excerpt:

"There is a fundamental flaw in the legislated limits on jury verdicts in section 538.210, which is well known but which is not addressed in today's opinion. And so, I take the liberty to write individually to explain the issue that the court one day will have to confront – that the limit on a jury's determination of damages violates the constitutional guarantee in article I, section 22(a) that "the right of trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate."

I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read the entire concurring opinion written by Judge Wolff. See Klotz v St Anthony's Concurring Opinion of Judge Wolff Starting on Page 29 of the .pdf file.

Additionally, Judge Teitelman concurred with Judge Wolff's opinion that the caps violate the right to a trial by jury and added that it also violates the equal protection clause. Again, I encourage anyone interested in this to read the full opinion. I used one of his excerpts above, additionally, another important excerpt:

"There are two more subtle but no less pernicious side effects to caps in this case. In addition to disadvantaging the most seriously injured, the impacts of the caps will fall disproportionately on the young and economically disadvantaged. Young people, because they will have to live with their injuries and disabilities the longest, bear the brunt of section 538.210. Similarly, those with generally more limited economic prospects -- the poverty-stricken, the physically and mentally disabled, single mothers, wounded veterans, the elderly, and others -- are impacted disproportionately by the arbitrary limits on non-economic damages."

It is a difficult reality when I, as a personal injury lawyer, have to tell potential clients that I cannot pursue a medical negligence case for the death of an elderly parent because the only possible recovery is the damage caps, simply because that person was no longer working and oftentimes the value the law puts on their life is limited to that $350,000. While that is a lot of money in most circumstances, in the context of the value of a life and the expense of bringing a Missouri medical malpractice lawsuit, that the insurance company will fight to the end, that makes the case economically infeasible to pursue due to the time and expense required. The result .... less legal action, less accountability, less fear of neglect begets more neglect and injury.

We currently represent one of the victims of this alleged crime and are pursuing a civil case against Jack Eigles and several other defendants on her behalf. This is a truly bizarre and twisted set of facts, my client was horrified to learn that she was on these detailed tapes; she said she feels like she has been raped.

We are pursuing compensatory damages as well as punitive damages on behalf of our client.

St Louis Missouri Personal Injury Lawsuit - Petition for Damages

KSDK News Story - Chesterfield man, Jack Eigles, allegedly secretly videotaped women using bathroom

Channel 2 News - Chesterfield man, Jack Eigles, allegedly videotaped women in bathroom

St Louis Post Dispatch Article - Chesterfield Businessman Jack Eigles allegedly set up video cameras in bathroom

St Louis Riverfront Times Article - Jack Eigles Charged with Videotaping Women in Bathroom

As St Louis injury attorneys, we have handled multiple cases involving Missouri and Illinois product liability, Missouri and Illinois failure to warn lawsuits, and injury lawsuits because of unsafe toys or when toys are used in a way that is foreseeable and not warned about.

Missouri injury lawsuit - Dangerous Toy - Severe Personal Injury

Illinois wrongful death lawsuit - Dangerous Machine Product - Workplace Injury / Death

St Louis Personal Injury Lawsuit - Dangerous Toy caused Eye Injury

Illinois product liability lawyer filed lawsuit - Dangerous Product

In August 2008 our Missouri personal injury client, Britney, sustained a major injury to her eye as a result of a Juggling Disc that was thrown to her.

Primary legal liability under Missouri personal injury law is for Missouri defective product design and failure to warn in context with the way the toy was marketed. Basically, the "toy" is actually a set of professional juggling discs which are very rigid and not appropriate for beginners and especially not children. however, they are marketed in the toy section of stores and no warnings or age appropriateness is given.

Her right eye suffered severe trauma and eventually will die and likely be removed and require a transplant. Her eye injuries included: Cornea damage (will require transplant); Iris damage (will require transplant); Pupil Damage; Large loss of Vitreous fluid; Severe damage to the Sclera (the outside of the eye) requiring 36 stitches. Stitches at the rear of the Sclera will remain permanent.

Sympathetic Ophthalmic conditions may occur where the good eye overworks itself into blindness or chronic pain may result in the eye removal procedure labeled Ocular Prosthesis. If these conditions do not exist then a procedure is used to fit a Scleral shell over the Scleral to cover a blind and/or unsightly eye.

Due to the eye injury and retinal detachment Brittney’s restrictions are as follows:
• She must lie at a 45-degree angle most of her waking day.
• She must lie at a 45-degree angle during sleeping hours.
• She must not lift anything over 10 pounds.
• She must not bend over. (Tie shoes, pick up dropped objects, scratch her legs etc.)
• Laxatives are taken to reduce the internal eye pressure during bowel movements.
• Sneezing needs to be kept to a minimum to reduce internal eye pressure.
• She must not care for her 3-year-old son, at this time due, to her aforementioned restrictions. This may have to continue for some time.
• She must have family administer her medications.
• She must have family bath her to insure the eye does not get wet.
• Driving is off limits.
• College has been postponed until further notice
• Work is no longer an option due to here 10 pound lift orders.

Brittney is a 21-year-old beautiful young lady. She, like most, is very conscience of her appearance. She is also very conscience of the fact that her eyesight may not return. Counseling to overcome this tragedy will take years to overcome. We are currently contacting specialists and blind and semi blind youth groups/organizations that specialize in this kind of mental trauma. She seems to be mentally stable at times then depression sets in which promotes sadness

This Missouri work comp claim resulted from a work place injury wherein the employee fell from a first story roof. For details see: Previous Missouri Injury Lawyer Blog Entry - Missouri Work Comp Claim

Sample of other Work Comp Settlements obtained by St Louis personal injury lawyer Ben Sansone:

$500,000.00 Settlement in Illinois Work Comp Claim - Fall from Water Tower

$32,500 - Post Traumatic Stress - Employee saw coworker die - Illinois Work Comp

$90,000 - St Louis Work Comp Claim - Broken Tibia

Of course, the AMA and other tort reform groups immediately criticize the decision as damaging the quality and access to health care for all. It is easy to deny victims justice through "tort reform" until you have been one, I guarantee, none of those proponents have ever had a family member or close friend who has been a victim of malpractice, because their tune would change very quickly.

The Court made a very logical and reasonable decision concluding that the caps violated the separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution because the legislature cannot make case-by-case determinations, separations of powers concerns would be violated by the “legislative attempt to mandate legal conclusions.”

There are already mechanisms to prevent frivolous lawsuits and excessive awards through judiciary powers on a case by case basis, they are called, motions to dismiss, summary judgments, a jury, remittitur, etc ...

The courts are constitutionally empowered, and indeed obligated, to reduce excessive verdicts where appropriate in light of the evidence adduced in a particular case. But reducing damages by operation of law, without regard to the specific circumstances, is unconstitutional. Quite frankly, many legislators and tort reform groups will not be happy until medical malpractice cases are completely barred, which is one of the main purposes behind the caps.