Personal Injury

Lawsuits Begin to Roll in Against Florida Nursing Home After Irma-Related Deaths

October 24, 2017 | by Slappey & Sadd, LLC

At least four lawsuits have been filed against a nursing home in Florida that was the site of eleven deaths in the wake of Hurricane Irma. The facility, known as the Rehabilitation Center of Hollywood Hills in Hollywood, Florida, lost power during Hurricane Irma, which subsequently knocked out the facility’s air conditioning. All victims of the tragedy are believed to have died from heat-related conditions or from existing conditions that were exacerbated by excessive heat.

The first lawsuit, filed by the family of 94-year-old Rosa Cabrera, is based in negligence and seeks unspecified damages. Cabrera, a diabetic with weight problems, had her left leg amputated last year and her right leg amputated in March of this year, just one month before she was placed in the nursing home. In their lawsuit, the Cabrera family said that, as a double amputee, she suffered injury, pain, and distress inflicted by the center’s staff, who should have known that she could not care for herself or escape the “horrific conditions” at the nursing home. Stuart Grossman, the Cabreras’s attorney, said that Cabrera was assured by the rehab center’s staff that she would be safe from the storm as Hurricane Irma approached Florida. Instead, the home placed her in unnecessary danger that could have cost her her life. He said that the center’s conduct far surpasses a failure to meet a standard of care because Cabrera was forced to endure unbearable heat when the staff did not immediately respond to the escalating medical emergency.

The nursing home, which has had its operating license suspended since the incident and is under criminal investigation by state and federal regulators, has defended its procedures before, during, and after the storm. In a timeline, the center said that two Florida Power and Light (FPL) transformers—one that powers the building’s life safety systems and the second the air-conditioning chiller—flickered and came back on on the afternoon of September 10th during the storm, but then the power to the AC chiller went down and did not come back online. Nursing home operators said they contacted FPL, state regulators, and even Governor Rick Scott’s cell phone, but received no assistance. They said the staff set up 10 spot coolers and fans on the first and second floors, and eventually obtained additional spot coolers from Memorial Regional Hospital, across the street.But the rehab center’s administrator also admitted in the timeline that they did not call 911 to deal with the medical emergency and failing patients until 1:30 a.m. on September 13th, three days after the air conditioner went down. Five patients had already suffered cardiac arrest or respiratory distress by 4:45 a.m. on that day.

Woman Claims Starbucks Hot Tea Spill Scalded Her and Killed Her Dog

October 20, 2017 | by Slappey & Sadd, LLC

A Colorado woman has filed a lawsuit against Starbucks, claiming that an employee improperly served her a cup of hot tea at a drive-through window, which caused the tea to spill, severely burning her and killing her dog, who was in the car at the time.

The plaintiff, Deanna Salas-Solano, is seeking more than $75,000 in damages from the coffee company, according to the complaint her lawyers filed in the US District Court for the District of Colorado. The incident occurred in September of 2015, when Salas-Solano visited the drive-through window of a Denver Starbucks and ordered a Venti hot tea. According to her complaint, she did not specify that she wanted her drink extra hot. When the Starbucks employee handed her the cup of tea, its lid was not secured, it lacked a hot-cup sleeve, and it was not double-cupped, which is Starbucks’s standard procedure for serving hot tea. The complaint also alleges that the beverage was unreasonably hot. Once she took the cup of tea into her hands, the hot temperature began to burn them, the complaint states. Hot tea then began to spill out of the cup through the unsecured lid and onto her body, which caused her clothing to melt. The tea caused severe burns to Salas-Solano, which caused her to experience intense pain on her stomach, legs, and lap.

Possibly the most disturbing aspect of the incident concerns the plaintiff’s dog. When Salas-Solano began to scream and writhe in pain after the tea spilled, her dog, Alexander, jumped into her lap and caused the rest of the tea to spill onto his body. The dog was then taken to an emergency veterinarian, and died shortly after form injuries caused by the hot tea. Salas-Solano was also taken to a hospital, where she was treated for severe burns and, the following day, underwent skin-graft surgery for “2% total body surface area second-degree burn injury to the abdomen and bilateral thighs,” according to the lawsuit. She has since reportedly suffered permanent scarring, loss of feeling and emotional distress, among other things, the suit states.

Is it Possible to Recover for Purely Emotional Damages?

October 16, 2017 | by Slappey & Sadd, LLC

When most people think of personal injury lawsuits, they probably imagine that the plaintiff is suing to recover for physical injuries. While the vast majority of injuries for which most plaintiffs seek recovery are physical, not all of them are. Occasionally, a plaintiff has suffered from emotional injury so severe that he or she may be entitled to legal recovery. There are two situations in which a plaintiff may be able to recover for purely emotional damages with no corresponding physical damages. They are:

Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and
Negligent infliction of emotional distress (NEID)

Investigators Fault Driver in Tesla Autopilot Crash

October 13, 2017 | by Slappey & Sadd, LLC

The latest automotive technology—driverless vehicles—promises a world where accidents caused by human error are a thing of the past. Several companies, most notably Tesla, have made great strides towards bringing this future into reality, but, as of 2017, we are not quite there yet. Most vehicles equipped with self-driving technology sold today are what are known as semi-autonomous vehicles, in which a human driver is still the primary operator of the vehicle, but the vehicle can assist the driver with a variety of tasks, including automatic braking, self-parking, and lane detection. While these technologies are a promising start toward completely autonomous vehicles, they still have their limitations, which were tragically illustrated last year when an inattentive driver’s over-reliance on his Tesla Model S sedan’s semi-autonomous driving system caused a deadly crash.

Joshua Brown, 40, was traveling on a divided highway near Gainesville, Florida using the Tesla’s automated driving system known as Autopilot when a truck driver made a left-hand turn in front of him. The vehicle did not recognize the oncoming truck, which resulted in a fatal collision. Tesla stated that it told drivers of the Model S vehicle that the automated systems should only be used on limited-access highways where there are no vehicles suddenly turning into the car’s path. Despite this warning, however, the company did not incorporate protections against using Autopilot on other types of roads.

The Model S is a level 2 on a self-driving scale of 0 to 5. Level 5 vehicles can operate autonomously in nearly all circumstances. Level 2 automation systems are generally limited to use on interstate highways, which don’t have intersections. Drivers are supposed to continuously monitor vehicle performance and be ready to take control if necessary. In its investigation of the Brown accident, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that the car’s cameras and radar weren’t capable of detecting a vehicle turning into its path. Rather, the systems are designed to detect vehicles they are following to prevent rear-end collisions.Investigators also found that Brown had his hands on the car’s steering wheel for only 25 seconds out of the 37.5 minutes the vehicle’s cruise control and lane-keeping systems were in use prior to the crash. As a result, Brown’s attention wandered and he did not see the truck turning into his path.

How Employers Can be Liable for Workplace Violence

October 9, 2017 | by Slappey & Sadd, LLC

In the summer of 2009, a man walked into an Old Navy store in downtown Chicago where his girlfriend worked, pulled out a gun, shot her to death, and then killed himself. Police called the incident a “domestic dispute.” Not only did Old Navy have to deal with the public relations nightmare the incident caused, the family of the murdered employee soon filed a lawsuit against the company. The suit alleges that the shooting could have been prevented and that store management knew of threats against the employee and failed to act. It also alleged that the store’s security measures were outdated because the boyfriend was able to enter the store through a private employee entrance and then gain access to a restricted employee area, where he committed the murder-suicide.

Incidents of workplace violence such as this one have become an increasingly problematic phenomenon in recent decades. According the bureau of Labor Statistics, 11,613 people were killed between 1992 and 2006 in incidents of workplace violence. On average, 1.7 million people are victims of violent crime while working or on duty in the United States every year, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) defines workplace violence as “any physical assault, threatening behavior, or verbal abuse occurring in the work setting.” The workplace can be any location “where an employee performs any work-related duty.” This includes buildings, parking lots, clients’ homes, and travel to and from work assignments.While it would seem that the blame for workplace violence would most naturally fall on the perpetrators, employers also face various legal liabilities when their employees or customers are victims.

There are several methods by which an employer can be held liable for incidents of workplace violence, outlined below.

Woman Claims Starbucks Hot Tea Spill Scalded Her and Killed Her Dog

October 3, 2017 | by Slappey & Sadd, LLC

A Colorado woman has filed a lawsuit against Starbucks, claiming that an employee improperly served her a cup of hot tea at a drive-through window, which caused the tea to spill, severely burning her and killing her dog, who was in the care at the time.

The plaintiff, Deanna Salas-Solano, is seeking more than $75,000 in damages from the coffee company, according to the complaint her lawyers filed in the US District Court for the District of Colorado. The incident occurred in September of 2015, when Salas-Solano visited the drive-through window of a Denver Starbucks and ordered a Venti hot tea. According to her complaint, she did not specify that she wanted her drink extra hot. When the Starbucks employee hander her the cup of tea, its lid was not secured, it lacked a hot-cup sleeve, and it was not double-cupped, which is Starbucks’s standard procedure for serving hot tea. The complaint also alleges that the beverage was unreasonably hot. Once she took the cup of tea into her hands, the hot temperature began to burn them, the complaint states. Hot tea then began to spill out of the cup through the unsecured lid and onto her body, which caused her clothing to melt. The tea caused severe burns to Salas-Solano, which caused her to experience intense pain on her stomach, legs, and lap.

Possibly the most disturbing aspect of the incident concerns the plaintiff’s dog. When Salas-Solano began to scream and writhe in pain after the tea spilled, her dog, Alexander, jumped into her lap and caused the rest of the tea to spill onto his body. The dog was then taken to an emergency veterinarian, and died shortly after form injuries caused by the hot tea. Salas-Solano was also taken to a hospital, where she was treated for severe burns and, the following day, underwent skin-graft surgery for “2% total body surface area second-degree burn injury to the abdomen and bilateral thighs,” according to the lawsuit. She has since reportedly suffered permanent scarring, loss of feeling and emotional distress, among other things, the suit states.

Missouri Supreme Court Upholds Damages Award of Nearly $40 Million in Depakote Lawsuit

September 29, 2017 | by Slappey & Sadd, LLC

The Supreme Court of Missouri recently upheld a jury’s award of $38 million to a girl born with spina bifida after her mother took the epilepsy drug Depakote, manufactured by Abbott Labs. The court ruled that there was evidence Abbott knew the birth defect risk surpassed what it listed on the drug’s warning label. The seven-member court voted unanimously to affirm a St. Louis jury’s award, including $23 million in punitive damages, to 14-year-old Maddison Schmidt on her claims that Abbott Labs failed to warn about the risk of birth defects posed by Depakote.

In its nine-page opinion, the court rejected Abbott’s argument that the Depakote label provided an adequate warning as a matter of law, stating that, even if the warning was in the proper form and contained the right type of information, it failed in its most fundamental test—to be complete and accurate so as not to mislead consumers. The court also noted that while Depakote’s label stated that use of antiepileptic drugs could increase the risk of birth defects, and that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had estimated the risk of spina bifida was one or two percent — but that Schmidt presented evidence that Abbott was aware of multiple studies showing the risk of birth defects was 10 percent or greater, and that the risk of spina bifida was even higher. “As Depakote’s label did not reflect this relevant information, a reasonable inference could be drawn from this evidence that Abbott’s arming was not complete and accurate and, therefore, did not adequately warn,” the court wrote in its opinion.

This ruling is only the latest in a string of legal and regulatory setbacks for Abbott Labs. In 2008, the FDA issued a safety alert regarding antiepileptic drugs such as Depakote. The FDA warned that patients who take antiepileptic drugs may have an increased risk for suicidal thoughts and behavior. The FDA subsequently required drug manufacturers to update their prescription labels to include a warning about this risk.Then, in 2013, the FDA issued another safety alert regarding Depakote and other valproate drugs, warning that, because these types of drugs are associated with lower IQs in children, pregnant women should not take them for the presentation of migraines. In addition, the FDA advises that pregnant women who are being treated for epilepsy or manic episodes associated with bipolar disorder should only take valproate drugs in instances in which the benefits of the drugs outweigh the risks of birth defects.

Lawsuits Begin to Roll in Against Florida Nursing Home After Irma-Related Deaths

September 28, 2017 | by Slappey & Sadd, LLC

At least four lawsuits have been filed against a nursing home in Florida that was the site of eleven deaths in the wake of Hurricane Irma.The facility, known as the Rehabilitation Center of Hollywood Hills in Hollywood, Florida, lost power during Hurricane Irma, which subsequently knocked out the facility’s air conditioning. All victims of the tragedy are believed to have died from heat-related conditions or from existing conditions that were exacerbated by excessive heat.

The first lawsuit, filed by the family of 94-year-old Rosa Cabrera, is based in negligence and seeks unspecified damages. Cabrera, a diabetic with weight problems, had her left leg amputated last year and her right leg amputated in March of this year, just one month before she was placed in the nursing home. In their lawsuit, the Cabrera family said that, as a double amputee, she suffered injury, pain, and distress inflicted by the center’s staff, who should have known that she could not care for herself or escape the “horrific conditions” at the nursing home. Stuart Grossman, the Cabreras’s attorney, said that Cabrera was assured by the rehab center’s staff that she would be safe from the storm as Hurricane Irma approached Florida. Instead, the home placed her in unnecessary danger that could have cost her her life. He said that the center’s conduct far surpasses a failure to meet a standard of care because Cabrera was forced to endure unbearable heat when the staff did not immediately respond to the escalating medical emergency.

The nursing home, which has had its operating license suspended since the incident and is under criminal investigation by state and federal regulators, has defended its procedures before, during, and after the storm. In a timeline, the center said that two Florida Power and Light (FPL) transformers—one that powers the building’s life safety systems and the second the air-conditioning chiller—flickered and came back on on the afternoon of September 10th during the storm, but then the power to the AC chiller went down and did not come back online. Nursing home operators said they contacted FPL, state regulators, and even Governor Rick Scott’s cellphone, but received no assistance. They said the staff set up 10 spot coolers and fans on the first and second floors, and eventually obtained additional spot coolers from Memorial Regional Hospital, across the street.But the rehab center’s administrator also admitted in the time line that they did not call 911 to deal with the medical emergency and failing patients until 1:30 a.m. on September 13th, three days after the air conditioner went down. Five patients had already suffered cardiac arrest or respiratory distress by 4:45 a.m. on that day.

Court Upholds $41.7 Million Verdict for Student Disabled by Tick Bite on School Trip

September 27, 2017 | by Slappey & Sadd, LLC

The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that a student who was permanently disabled by a tick bite while on a school trip to China is entitled to $41.7 million in damages. The court stood by the proposition that schools are obligated to warn students and parents about risk exposures for field trips. It also addressed concerns brought about by its decision that the case would lead to a chilling effect on study abroad programs or an increase in similar litigation.

In June and July of 2007, Cara L. Munn, a student at the Hotchkiss School, joined other Hotchkiss students and faculty on a trip to China. In July, she contracted tick-borne encephalitis after being bitten by an infected tick during a hike. As a result, she suffered permanent brain damage. Prior to the trip, school officials gave students information about the trip, including a list of places they would visit and an itinerary, but the list did not indicate that students would be visiting a forested area.Students and parents also received written medical advice for the trip in an email, including a hyperlink to a United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website that incorrectly sent users to a page addressing Central America rather than China. The same document, as well as a pre-departure manual produced by Thompson’s office, indicated Hotchkiss’ infirmary could serve as a travel clinic, although the infirmary was not qualified to provide travel-related medical advice.No one on behalf of Hotchkiss warned students or their parents about the presence of tick-borne encephalitis or the need to protect against it.

Munn subsequently brought a negligence action in federal court to recover damages she sustain after contracting the illness, which initially caused her to become partially paralyzed and semi-comatose before her condition improved. As a result of her illness, however, Munn can not speak, has limited dexterity in her hands, and limited control over her facial muscles. She claimed that the school was negligent in failing to warn students and their parents of the risk of exposure to tick-borne encephalitis and failing to ensure that students took proper preventative measures.

Investigators Fault Driver in Tesla Autopilot Crash

September 20, 2017 | by Slappey & Sadd, LLC

The latest automotive technology—driverless vehicles—promises a world where accidents caused by human error are a thing of the past. Several companies, most notably Tesla, have made great strides toward bring this future into reality, but, as of 2017, we are not quite there yet. Most vehicles equipped with self-driving technology sold today are what are known as semi-autonomous vehicles, in which a human driver is still the primary operator of the vehicle, but the vehicle can assist the driver with a variety of tasks, including automatic braking, self parking, and lane detection. While these technologies are a promising start toward completely autonomous vehicles, they still have their limitations, which were tragically illustrated last year when an inattentive driver’s over reliance on his Tesla Model S sedan’s semi-autonomous driving system caused a deadly crash.

Joshua Brown, 40, was traveling on a divided highway near Gainesville, Florida using the Tesla’s automated driving system known as Autopilot when a truck driver made a left-hand turn in front of him. The vehicle did not recognize the oncoming truck, which resulted in a fatal collision. Tesla stated that it told drivers of the Model S vehicle that the automated systems should only be used on limited-access highways where there are no vehicles suddenly turning into the car’s path. Despite this warning, however, the company did not incorporate protections against using using Autopilot on other types of roads.

The Model S is a level 2 on a self-driving scale of 0 to 5. Level 5 vehicles can operate autonomously in nearly all circumstances. Level 2 automation systems are generally limited to use on interstate highways, which don’t have intersections. Drivers are supposed to continuously monitor vehicle performance and be ready to take control if necessary. In its investigation of the Brown accident, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that the car’s cameras and radar weren’t capable of detecting a vehicle turning into its path. Rather, the systems are designed to detect vehicles they are following to prevent rear-end collisions.Investigators also found that Brown had his hands on the car’s steering wheel for only 25 seconds out of the 37.5 minutes the vehicle’s cruise control and lane-keeping systems were in use prior to the crash. As a result, Brown’s attention wandered and he did not see the truck turning into his path.