Jan 25, 2013 | Uncategorized
The information for this blog is in part from the article written by John Tomasic, the link to the article is at the bottom of the post.
Lori Stodghill 31-years old, seven-months pregnant with twin boys arrived at St. Thomas More hospital in Cañon City on New Year’s Day 2006. She was vomiting and short of breath and she passed out as she was being wheeled into an examination room. Medical staff tried to resuscitate her but, as became clear only later, a main artery feeding her lungs was clogged and the clog led to a massive heart attack. Stodghill’s obstetrician, Dr. Pelham Staples, who also happened to be the obstetrician on call for emergencies that night, never answered a page. His patient died at the hospital less than an hour after she arrived and her twins died in her womb.
Similar stories happen across the U.S. every day, The deaths by medical error far outweigh those caused by guns or other hot button topics. This story probably would have been buried deep within the paper if it was printed at all, but for the title of the article and argument made by the hospitals attorneys.
Unborn babies (fetuses) are not considered babies and are allowed to be aborted or die without repercussion. That is apparently the law in Colorado and as such the attorneys for the hospital stated that the Court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.”
I am both Catholic and an attorney and have strong feelings regarding this matter, but from a legal standpoint the defense appears correct, from a church standpoint – it is in violation of the fundamental beliefs as I understand them. So which is the correct path for the hospital to follow the legal argument which they will probably win under the current status of the law or the moral beliefs of the faith. The reports about the case in the media (social and otherwise) have implied the Church is hypocritical in stating an unborn baby is a baby until it could impact their bank account. I believe there is a different explanation.
The hospital is (I assume) insured and the insurance company would be the ones to provide not only the defense of the claim, but the attorneys to fight it and ultimately be responsible to pay any judgment. As such they are the ones who make the arguments including which defenses they are going to use. In some cases, the defendant may want to settle a case or not agree with the defense, but if it’s a viable defense then they may not have an option. I have been involved in cases where the Defense counsel and insurance carrier denied the claims and it was obvious the Defendant did not agree with those actions. In some cases the insurance carriers and their counsel seem just as willing to sacrifice their own insureds’ reputations and financial security as those against who they are defending the claim. I urge the representatives of the hospital to come forth and clear up the issue. It would be easy to say they believe the unborn baby is a person and they wish to change the laws so as to give those babies (through their parents) the right to bring actions for injury or death. If I am wrong and the hospital administrators truly believe that the unborn baby is not a person then they should resign immediately.
While the focus has become on what the hospital claims regarding the babies the true story is being lost. A mother, wife and children all died apparently due to the malpractice and uncaring actions of a hospital.
http://coloradoindependent.com/126808/in-malpractice-case-catholic-hospital-argues-fetuses-arent-people
Jan 17, 2013 | Uncategorized
Carpenter sisters voted to 2012 All-SCAC Women’s Soccer ‘Second Team’
Former Fort Bend Austin High School players
Melissa (Sugar Land, Texas), a senior forward, netted three goals in 2012 which tied for 15th in the SCAC. 27 shots tied for 16th, while two assists were 18th.
Michelle (Sugar Land, Texas), a sophomore midfielder, ended the 2012 season tied for second in the SCAC with three game-winning goals. A .263 shooting-percentage was third best, while 13 points was tenth in the league. Five goals and three assists were 11th, respectively.
Jul 16, 2012 | car crash, democrat, Fort Bend County, Harris County, health care, Insurance, obamacare, personal injury, political parties, Texans for Lawsuit Reform, TLR, Tort Reform, trial attorney
There has been a lot of talk and fear about the so called Death Panels which can decide whether a person should be denied life sustaining care even over the objection of the family. It has been vilified as typical of “Obama care”. Texas is leading the country as we have had these “death panels” for over a decade thanks to Tort Reform. I thought it was a bad idea in 1999 and still think it is a bad idea. Essentially it allows the physician or medical facility to determine that life sustaining care is inappropriate. This decision can be over the objection and wishes of the family.
“The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision…”
“The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility.”
So imagine that your family member is in a car crash and lapses into a coma and the medical facility decides that there is no benefit to life sustaining treatment (the irony of “life-sustaining” care being of no benefit seems lost on them). The committee (?) determines to end all life-sustaining care and gives you notice. Now you have 10 days to find another facility to agree to accept your family member and if you can find one (after the current one has already decided it is futile {I am sure the economics of care have nothing to do with the decision}) you get to pay for any cost incurred in transferring your loved one. If you don’t agree, you have the option to file a lawsuit to stop them. Do you really think that will be what you are thinking about as your loved one is essentially starving to death as they cut off life support.
The people who supported the law and are now fighting against health care will say, well that is different or just because it is the law doesn’t mean it will happen. Harris County Texas — a patient identified only as “Willie” died after the hospital cut off all nourishment after giving the proper notice. Probably the family didn’t care – wrong they tried to get him transferred but couldn’t find a hospital willing to take him. Well he must not have had insurance – 1st should it matter, but he actually had plenty of coverage, but the let him die. Texas Right to Life spokesperson Elizabeth Graham stated “Willie” was dehydrated and starved to death against the family’s desire (Thanks to Jeffrey Kreisberg). So when you think it will not happen, it already has to someone with a family who wanted to keep him alive and had insurance. As far as I know, no such action has taken place in Fort Bend County, Texas – yet.
In the last election for governor of Texas, Perry was asked about this and he claimed he wasn’t aware of the law and would make it priority to get it overturned.
If you are concerned about “death panels” you should be because if you are in Texas it is not a possibility it is a reality and not because of the liberal democrats, but because of the Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) group. So be mad and take action against those who supported, sponsored and passed the bill. Ask your representative if they are supporter of Texans for Lawsuit Reform and, if so, why they are in favor of these “death panels”. I wonder if they will claim they didn’t know what they were supporting??
Finally, if you support (or know someone who supports) TLR I posted this question on Facebook – “What do you believe needs Reforming?” I really would like some answers to that question.
Jul 12, 2012 | Uncategorized
Here is the Van:
15 Passenger vans are one of the most used type of transportation for colleges, church and community groups. What a great concept one vehicle which allows a small group to all travel together, but there is one small problem they are extremely unstable and have a tendency to roll over. NHTSA research shows overloading 15-passenger vans both increases rollover risk and makes the vehicle more unstable in any handling maneuvers. Tire pressure can vary on front and back tires that are used for 15-passenger vans. This is why the agency urges vehicle users to make certain the vans have appropriately-sized and load rated tires that are properly inflated before every trip. Taking into account the fact that tires degrade over time, NHTSA recommends that spare tires not be used as replacements for worn tires. In fact, many tire manufacturers recommend that tires older than 10 years not be used at all.
Following are safety tips for anyone planning a trip in a 15-passenger van:
- Never overload the vehicle.
- If you are a passenger, make sure you buckle up for every trip.
- If you are an owner, make sure the vehicle is regularly maintained.
- Owners should have suspension and steering components inspected according to the manufacturer’s recommended schedule and replace or repair these parts as necessary.
- Owners should ensure that vehicles are equipped with properly sized and load-rated tires.
- Owners should also make sure drivers are properly licensed and experienced in operating a 15-passenger van.
- Before every trip, drivers should check the tires for proper inflation, and make sure there are no signs of wear or damage. Correct tire size and inflation pressure information can be found in the owner’s manual and on the door pillar.
http://nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2012/Consumer+Advisory:+NHTSA+Offers+Tips+for+Safe+Travel+in+15-Passenger+Vans/
Here is the Scam:
The 15 passenger van is unstable. The van rolls over. The van has caused severe injuries and deaths. The government and manufacturers know it and rather than fix the problem, they try and warn the user and when that doesn’t work blame the user. I know you are thinking “Come on Brent, they told the users about the issues what else do you want them to do?” Glad you asked, but first let’s talk about the “warnings”. For my engineer friends out there (and anyone with common sense) if you can correct a dangerous condition you are to do so; If you can’t correct the condition — you build in as much safety as you can and if you can’t do either then (and only then) you warn the users. So why have the manufacturers skipped the first two and moved straight to the warnings. Simple answer is because NHTSA and courts have let them. So let’s talk about these warnings and what they really tell us:
1st: NHTSA research shows overloading 15-passenger vans both increases rollover risk and makes the vehicle more unstable in any handling maneuvers. Now that is a warm and cozy feeling that in any handling maneuvers the van is unstable and has an increased rollover risk. So don’t overload it right. So what does that mean? I have had the pleasure of deposing a Ford engineer who explained it to me. All you have to do is look in the owner’s manual and find the vans maximum weight. Simple. So now I know, but how do I know how much I have in the van? Well he explained you take the empty weight of the vehicle as you have it and then you take it to a scale or weigh station and weigh it. Then you have your starting empty weight. Now each time you have a person get in the van you get their weight and add that along with any luggage or any other item that is brought onto the van. Add all that up and then you have the total (don’t forget to do so with a full tank of gas) now you have your total weight which you should then verify by driving to a scale to make sure it is correct (some people may not be completely honest about their weight). So that is all you have to do to make sure the van is not overloaded. So where do you find the empty weight or the max weight to use as a reference. Apparently not on the specs page at Ford.com or in the owners’ manual. According to Edmunds.com a 2007 E-150 XLT Passenger van has curb weight (empty) of 5186 lbs. and a gross weight of 8500 lbs. This means that leaves 3314 lbs. of people and stuff you can put in or on the van before it is overloaded. So if you load up the van with a church group, their bags and coolers of water and soda and you are almost guaranteed to be overloaded. This is because the van was originally designed as a cargo van and not a passenger van and the engineers did not design it to have seating positions for 15 people. In addition to the actual weight you have an issue with the distribution of the weight. Instead of it being on the floor of a cargo van, you the majority of the weight being raised up off the floor to seat level and above causing the van to become top heavy greatly adding to the instability. So taking all that into consideration – it is pretty much a miracle if you do not overload the van if you are using it to it full 15 passenger capacities.
Now I know the manufacturers engineers and NHTSA is smarter than me and figured all this out a long time ago, so what did they do? Change the design by making it more stable and increasing rollover resistance? Nope. They tell you to:
“Buckle up.” That way when it rolls over you may survive – if the roof doesn’t crush, if the windows don’t come out and have you going outside, if you are not hit by something flying around the van, etc., etc.
“Make sure van is maintained.” Code for we know this is an unstable van and any little issue is going to make a very bad design completely insane.
“Make sure proper tires.” Code for even though we know it rolls over with the tires we recommend this will give us something else to try and point blame.
“Make sure drivers are properly licensed and experienced.” What the heck does that mean? The only license required is a regular drivers’ license which is who normally drives them. Again this is another after the rollover we can blame the driver for “faulty response” which means our professional test drivers have rolled these vans, but we except you inexperienced driver to do better than our highly paid and trained test drivers.
“Make sure to check tires and pressure before each trip.” Code for that way when it rolls over and we come out for the inspection we can again blame the driver because one tire was 3psi lower than it should have been. Oh and by the way, do not use the spare to replace a tire on the van because it probably is defective due to aging.
These vans are dangerous and will rollover in almost any use when loaded as the manufacturers intended by their design. They sell them as these great safe vehicles for taking up to 15 people and their things places knowing that they have a high potential to rollover. When the rollover they know will occur does, they then blame the driver because he/she should have known how dangerous it was.
The solution is not to try and warn and then blame the users when the vans rollover, but to correct the know defect and danger. Until that is done, it is unfortunately going to continue to kill and maim the drivers and passengers of the 15 passenger vans.
Jul 5, 2012 | Uncategorized
Now that the Supreme Court has spoken everyone know exactly what the Health Care Act does, does not do and how it will work right?? HAHAHA! I have a special insight as I took a Constitutional Law class in Law School, have never argued a case before the Supreme Court and haven’t read the Act or the complete Supreme Court opinion. I guess that makes me at least as qualified (if not more so) as all our representatives who voted for legislation they never read. So with that great lead in, let’s talk tax (or not) depending on whom you listen to and/or on what day and/or which part of the opinion you read.
I do not like the Act, but the Supreme Courts job in this case was to determine if those that passed it had the authority to do so, not whether it was good or bad. Under the taxing authority they did. It gives me a warm cozy feeling that the loveable and benevolent IRS is the collector of tax (penalty) which is designed to enforce the “mandate” of healthcare.
Is this a tax — Well it is but it isn’t or maybe it is. It appears it is not a tax otherwise the Court could not consider the Act because under the Anti-Injunction Act there can’t be a challenge to a tax until after it becomes effective which would have been around 2014, but the Court said that’s ok it isn’t a tax it is a penalty so we can hear the case, but wait there’s more…
The government does not have the authority to make people buy health insurance (or healthy veggies). The Court ruled that the ACA is creating business not regulating it so sorry the Commerce Clause can’t work, so guess what it really is a tax which the government can do (and very well I might point out) so we now have a penalty/tax which allows the Court to have heard the case and the government to tax those that don’t buy insurance. Clear?
So now we have a healthcare law which has the enforcement of the IRS (luckily we have thousands of new IRS agents out there to help out), millions of added people eligible for health care and being run by the same people who brought you Medicaid and Social Security. Oh and as an aside, we seem to be having a slight problem with not enough doctors currently, much less for the millions of additional patients. But wait there is still more…
If you get past the logistics of how we are supposed to provide healthcare to millions of more people without a significant number of new doctors, we get to a few other sticky issues like who is going to determine the priority for medical care, how is it going be to determined and the elephant in the room (or jackass depending on your political leaning) that little thing called freedom of religion.
I am Catholic and have a real issue with being told that I have to provide health coverage which includes treatments and care in direct conflict with my beliefs. I am surprised that the ACLU and others have not been filing suits and holding press conferences to decry this abuse of religious freedom. This Act puts millions of Catholics in a position of following their religious beliefs or being in violation of a law which allows the IRS to impose taxes and use their power in the collection of the penalty/tax. Just a heads up here — religious beliefs win.
The Supreme Court is not the issue, the legislatures who passed this are. If you are in agreement with law then great, but I would really like to know if you have read and understand all the provisions and how it will impact you and your family in the coming years. Apparently neither party can seem to understand if it is tax or penalty and how it will be implemented. The need for health care is real, but passing a law just to say you did something is just plain dumb, but this is brought to us by the same people who voted to provide all of us with healthcare which they would not make mandatory for themselves. If your representative is proud of the healthcare act why wouldn’t they want it for themselves? I guess that common sense thing keeps getting in the way of the great things they are providing for us (but don’t want for themselves).
I would like to thank the below referenced articles for information and also would recommend you read them. One is Forbes and the other is Dr. Thomas Parr a friend of mine here in Sugar Land.
http://forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/07/02/how-to-explain-the-obamacare-ruling-to-a-five-year-old/
http://fbindependent.com/texas-doctors-will-be-lean-and-mean-to-stay-in-business-p4970-89.htm
