Virginia Injury Lawyers Blog

January 13, 2016

The Dangers of Fatigued Driving in Virginia

Whenever anyone gets behind the wheel of a car, the potential for harm is always present. Whether it be another driver’s mistake, a pedestrian who crosses at an unmarked intersection, or a truck driver who was not paying attention to the road ahead of them, the bottom line is that driving can be a very dangerous activity, one that requires the complete attention of the person in control of the vehicle.

However, despite the dangers inherent in driving a car, truck, or motorcycle, motorists continue to push their own physical limits by trying to stay awake in order to “make good time” or avoid the cost of a hotel. In fact, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that there are about 100,000 accidents caused each year by drowsy driving. This results in approximately 1,550 fatalities annually. One startling statistic revealed that approximately 37% of drivers admitted to falling asleep behind the wheel at one time or another.

Given the dangers involved with drowsy driving, those who get behind the wheel when they are too tired to safely operate a vehicle may be considered legally negligent. When such negligence causes an injury to another motorist or pedestrian, the drowsy driver may be held liable through a civil negligence lawsuit brought by the injured party or their loved ones.

January 6, 2016

Court Determines Hospital Slip-and-Fall Is Not a “Medical Malpractice” Case

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier last month, a State Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing the lower court’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s claim, based on the fact that the plaintiff failed to comply with the procedural requirements of a medical malpractice claim under the state’s laws. In the case, Galvan v. Memorial Hermann Hospital System, the Supreme Court of Texas ultimately determined that since there was not a sufficient nexus between the alleged injury and the hospital’s provision of health care, the case was not subject to the heightened requirements of a medical malpractice case.

The Facts of the Case

In Galvan v. Memorial Hermann Hospital System, the plaintiff was a woman who was visiting a relative at the defendant hospital. The plaintiff was walking from the hospital’s pharmacy to her relative’s room when she slipped on a puddle of water that was coming from under a restroom door. The woman filed a lawsuit against the hospital, seeking compensation for her injuries.

In response, the hospital asked the court to dismiss the case because the plaintiff failed to submit an expert report, as is required under state law for all medical malpractice cases. The lower court denied the hospital’s motion, but the intermediate court reversed that decision. The plaintiff then appealed to the state’s supreme court.

December 28, 2015

Court Finds Jury’s Pain-and-Suffering Damages Award Inconsistent with Its Medical Expenses Award

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier this month, a state supreme court decided a case that required the court to examine the two types of awards that are available in personal injury cases and determine if the two were consistent. In the case, Bryant v. Rimrodt, the court ultimately determined that the jury’s determination that the plaintiff was entitled to $1 for his pain and suffering was inconsistent with the finding that he sustained almost $17,000 in medical expenses.

The Facts of the Case

In the case, Bryant v. Rimrodt, the plaintiff was a car salesman who was injured while riding as a passenger in a test-drive with a customer. According to the court’s written opinion, the customer made an illegal left-hand turn and collided with another vehicle. As a result of the accident, the salesperson briefly lost consciousness and was taken to the hospital. He was treated by numerous physicians, with varying diagnoses, none of which was particularly serious. In fact, several treating physicians told the plaintiff that there was no physiological reason for his pain. However, he continued to suffer from back, neck, and shoulder pain. In the following year, the salesman filed a lawsuit against the customer.

After a jury trial, the customer driving the car was found to be at fault, and the plaintiff was awarded roughly $17,000 for medical expenses he had already incurred. However, when it came to damages for his pain and suffering, the jury awarded the plaintiff nothing. Both parties agreed that there had to have been some amount of pain and suffering, given the medical treatment the plaintiff sought. Therefore, the judge sent the jury back into deliberations with instructions to reconcile the verdict. The jury then returned a nominal damages award of $1. Not satisfied with the verdict, the plaintiff asked for a new trial. The judge denied the plaintiff’s request, and then he appealed.

December 21, 2015

Hospital Doctors May Be Liable to Third Parties for Failing to Warn Their Patients that the Drugs They Were Given May Affect Their Driving

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier this month, an appellate court in New York issued an opinion in a case that discussed the liability that may arise when a doctor at a hospital administers medication to a patient and then releases the patient without any warning that the medication provided may affect their driving. In the case, Davis v. South Nassau Communities Hospital, the plaintiff was not the patient of the doctor but was a third party who was injured in a car accident involving the patient.

The Facts of the Case

A woman (“the Patient”) went to the hospital for treatment. As part of her treatment, she was given opioid pain medication and a benzodiazepine. Less than two hours later, the doctors discharged the Patient. On her way home, the Patient crossed a double-yellow line and collided with a bus being driven by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed suit against the treating physicians as well as the hospital that employs them, arguing that the defendants were negligent in failing to warn the Patient that the medication she recently ingested could affect her driving. In an pre-trial proceeding, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the case against them, arguing that the only duty they had was to the Patient, and that duty did not extend to third parties such as the plaintiff.

December 14, 2015

Contact Sports and Traumatic Brain Injuries

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier this year, a federal judge approved a settlement between the National Football League and a group of over 500 players, each of whom alleged that their participation in the league caused them serious long-term injuries. The crux of the players’ claim is that the NFL failed to adequately warn the players of the serious risks involved and also failed to take the adequate precautionary measures when head injuries were sustained on the field.

These repeated head injuries can lead to a condition called chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), which is a degenerative disease of the brain. One complication in the lawsuit is that CTE is only diagnosable posthumously, meaning after the player has died. Thus, the living players can only proceed with evidence that they have the symptoms of CTE, which include aggression, depression, parkinsonism, suicidality, and dementia.

The NFL’s Duty to Look Out for Its Players

The class of plaintiffs consists not just of living players but also of family members of deceased players. The case proceeds under a legal theory under which an employer, in this case the NFL, has a duty to warn employees that the job they are performing has a serious risk of injury. Additionally, the group of plaintiffs claims that when head injuries did occur on the field, the NFL furthered a policy of encouraging players to get back on the field as soon as possible. This, the class alleges, further increased the risks involved of developing a long-term and irreversible diagnosis, such as CTE.

December 7, 2015

U.S. Supreme Court Discusses Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act as It Applies to Personal Injury Cases

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision interpreting the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. In the case, OBB Personenverkehr AG (“OBB”) v. Sachs, the Court determined that the “commercial activity” exception to the Act’s general grant of immunity to foreign governments did not apply to the specific facts presented. As a result, the plaintiff’s case was dismissed.The Facts of OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs

The plaintiff in OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs was a California woman who had purchased a Eurorail pass here in the United States from a U.S. retailer for her plans to travel in Europe. While she was in Austria, however, the woman was seriously injured due to the alleged negligence of OBB, which is wholly owned by the Austrian government. The plaintiff filed suit against OBB in a U.S. federal district court.

In a pretrial motion, OBB cited the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and asked the court to dismiss the case.

May 11, 2014

Drunk driving crash victim to receive $2M from family of “Affluenza” teen Ethan Couch

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Young drivers should expect to held accountable for their driving behavior regardless of their socio-economic status and their parents’ child raising style. This was a hard lesson Ethan Couch learned when his insurance carrier agreed to pay a substantial settlement in a car crash caused by his drinking and driving.

The North Texas teenager who killed four people and injured 12 in a June 2013 drunken-driving wreck has reached a settlement of more than $2 million with the family of a teenage boy left disabled.

Tarrant County, Texas court documents show that the liability insurer of Ethan Couch’s parents agreed to pay $1.64 million in cash to a trust established for Sergio E. Molina.The Couches’ insurer also will buy two annuities to make payments to the trust.

May 4, 2014

Charles B. Roberts Settles Death Case for $1,125,000.00

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

The verdicts and settlements listed below are a representative sample of the hundreds of cases our law firm has handled. Please be advised that the case results reported below depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case and do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case undertaken by the lawyer.

In 2013, The Schupak Law Firm. was retained to handle a matter involving the wrongful death of a pedestrian who was struck by a vehicle driven by an 18 year old who, at the time of the crash, was involved in a road rage altercation with another driver. The case was challenging since our client was jaywalking at night and was allegedly not watching where he was crossing because he was wearing headphones and listening to music at the time he was fatally struck. Charles B. Roberts successfully obtained a settlement for his client’s family in the sum of $1,125,000,000 after the parties agreed to mediation and all the evidence was presented to the insurance companies.

January 25, 2013

The Schupak Law Firm, Personal Injury Attorneys

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Please visit the website of our law firm at charlesrobertslaw.com or robertsinjurylaw.com if you are in need of highly skilled and successful personal injury lawyers. The following is an excerpt from those websites which sets out the general qualifications of our personal injury law firm.

The attorneys associated with The Schupak Law Firm and I are proud to adhere to the “The Diamond Standard” in the practice of law. This standard is exemplified by the highest level of preparation and hard work in every case combined with the intelligent pursuit of victory.We accept cases in Virginia, Maryland and in Washington D.C.

Our uncompromising adherence to excellence has resulted in numerous $1,000,000.00 plus victories in the area of personal injury law, and thousands of completely satisfied clients in the fields of divorce, criminal, traffic, bankruptcy, wrongful death, medical malpractice, nursing home neglect and elder law.

March 15, 2012

Jury Awards $8M to Families in V. Tech Shooting Case | Woodbridge Wrongful Death Attorney

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

A jury ruled this week that Virginia Tech was negligent in its response to the 2007 shootings on campus that left 33 dead and dozens more injured. The families of Erin Peterson and Julie Pryde were awarded $4 million each after only three and a half hours of deliberation. The jury determined that many of the victims would likely be alive today if Virginia Tech police and campus administrators had warned students of the first shooting sooner than they did.

Cases like this engender public outrage and highlight the importance of wrongful death cases. In a case like this, family members want to see that the people responsible for their loved one’s death are brought to justice. Negligent conduct such as that displayed by the university’s staff and campus police in this case should not go unpunished. Wrongful death cases, such as this one are extremely complex and may take years to resolve. If you have lost a loved one due to the wrongful conduct of another, contact a Woodbridge wrongful death lawyer to explore your legal options.

If someone else’s negligence led to your loved one’s death, call a Woodbridge injury attorney at (703) 798-3039 for a consultation. Our team of experienced attorneys can help you seek justice for your loss. We handle wrongful death cases in Woodbridge, Fredericksburg, Stafford, and throughout the state of Virginia. The Woodbridge wrongful death lawyers at the The Schupak Law Firm work on a contingent fee basis, which means that you don’t pay a fee unless you receive monetary recovery in your case.