Missouri Injury Law Blog

Last year during a snow storm in St. Louis, my client was involved in a truck accident when she was ran off the road by a MoDOT snow plow on Highway I-270 in St Louis county. She was driving her car in the far right hand lane since she was going slow due to the weather. A snow plow came up behind her, sideswiped her car, and then kept on going and left her stranded on the side of the road.

The truck accident left several large orange paint streaks down the side of the victim's car. The pain was the same orange color as the snow plow orange. The reporting officer noted the orange paint and was unable to reach MoDOT for any response. The victim retained our St Louis accident attorneys and we were able to get MoDOt to admit that the snow plow in the area of the accident that night was reported as being damaged on the right side of the snow plow. Damage completely consistent with the auto accident our client reported.

Our client sustained injuries to her neck and back, reported to the emergency room and then followed up with her family doctor and received physical therapy for a few months. The victim fully recovered and incurred about $10,000 in total medical bills. Prior to filing a lawsuit MoDOT agreed to settle the truck injury claim for $85,000.00.

Personally, I was very pleased with the outcome of this case, we were able to get my client all the medical treatment she needed to fully and completely recover and then settle her case for over 8 times the amount of the medical bills without having to file a lawsuit. The victim int his case was a past client of ours, therefore, she knew to contact us immediately after being involved in an auto accident. Retaining an accident lawyer early on in your case is critical to successful and very favorable recoveries.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Alton Illinois cyclist Killed by Semi-Trailer Truck

Truck Accident Causation - Critical Factors

Continue reading "$85,000.00 Settlement against MoDOT for St Louis Snow Plow Collision " »

Recently, St Louis injury law firm Sansone / Lauber secured a $760,000.00 settlement for our client who was sexually assaulted in her apartment. See Defective and Poorly Maintained Security Doors.

The parties involved in the settlement are being kept confidential to protect the identity of our client, however, I can say that the defendant was a St Louis area apartment owner that we maintained had knowledge of the crime levels in the area based on crime statistics available to them and reported crimes at the apartment complex. Despite the levels of crime the property owner allowed the common area security doors to remain in disrepair despite consistent complaints by the tenants.

Unfortunately, as a result of the inoperable security doors, a criminal was able to easily and quickly obtain access to our client's apartment making her an easy target for burglary and sexual assault. Several witnesses testified to the poor conditions and upkeep of the common area security doors as well as the apartment front doors and to the crime level in the neighborhood as well. There were constant complaints to management regarding the conditions and security concerns. Some issues were dealt with for temporary resolution and many issues were simply ignored. Several assaults and robberies took place against tenants and food delivery drivers.

In order to have a claim against a property owner, there must not only be a criminal act that causes injury, you must first establish a legal duty on the property owner to protect you from that criminal act.

ESTABLISHING A LEGAL DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY:

DUTY AS A MATTER OF LAW: Under Aaron v Havens.pdf there is a duty as a matter of law on a landlord to keep the common areas safe. In the Aaron case where a rape occurred after access by the intruder up the fire escape and through an unlocked apartment window the court stated "[i]f a private apartment can be entered through a window, injury to the occupants is foreseeable."

The scope of admissible evidence under Aaron is broad. Therein the Court held: "it is not necessary to allege that past crimes involving entry into unauthorized places are of the same general nature as the one which gave rise to the claim. If a burglar may enter, so may a rapist. To find a duty only the incidence of harm, not necessarily the quantum need be foreseeable."

In our case, we argued the Arron case applied as the building security doors and the apartment front doors were controlled by the owner according to the undisputed testimony of the witnesses. Thus, it is common area and according to Aaron there is a duty as a matter of law. Additionally, in our case the owner breached the duty by providing the locked doors and barely attempting to maintain them through cheap temporary fixes.

DUTY ESTABLISHED BY SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS:

If the duty is not established as a matter of law, a duty can be imposed on a land owner based on special relationships. For a detailed discussion of the special relationships duty see Legal Elements and Issues Related to 3rd Pary Criminal Act Personal Injury cases in Missouri.

RELATED BLOG POSTS:

Missouri Law on Suing a Property Owner for Negligent Security after a Criminal Attack - Assumption of the Duty

Negligent Security - is the Starbucks Tip Jar Lawsuit a Good Case?

Missouri Waiver of Personal Injury From Future Negligence Clauses in Apartment Lease Contracts - Are they Enforceable?

Continue reading "$760,000.00 Settlement - St Louis Negligent Security resulting in Sexual Assault" »

Recently we settled a negligent hydraulic hose repair and thumb injury case pending in Perry County Missouri. The thumb injury occurred as the result of a hydraulic tractor hose that sprung a small leak and shot a very thin and strong stream of hydraulic fluid into my client's thumb. Hydraulic oil injection injuries are deceiving because the injury seems minor at first, however, the hydraulic oil is very toxic and quickly causes injury to spread.

A hydraulic fluid injection injury is probably the most dangerous injury that can result from a hydraulic hose failure. Mainly because the injury appears benign at first, so the injured person often dismisses it and no urgent medical care is sought. Injected hydraulic oil is highly toxic, so in addition to the physical, and often appearing minor, physical cut, the oil literally poisons you.

The most important things to remember: NEVER touch a pressurized hose with your hand and if you suspect an injection injury has occured, get to an emergency room right away!

In our case, the victim was the owner of a tractor. One of the tractor's hydraulic hoses became frayed near the end of the hose. The metal mesh under-layer began to show through the thick rubber outer-layer. The owner became concerned about the integrity of the hose and took it to the local hardware store for replacement. While at the hardware store they told him they could repair the hose rather than replace it, they would cut the frayed part off and reattach the hose connector at the end. The repair was made, however, a few inches of the hose still showed some metal coming through; the hardware store employee insisted it was safe and blew into it using his mouth to show no air was leaking through.

The owner reattached the hydraulic hose and within minutes a very strong and needle thin stream of hydraulic fluid came from the frayed area and shot into the owner's thumb.

The hardware store was liable as they represented themselves as a competent and professional hydraulic hose repair and/or replacement shop. The tractor owner relied on the employee's guarantee that the repair was done correctly, despite his concern.

This was a very unique case as hydraulic injuries resulting on negligent repair are very rare and there is little industry literature or material addressing how hydraulic hoses must be repaired. Therefore, the legal theory was a general negligence claim, no established standards or rules were violated, just what we claimed to be general negligence by the hardware store through its employee.

Continue reading "$250,000.00 Settlement: Hydraulic Fluid Injection Injury resulting from Negligent Hose Repair " »

The general rule in Missouri is that a property owner is not legally responsible for injuries caused from a 3rd party criminal attacker just because the attack occurred on their property. However, in many situations such a duty can be establish through assumption of that duty by the property or business owner. Additionally, other factors and situations can create the duty, subjects for another article. This article focuses of assumption of a duty in Missouri negligent security cases. For information on special relationships and other law on negligent security cases see: Legal Elements and Issues Related to 3rd Pary Criminal Act Personal Injury cases in Missouri - Special Relationship or Circumstances Must Exist

Liability for 3rd Party Criminal Attack through Assumption of the Duty:

Under Missouri law a business or property owner can be legally liable, under a negligent security theory, for injuries resulting from a third party criminal attack if that business or property owner voluntarily assumed the duty to protect its invitees from criminal attacks and did not carry out that assumed duty with reasonable care. The assumption of the duty to provide security under Missouri law was established in 1990 by the Keenan v. Miriam Foundation case, which is still good law today.

Under the Keenan v Miriam Foundation case, a plaintiff does not have to establish prior violent crime as the Defendant assumed the duty, that assumption establishes the duty without prior violent crime, which is only required when the duty is established as a matter of law, not by assumption. Keenan adopted the Restatement 2nd of Torts approach, stating:

"One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person or his things, is subject to liability to the third person or his things, for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking, if

(a) his failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm,
or
(b) he has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person,
or
(c) the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking."

Therefore, even without prior violent crime the property owner knew or should have known about, they can assume the duty to provide security. If they assume that duty they must carry out that duty in a reasonable way.

A current case our injury law firm is handling arises out a of a violent sexual assault in St Louis that occurred at an apartment complex in north county. For background facts of the case see injury law article: Premise Liability - St Louis Missouri - Defective and Unmaintained Security Doors - Rape of woman inside her own apartment. In this case the St Louis apartment complex owner bought the apartment buildings about ten years prior to the assault. The evidence is that when the the property was bought all of the security doors and locks were in good working order and that the owner's intention was to keep them in working order - ASSUMPTION OF THE DUTY! The problem occurred because the owner did not maintain those security doors and locks and allowed the majority of them to go into serious disrepair.

Related Articles:

Missouri Waiver of Personal Injury From Future Negligence Clauses in Apartment Lease Contracts - Are they Enforceable?

$54 Million Verdict - Premises Liability - Security Failure - 3rd Party Criminal Action

Continue reading "Missouri Law on Suing a Property Owner for Negligent Security after a Criminal Attack - Assumption of the Duty" »

The heart of most personal injury claims, especially clear liability motor vehicle accidents, is damages. Damages being economic and non-economic; Economic damage is the amount of money required to compensate the Plaintiff for the out of pocket expenses (i.e. medical bills, future medical costs, medicine, lost wages, etc.) See St Louis Personal Injury Attorney Article: Personal Injury Trials: Proving Damages and Arguments to the Jury About Medical Testimony or Lack Thereof Non-economic damages or "pain and suffering" being the amount to make up for or at least balance the past and future harms and losses that the Plaintiff is suffering. Pain and suffering damages are the most important type of damages as they represent the real personal harms and losses an individual suffers; the daily emotional and physical pain an injury can cause. Reality is their is no magic wand available to take those harms and losses away, so money is the only way we have to compensate and make an individual whole or at least balance the harms with compensation.

In a Missouri auto accident injury claim, can the defense (the auto insurance company) argue to a jury that the victim is not hurt as bad as they say they are because the other driver or passengers in the same vehicle were not hurt as bad? I believe the answer to that is no, however depending on the circumstances, some Judges may allow that evidence in for certain purposes. As an experienced St Louis injury lawyer, I address this issue before trial even starts through a Motion in Limine with the Judge, therefore, the Judge can rule on it before trial starts and not in front of the jury, as by that time the bell has already been rung.

Recently, we dealt with a motorcycle accident head injury case, wherein we represented the hurt passenger and the insurance company tried to claim that since the driver was not injured that the passenger was not injured. Not only does this argument make no sense, the law in Illinois is clear that argument cannot be made in front of a jury. "Generally. the details about the nature and severity of personal injuries to non litigants in automobile cases are not admissible." Martin v. Sally, 341 Ill. App. 3d 308, 318 (2nd Dist. 2003) (refusing to allow testimony regarding passenger injuries) (quoting Keil v. McCormick, 5 Ill. App. 3d 523, 526 (2nd Dist. 1972), concluding that reference in opening statement and subsequent testimony to lack of injuries to the defendant the two occupants of her vehicle, and the occupant of the plaintiffs vehicle was error. The issue involved was the injury to the plaintiff not the fact that the defendant and her passengers, in a different automobile were not injured."). See also, Vujovich v. Chicago Trans. Auth, 6 Ill. App. 2d 115, 126 N.E.2d 731 (1st Dist. 1955).

In J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. v. General Motors Corp, 243 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 2001), the district court excluded evidence of the minor injuries of the driver of the vehicle in which the plaintiff was riding in the front passenger seat. ld. at 445. The plaintiff argued that the driver's injuries proved that the seat of the vehicle in which the plaintiff was riding failed, given the fact that both of the vehicle's occupants were subjected to the same impact. Id. The Eighth Circuit determined that evidence of the driver's injuries was correctly excluded, explaining:

"We cannot say that [the driver's] injuries could be considered either substantially similar evidence or relevant to [the plaintiff's] injuries. First, it was undisputed that [the driver], unlike [the plaintiff], was wearing her seatbelt at the time of the accident. Second, because [the driver] was driving, she was able to anchor herself by grasping the steering wheel, which may have alleviated some of the impact. Moreover, the angle of impact differed between the two occupants leading to the varying degrees of injury."

The court noted that admitting similar-incident evidence "threatens to raise extraneous controversial issues, confuse the issues, and be more prejudicial than probative."

Continue reading "Missouri Trial Evidence in Personal Injury Car Accident Claims: Is Lack of Injury to Other Passenger or Driver Admissible to Discredit Plaintiff's Injuries? " »

A St Louis medical negligence lawsuit we have been working on for several years settled for over $900,000. The injured Plaintiff was seen by a St Louis doctor who performed a cervical nerve root block. See Negligent Pain Injection Lawyer. Within fifteen minutes of the procedure she was left partially paralyzed, fortunately, she has mostly recovered from her paralysis and was able to return to her full time job.

We believe that the negligent doctor caused the partial paralysis by allowing the medicine to invade an artery through a combination of negligent techniques. One, the dosage of the pain medication steroid was double the recommended amount, two, the operative technique was negligent as he failed to use tubing between the syringe and needle to minimize needle movement, and three, the basic placement of the needle prior to the injection was in a dangerous location. See St Louis Medical Malpractice Lawyer Article: "Missouri Medical Negligence - Cervical Pain Injection Hits an Artery - Med Mal causes Depo Medrol to go into Spinal Cord and Brain - Spinal Cord Injury and Brain Injury resulting in Partial Paralysis"

Despite our injured client's neurological deficits, she missed only a few months of work and was able to return to her job full time within months of the spinal cord injury. She incurred about $200,000 in medical bills as a result of the injury and no lost wages. Generally, arterial invasion by a steroid results in devastating injuries and death, our client was lucky that her injuries were relatively minor.

One of the essential requirements to successfully pursuing a medical malpractice lawsuit is retaining a good medical expert. See St Louis Medical Negligence Attorney Article: "Use of Expert Witnesses by Missouri Injury Attorneys to successfully pursue Missouri Injury Claims and Lawsuits" Not only do you need an expert to testify regarding liability or negligence (violation of the medical standard of care), but before a Missouri medical negligence lawsuit can even be filed you must have a certificate of merit under Missouri Statute 538.225 or else the medical malpractice lawsuit will be dismissed. In fact, before retaining our St Louis medical malpractice law firm, our client initially retained another personal injury lawyer, however, they failed to file a certificate of merit and her case was dismissed. Additionally, they decided not to pursue the case after consulting with a medical expert. After we received the file, we immediately retained a well known and qualified expert in the field of diagnostic radiology. In fact, through a little research, we found out the expert the previous attorneys consulted with is a well defense expert, so obviously he talked the case down and immediately defended the negligent doctor.

Medical malpractice cases are time intensive, difficult, and very expensive. Many lawyers claim they handle medical malpractice cases, however few can successfully pursue them with excellent results. Choose your lawyer carefully.

Continue reading "St Louis Medical Malpractice Settlement: $900,000.00 for Spinal Cord Injury after Negligent Pain Injection " »

In April 2008, my client was a passenger on a motorcycle when the driver lost control of the bike and crashed while going around a turn. See St Louis Personal Injury Attorney Article: "Illinois Uninsured Motorcycle Accident Injury - Uninsured Coverage as a matter of Public Policy". We were able to overcome multiple factual and legal hurdles in this case and end up with an excellent result for our injured client.

First major obstacle was that our client was knocked unconscious by the motorcycle crash and the driver, in an obvious attempt to avoid the police, took her to a hospital several hours away where his mom worked as a nurse. Needless to say, the police were never contacted and an incident report was never done. This was a major problem because if the accident is not documented the insurance company will immediately claim it never happened. By the time my firm was contacted, the local Belleville police refused to take a report , claiming they cannot take a report since it had been two months since the accident.

After several months of investigation, we were able to track down the driver of the motorcycle and also identify the owner. The driver was incarcerated and refused to speak with our office. however, through the course of the case we were able to establish that the owner did not have insurance on the motorcycle, and therefore, the driver was an uninsured motorist. This allowed for the claim to be made through our client's uninsured motorist coverage through Shelter Insurance. For a discussion about uninsured (UM) and under-insured (UIM) motorist coverage, see St Louis Car Accident Lawyer article: "Missouri Underinsured and Uninsured Insurance Coverage & Which Policy Applies Mine or the Owner of the Car?"

The issue of uninsured motorist coverage was a little complicated in this case as our client was a Missouri resident and her uninsured motorist coverage was through a Missouri policy which dictated venue and choice of law in Missouri. However, it was more beneficial to have the case in Belleville Illinois, primarily because the likely jurors are more likely to be Plaintiff friendly as opposed to the Missouri venue we may have been forced to be in.

Knowing this, Shelter tried to get the case dismissed and force us to file in Missouri and in their home county, Shelter relied on the Illinois Insurance code that requires that all insurance policies "renewed, delivered, or issued for delivery in this state [Illinois]" contain a mandatory arbitration clause with respect to uninsured motorist claims. See 215 ILCS 5/143a. However, the policy was not renewed or delivered in Illinois, therefore, the mandatory arbitration did not apply; therefore we filed a Response to the Motion to Dismiss and the Judge ruled in our favor and Ordered the case to remain in Illinois by denying Shelter's motion to dismiss.

Initially, our client thought she had a total of $50,000 in Missouri UM coverage, however we were able to identify additional UM coverage through other insured vehicles and raised the UM limit to $150,000 through stacking the polices. For information about stacking UM coverage see St Louis Motorcycle Lawyer article covering Stacking: "St Louis Missouri Motorcycle Accident and Injuries - Driver Inattention and Struck Motorcyclist when Changing Lanes - Uninsured Motorist Claim"

In the end the case settled for $130,000, our client did not expect the case to be worth anywhere near that amount and was very happy with the outcome. This settlement was the result of persistent legal work and investigation to fining all possible theories of liability and insurance coverage available.

St Louis pharmacy and nurse malpractice case settles for $100,000.00. My client suffered injury to his eye, specifically his cornea, as a direct and proximate result of the improper dosage instructions given by Walgreens. Soon after retaining Missouri pharmacy malpractice lawyer, Ben Sansone; it was discovered that the injured client called Walgreens with continued complaints, which were clearly documented by the medical records, yet he was instructed to keep taking the same improper dosage of 1 drop per day. This improperly treated the eye infection which lead to injury to the eye, an injury that would have been avoided had the dosage been properly given.

The key to most Missouri injury cases related to health care malpractice, including pharmacist malpractice, is that you need a doctor to testify regarding causation and negligence. See: Proving Medical Damages in Missouri Injury Cases. Both of the victim's local St Louis Missouri treating eye doctors agreed that the corneal scar/hole was a direct result of the improper dosage that failed to clear up an eye infection. Moreover, they agreed that the injury victim had permanent vision problems that cannot be completely corrected. The vision problems include, wearing glasses only for vision correction (no contacts).

As experienced Missouri accident lawyers, we were able to gather the evidence required to settle this case quickly and before filing a lawsuit. Our client was extremely happy with the result of the case.

Personal Injury Client review:

"Mr. Sansone is a professional lawyer that will keep you abreast of every twist and turn. I have retained other attorneys over the years and Mr. Sansone ranks at the top." - Terry Watson.

Continue reading "Negligent Prescription Filling and Instructions - Missouri Pharmacy Malpractice " »

Recently our St Louis injury law firm, Sansone / Lauber, was retained by a young woman who was the victim of St Louis pharmacist malpractice after receiving the wrong prescription at a local St Louis pharmacy. Our injured client took daily medication for prevention of severe migraines, that medication was negligently refilled with estrogen, which caused serious side effects, including even more severe headaches, a hospital stay, and ongoing medical issues.

The pharmacist was negligent in his duty of care to our client and therefore liable to compensate for the resulting medical damages. Clearly, a pharmacist is responsible for filling the correct medication, that is the main purpose of their job. Missouri State Statute 195.060.1, is very clear on what information is required to be documented on the prescription label. Not only are pharmacies required to have the patients basic vitals, such as: name, address, etc., but also the drug name, strength, dosage directions, among other information.

Currently, Walgreens is involved in a multi-million dollar wrongful death lawsuit for failing to follow these clear directives. A 46 year old man died 36 hours after receiving his prescription, his family's wrongful death attorneys quickly spotted that the dosing instructions were negligently marked on the bottle. As a result, the man accidentally took too much medication which lead to his death.

Missouri medical malpractice cases involving medication errors are more frequent than we hear about. It is mainly because pharmacies, such as Walgreens, Rite Aid, and CVS, are quick to settle these claims to protect their reputations, and quite frankly, these cases speak for themselves. In most Missouri pharmaceutical error cases, it is easy to point the finger directly to the cause of the injury or death. An experienced Missouri Medical Malpractice attorney knows the laws surrounding pharmacy protocols, and can therefore help prove the causation link between prescription error and personal injuries

A few years back I took a St Louis bike accident claim through a jury trial in St Louis County. The case arose from a "right hook" by the driver of the car. See facts of the St Louis bike accident here.

The jury returned a verdict after a few hours of deliberation and found the driver 100% at fault, however, the jury awarded less than the total medical bills submitted, even more baffling was that the medical bills submitted were undisputed. Any skilled St Louis injury trial lawyer would immediately object that the bike injury verdict is inconsistent. How can you find the driver 100% at fault and yet award less then the undisputed damages?

In Douglass v. Safire, 712 S.W.2d 373 (Mo. banc 1986), which involved a Missouri motorcycle collision and injury, the Missouri Supreme Court explicitly held that an inconsistent verdict must be brought to the attention of the trial court before the jury is discharged or the claim of inconsistency is waived. Id. at 374.

We now hold that a claim that a verdict is inconsistent to the point of being self-destructive must be presented to the trial court before the jury is discharged. Otherwise the claim of inconsistency will be held to have been waived. The reason is that, if the point is raised as soon as the verdict is returned, any error is capable of correction by ordering the jury to return for further deliberation. Our holding is in accord with the usual rule that the trial court must be given the opportunity to correct error while correction is still possible.

Being a St Louis area personal injury attorney that has also gone through phases of being an avid cyclist, I have witnessed first hand the hostility towards cyclists on the roads as well as the dislike for cyclists by juries. After the bike accident trial above was over I questioned a few of the jurors and they said the reason they gave less than the undisputed damages was that they felt the cyclist should not have been on the road during that time of day (dawn) or that somehow it was her fault just because she was on the road as a cyclist; remember the jury did find the truck driver 100% at fault. So drivers' general dislike of cyclists did come through in this verdict, a fact a bicycle accident lawyer must be keenly aware of.

The bike accident verdict above was appealed on that ground as well as others, and the case settled during the appeal process.

Continue reading "Making the Proper Objections if a Jury Returns an Inconsistent Verdict - Example from a St Louis Bike Accident Case " »

A few years ago we posted a Missouri wrongful death article about a teenage girl that was needlessly killed as a result of a reckless driver that ran off the road in Jefferson County Missouri. See Jefferson County Wrongful Death Car Accident

The St Louis law firm of Sansone / Lauber represents the family of the victim, and Jefferson county personal injury lawyer, Ben Sansone, has recently filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the at fault driver, Dustin Ray, under Missouri's wrongful death statute naming the minor son and the mother of the victim as Plaintiffs. Missouri Wrongful death Statute about Parties that Can Sue - 537.080

Dustin Ray recently plead guilty to manslaughter charges brought against him as a result of his reckless conduct. Jefferson County Man Pleas Guilty to Manslaughter after Car Crash Resulting in Missouri Wrongful Death of Teenage Girl

The Jefferson county car accident that caused the death of the victim occurred in 2008, however, the wrongful death car collision civil action was not filed in Jefferson County until recently as we decided to wait until the driver plead guilty to the criminal charges. (Jefferson County Wrongful Death Auto Accident Lawsuit) We wanted to avoid the situation where a pending wrongful death lawsuit may have hardened the defendant's negotiating position on the criminal case and potentially forced him to trial on the manslaughter charges, where he could have gotten lucky and been acquitted. The burden of proof in a criminal case is much higher than a civil case, and it only takes one reluctant juror.

By waiting and not pressuring the defendant he has now plead guilty to the charge of manslaughter and cannot deny legal liability in the civil trial, as he as already admitted fault by pleading guilty. See Missouri injury lawyer article about Plea of Guilty and Admissibility into Evidence to Prove Fault.

Continue reading "Defendant Admits Guilt for Wrongful Death of Jefferson County Girl as a Result of his Reckless Driving " »

Currently our St Louis medical malpractice law firm, Sansone / Lauber, is handling multiple Missouri negligent gallbladder removal cases involving laparoscopic procedures known as a "lap-choli". The common theme in these cases is the negligent surgeon's failure to adequately dissect and identify the anatomy of the gallbladder, and the adjacent bile ducts and vascular system before proceeding to clip, cut, and remove.

Recently we were contacted by young Missouri woman who has spent the last several months in the hospital because the negligent lap choli surgeon left surgical clips on her common bile duct creating an "occlusion" or in lay terms, a blockage. See clips left on common bile duct in radiology image to the right. Prior to removing a gallbladder the surgeon must identify and dissect the anatomy in order to confirm the cystic duct, clip and cut it, not the common bile duct.

See Missouri Negligent Gallbladder Removal Surgery Article for Details of Surgery

As always, the negligent Missouri surgeon's operative report was flawless and according to him the original procedure went perfectly, he identified the anatomy properly, did full circumferential dissection of the gallbladder and ducts, separated the cystic artery from the cystic duct, applied two clips to the cystic duct, cut between them, and then removed the gallbladder.

However the post op evidence tells a very different story. The patient suffered symptoms of severe abdominal pain and subsequent testing showed that the surgeon left surgical clips on the common bile duct. See the ERCP test results below from 1 week post lap choli:

Continue reading "Surgical Clips Left on Common Bile Duct by Missouri Surgeon after Gallbladder Removal, Caused Duct Occlusion and Severe Complications for Patient" »

Laparoscopic gallbladder removal or "lap-choli" is the current standard of care for the removal of a gallbladder. Until about 10-15 years ago the accepted method was an open procedure which was more invasive as it required a larger wound and longer recovery. The introduction of the laparoscopic procedure is not without its problems, it requires certain degree of skill and learning and some surgeons simply do not have the proper pedigree to perform these procedures multiple times without eventually running into problems they cannot handle.

Recently, my law firm, Sansone / Lauber, filed a St Louis county lap-choli medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit

About 6 months ago I discussed this St Louis wrongful death case and the specifics of gallbladder procedures and some of the reasons for bad outcomes.

In the St Louis wrongful death case recently filed by my Missouri injury law firm, the primary reason for the horrific outcome and death of my client's father was the simple fact that the negligent surgeon failed to completely and circumferentially dissect the gallbladder and the relevant arteries and bile ducts, confidentially identify them ,and then... and only then... cut what the surgeon thought to be the cystic duct, but was actually the common bile duct and the right hepatic artery, which lead to the death of my client's father. Simply from the failure to take his time and properly identify the anatomy.

Continue reading "Surgeon Negligent During Lap-Choli Procedure leading to St Louis County Wrongful Death Lawsuit" »

On behalf of a decedent's family we have filed a Missouri medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit against a St Louis bariatric surgeon, his resident that performed the surgery, and the St Louis hospital.

Since the 2005 Missouri tort reform bill passed the defense always pleads multiple affirmative defenses relying on several provisions of the tort reform bill. The bill has never been squarely challenged on constitutional grounds as the issue has not become ripe for the Missouri Supreme Court to hear as no case has been appealed to the Supreme Court and needed to be resolved on the constitutional grounds. The closest it has come was in March of 2010, the Klotz case (See Missouri Injury Lawyer Blog Article: Supreme Court Hears Constitutionality of Missouri Damage Caps) was heard by the Supreme Court, however the case was resolved on issues of retroactive application of tort reform, therefore the constitutional issues were not addressed in the opinion. See Missouri Medical Malpractice Awards Constitutional?

In order to try and get this issue to the Supreme Court sooner we have taken the initiative to file a Motion To Strike the Affirmative Defenses relying on tort reform provisions, specifically damage caps. See Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses based on Missouri's 2005 "Tort Reform" Laws Being Unconstitutional

As stated in our Missouri wrongful death lawsuit's Motion to Strike, the Supreme Court Judges have indicated that they would rule the 2005 law unconstitutional, at least in part, by stating:

" write separately to emphasize that the caps on non-economic damages imposed by section 538.210 also violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under article I, section 2 of the Missouri Constitution."

- Judge Tietelman, Klotz, 311 SW 3d at 782

"[T]he legislation, section 538.210, retains the common law action but displaces the finding of the juries with a legislated limitation on damages. [...] This legislated interference impairs the right of trial by jury "as heretofore enjoyed." As such, the right to trial by jury does not "remain inviolate." It is, in fact, violated."

– Judge Wolff, Klotz, 311 SW 3d at 780

Medical Malpractice Law: Illinois Strikes Down Damage Caps as Unconstitutional

Continue reading "Personal Injury Lawyers File a Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses in Missouri Medical Malpractice Lawsuit" »

A recent article, link below, reported a fairly common personal injury lawsuit, an injury caused from a broken or defective chair (Missouri Broken Chair Lawsuit - Sample Petition). In the article below, an injured woman is suing a local store after sustaining a fall when a chair collapsed and caused her serious personal injury. She is alleging negligence against the store and is seeking compensatory damages for her injuries.

As a St Louis Missouri Personal Injury Attorney we make sure we name all responsible and negligent parties and all potential causes of action. In my opinion, the injury lawyer in the article cited below should sue for more than just negligence of the store; but also for strict product liability and negligence against the chair manufacturer as well as a res ipsa claim against the store. (See: Missouri Personal Injury and "Res Ipsa" Claims)

This is similar to a Missouri personal injury – premises liability case our St Louis injury law firm is currently handling involving a broken chair and serious injury to our client's back, hip, and pelvis.

While on a business trip to Kansas City MO, the injured client was attending a seminar at an airport hotel. While sitting down at a table to begin the meeting, the metal chair he sat on immediately collapsed, causing him to fall and sustain severe injury to his hip, pelvis, and back. Moreover, the victim was of below average weight at 160 pounds. See CDC Average Weight Statistics

Our Missouri personal injury attorneys filed a lawsuit against the hotel for negligent maintenance, storage, and inspection. See Our Recent Missouri premise Liability Cases. Additionally, we are making strict product liability claims and negligence claims against the chair manufacturer.

Article: Broken chair lawsuit