Archive for January, 2012
January 31, 2012
Several other bodies have been recovered off the coast of Italy in the aftermath of the cruise ship case that grabbed headlines across the globe. There are still fifteen people who are missing (but generally believed to be dead, unless they’ve managed to survive two and a half weeks submerged in water). So, what’s been going on outside of the search and rescue efforts? Well, a lot.
The owner of the cruise line that was operating the Costa Concordia, Carnival Corp., a Miami-based company, has offered $14,500 to the uninjured survivors of the cruise ship crash. Make a note that this compensatory offer does not include any of the crewmembers on board the ship that night, any of the passengers injured in the crash, or any of the distressed family members who lost loved ones in the crash. The offer solely applied to uninjured survivors who were onboard the ship but escaped without harm. So, what was the $14,500 supposed to cover?
The $14,500 is supposed to cover both lost luggage as well as any psychological trauma that the passengers sustained as a result of the crash. In addition, Carnival Corp. has offered to refund the cost of the cruise tickets, cover the cost of travel expenses for the passengers to return home, and cover any medical bills that may arise in the future that can be tied to the ship disaster that occurred on January 13th.
The quick offer by Carnival Corp. to the uninjured survivors is a ploy to minimize their financial loss. Don’t misunderstand this; I’m sure that Carnival Corp. feels horrible about the crash – that isn’t the issue. Nevertheless, the fact that Carnival Corp. made an offer so quickly is evidence that they want to write a check and have the survivors sign a release agreement which means that they thereby release Carnival Corp. from any liability with regard to anything that may occur in the future. How are passengers to know what kind of emotional trauma they will begin to deal with in the years to come following the crash? This offer – and it’s intended accompanying agreement – would mean that the company would write the check today, and if a passenger begins to suffer years down the road from traumatic stress, and needs psychological help, Carnival Corp. won’t be responsible. It’s not right.
This is seen all the time. Often times, right after a car accident, insurance companies will offer people involved in the car wreck a settlement before they’ve had a chance to fully be evaluated by medical professionals, and therefore don’t know the extent of their injuries. Many of the uninjured parties, knowing this, have rejected Carnival Corp.’s offer.
As a response, attorneys for some of the uninjured parties have filed legal paperwork in Miami to sue Carnival Corp. for $460 million ($10 million in compensatory and $450 in punitive damages). Punitive damages are intended to “punish” the defendant to ensure that this kind of disaster won’t happen again – at least not on their “watch.” This lawsuit may or may not be sucessful as Carnival may have an argument that all cases have to be brought in Italy. Yes, thats right, ITALY!!! According to the passenger cruise ticket, in very small print, all passengers on board that ship agreed, if they had a lawsuit, to bring that lawsuit in ITALY. Unfortunately, Carnival may win on that point. There is a very good argument though that cases can be brought in Miami as that is where Carnival’s main headquarters are located. It will take a Judge in Miami to rule in favor of the passengers to allow the cases into Miami court.
As the legal story relating to the crash continues to unfold, we will keep you up to date with any new developments.
For more information, please contact us at the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg by calling us at 561-266-9191 or emailing us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.
This past weekend, on I-75 outside of Gainesville, there was a horrific, multi-car accident that resulted in multiple fatalities and numerous injuries. The awful crash, that has claimed ten lives thus far, took place early Sunday and is being blamed on “low visibility” by investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board. In addition to the ten people killed, eighteen others were hospitalized.
Conditions were so awful that rescue workers had to locate victims by their screams – the fog was so thick that nobody could see anything; not the drivers who crashed fatally and not the rescuers who searched frantically for any signs of life among the carnage. An unknown survivor of the crash has been quoted as saying that the wreckage strewn across I-75 made the scene look like “the end of the world.” The pictures of the crash are horrific; they are reminiscent of scenes from the film 2012 in which mass chaos suddenly erupts on highways all over the world.
I-75 was finally reopened on Monday morning as investigators continued to try to determine the true initial cause of the crash that sent people to the morgue and hospital and sent a highway full of drivers into absolute chaos. From what investigators have learned so far, the cause of the low visibility is being reported as smoke and ensuing fog caused by a brushfire near I-75. Despite the fact that there was no deliberate negligence by drivers or criminal activity on the highway, this case may evolve from a mere tragic turn of natural events to a criminal investigation. People involved with the investigation have reason to believe that the fires were started intentionally; they believe this is a deadly example of the harmful effects of arson.
In addition to arson, other means of negligence may be involved. Apparently, the spot where the accident took place had been closed off previously due to the complete lack of visibility caused by the brushfire. Then, early Sunday morning, somebody made the decision to reopen that section of I-75, and it was only because the highway was reopened that cars were driving through the fog and ended up causing the horrific accident that the country has been hearing about for the past couple of days.
So, it’s obvious that the highway shouldn’t have been reopened when it was. The question at hand is, did the person who made the call to reopen the highway make the judgment in error? I.e., was there reason to believe that conditions had improved, or was he bending to pressure from higher authorities I-75 reopened? In addition to the issue of negligence, the search is underway for anyone who might have been involved with starting the deadly fire that led to the low visibility which, in turn, was the cause of multiple deaths.
The smoke and fog could not have been contained by anyone driving on I-75 on Sunday morning. However, staying focused while behind the wheel can dramatically increase response time and may come in handy when unforeseen events plague the road in front of you.
We will keep you abreast of any new developments in this story should they arise. For more information on this story of any other legal matter, please don’t hesitate to call the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.
January 26, 2012
Everything in the world is advancing. From the tools doctors use to the cars we drive – to the apps personal injury lawyers use! In an ever-advancing world, it’s critical that our profession – just like any other – maintains a sense of progression with relation to technology. This decade has been largely characterized by Apple’s takeover of the mobile world. From their Macbook laptops to their iPhones to their iPads, they’ve reconfigured the way people do business.
Nowadays there seems to be an app for everything. Want to go to a good Indian restaurant tonight? There’s an app for that. Want a flashlight to help read the menu? There’s an app for that. Want to calculate the tip at that restaurant? There’s an app for that. It seems like there’s an app for everything. And now there are even apps for us attorneys, so that we can do our job better! In this blog I’d like to outline a couple of the most innovative and useful apps currently available on the iPad for attorneys to use.
The first one I’d like to talk about is called “Dropbox.” Dropbox is a (free) file-sharing program in which users can share any type of file (whether it be photo, doc, video, etc.) from one device to another. These devices can be iPads, iPhones, Android phones, or any Blackberry device. That means that if each attorney in your office has a separate type of mobile phone or tablet, you can be in different states on different networks and still stay up-to-date on each other’s projects. Dropbox provides a great way to keep in touch and stay up-to-the-minute with new developments.
The great thing about this program is that it can be used by any company with more than one employee and/or client. Say an attorney in New York with an iPad needs a document from an associate in Miami with an iPhone who needs an electronic signature from the client in Philadelphia who’s working with a Blackberry tablet. Dropbox takes care of it! This easy-to-use, fast system has propelled itself to the forefront of the legal applications world that is just beginning to explode. With an iPad 3 expected to be released this year, we expect only great things to emerge from the Dropbox!
The next app that has really piqued our interest is called “Fastcase.” It touts itself as “one app that no lawyer should leave home without.” Fastcase provides easy – and fast – access to a complete database of federal and state case law (in addition to statutes). The most amazing thing about this app, which quickly scours the entire history of American law at your convenience, is that it is as small as any other app on the iPad! You can be scrolling through pictures of your family vacation to Lake Tahoe and in the next minute be reading the Supreme Court’s ruling in a landmark case!
Want to know the best thing about this app? It’s free! That’s right, all you need to do is sign up with a username and password so that the app can customize the search engine for you so that you can find what you’re looking for even faster.
These types of apps have made our jobs much easier in that they enable us to keep up a world that seems to be moving at an incredibly fast rate. For more information on this or any other legal-related information, please contact the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.
January 25, 2012
When many people hear of a “personal injury lawyer” the first thing that comes to mind is often a money-hungry legal professional solely interested in instigating frivolous lawsuits. Perhaps the most well known (albeit convoluted) perception of a frivolous lawsuit is that of Stella Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants (otherwise known as the McDonalds coffee lawsuit). Often people hear of the case and assume that it involves some below-the-poverty-line woman who thought she’d get rich from suing a multi-billion dollar corporation for something insignificant.
The facts are much more startling. In this blog, I’d like to explore the case in some depth, and give readers the opportunity to truly understand the case. If this case can be better understood, perhaps the field of personal injury law can be vindicated. This case was not a get-rich-quick scheme, and neither are the vast majority of cases handled by personal injury lawyers. Unfortunately, this ever-advancing world that we live in lends itself to increased risks of danger, and just like it’s necessary to consult a lawyer before making any significant decision with legal ramifications, it’s just as important to hire a lawyer to help you seek the justice that you deserve.
So, what exactly happened in the McDonalds case? Well, on February 27th, 1992, Stella Liebeck was driven through a McDonalds drive-thru in New Mexico by her grandson and she ordered a 49 cent cup of coffee. After she purchased it, her grandson pulled into a parking spot so that she could put cream and sugar in her coffee. As she tried to hold the cup of coffee between her knees, it slipped backward and poured all over her inner thighs. Now, the fact that the coffee slipped was her fault, but the fact that, within seven seconds, the coffee caused third degree burns and burned 16% of the skin on her body – that was McDonald’s fault. Ms. Liebeck’s thighs looked like they had been directly attacked by a blowtorch.
If you have a weak stomach, please ignore the following. But if you don’t, please check out the photos of her burns.
This case was not about a woman who broke her nail and asked for millions. This is about a SEVENTY-NINE year old woman who suffered immense burns and simply asked for McDonald’s to COVER HER MEDICAL EXPENSES. Following a calculation of past medical expenses, future expected medical expenses and lost wages, her legal team asked McDonalds for $20,000. Guess what their maximum offer was? $800! McDonald’s offered significantly less than 5% of the cost of her medical bills and lost wages!
During the trial, in 1994, her legal team discovered that McDonald’s franchises were required to keep coffee at a nice warm temperature of 190 degrees Fahrenheit. Any liquid at that temperature would cause third degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Eventually, Ms. Liebeck was awarded several hundred thousand dollars in compensation for her medical expenses. However, the judge struck down the ruling and Liebeck settled with McDonalds for an undisclosed amount.
This case changed the face of the tort world. Supporters of “tort reform” used it as propaganda for limiting the amount that a plaintiff could be awarded. They exploit Ms. Liebeck’s pain as insignificant and portray her as a greedy money-grubber. This was not only a smear campaign directed at Ms. Liebeck; it tarnished the reputation of the personal injury specialty in the legal profession.
If more people knew the true horrors between a great deal of these personal injury cases, legislators would be much slower to vilify personal injury attorneys – lawyers who try to seek compensation for their traumatically injured clients. If you need help, we’re here for you.
For questions on this case or any other legal matter, please contact the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com
January 24, 2012
That’s a lot of M’s. It’s attention grabbing, though, and its purpose is to draw attention to something that needs some attention! Medical malpractice is real, folks. Most often, when people hear the term “medical malpractice,” they think of an instance of a medical practitioner making a mistake: botching a surgery or prescribing the wrong dosage of a medication or binding an arm cast too tightly or so on and so forth.
But sometimes medical malpractice is the doctor’s version of getting rich the Bernie Madoff way. That is, sometimes doctors intentionally cut corners and cut costs in an effort to save time and save some dough, all the while putting their patients in tremendous danger. A typical example of such malfeasance is when a doctor decides that it’s not absolutely necessary to perform an instrument count prior to and following a surgical procedure. If this easy and required step is thrown by the wayside, the doctor might accidentally have left a surgical instrument inside their patient’s body and not know!
There have been countless instances in which patients have – days, weeks, months, even years later – discovered that one of their doctor’s surgical tools was accidentally left in their body following some invasive surgery. Oftentimes it is discovered when the patient tries to go through a metal detector at an airport and they’re stopped because the detector senses a piece of metal in their leg. Surprised and shocked, they go to get an x-ray, and voila! The x-ray reveals that a scalpel, or some other instrument that only a doctor would use, is sitting in their body. Now, that type of incident certainly falls under the umbrella of “negligence” because the doctor actively elected not to perform an instrument count as required by law.
Here’s a very recent example of medical malpractice that’s even more negligent (if you can believe that). A former dentist in Massachusetts had admitted to fraudulently billing Medicaid for the use of stainless steel posts in root canals he was performing on his patients. Here’s the problem: he wasn’t using the stainless steel posts, he was using paper clips! The dentist defrauded the Medicaid program out of $130,000. To add insult to injury, he’s also been found guilty of assault and battery, witness intimidation and illegally prescribing prescription medications.
So, the next time someone tells you that medical malpractice litigation is bogus and it’s all a bunch of frivolous lawsuits, you’ll know better. Medical malpractice – all forms of it – lead to people getting seriously hurt. And the most disturbing part of the problem is that sometimes the doctors who make the “mistake” made no mistake at all; sometimes the doctors knew exactly what they were doing wrong.
For questions on this case or any other legal matter, please contact the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.
January 23, 2012
Late last week, as I was on the I-95 South ramp about to merge with traffic on the highway, I began to smell smoke – a lot of smoke. In my rearview mirror, I saw an 18-wheeler hurriedly approaching. Then, I saw it pull past my vehicle on the right side and pull immediately over to the side of the road. By this point, the entire front end of the truck was engulfed in bright orange flames. There was smoke spewing out from under the hood of the truck.
Not being close enough to the far right lane, I wasn’t able to get over to make sure everything was OK. Instead, I did the next best thing and dialed 9-1-1 to make sure that they had received a call about the incident. Fortunately, plenty of good citizens had already placed calls informing local authorities of the disaster on I-95. As I drove farther down, I could see the sky behind me (through the rear-view mirror) filling up with dark smoke. I hoped everything was okay. While I was pleased that people had made sure that fire rescuers were on the way, it upset me that the incident had to happen in the first place.
Having handled product liability cases in the past, I knew that this was probably another one. I wondered what kind, specifically, this was. The most common type of product liability case involves defects in manufacturing. Basically, a defect in manufacturing is one that is unintended. This is the most direct instance in which strict liability applies. A common example given to explain defects in manufacturing would be the braking system in a car not working properly and leading to a car accident. In the case of the truck on fire, because car engines are so complex in nature, it could have been any part of the engine that was manufactured in a subpar fashion that led to flames protruding from the hood and overtaking the cabin. Not only did the truck sustain tremendous damage, the driver of the truck surely didn’t escape without some degree of burning (not to mention mental anguish).
So, even though the manufacturer of the parts might not have intended for their products to fail, they might still be directly liable. This is, of course, because of the issue of “strict liability” which is pretty much self-explanatory. Issues that fall under the umbrella of “strict liability” span the spectrum of personal injury law. It sort of implies that the mitigating factors are not relevant, and no matter the circumstance, the manufacturer is to be held liable.
Of course, this example is a simple one. These rules might blindly apply if the vehicle that caught on fire was owned as a personal car. Because the truck was an 18 wheeler, it is safe to assume that the person driving the car is not the true owner of the car; the driver of the car probably works (or worked) for a company that owned a great many 18 wheelers, and in that instance, the company also will share some of the liability. This is because the company had the responsibility of making sure that the truck underwent safety inspections on a regular basis to prevent these types of disasters.
In product liability cases, there are other factors that may come into play. In addition to everything listed above, the mileage on the vehicle might come into question as well. It’s easier to prove a liability case if the car in question has 5,000 miles on it and much more difficult to prove one if the car has 250,000 miles on its odometer. This is because things aren’t made to last forever.
If you’d like to discuss this case or any other legal matter with an experienced personal injury attorney, please contact the Law Offices of Aronberg & Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.
January 20, 2012
As we close out a week of legal juggernauts, we’d like to give you the most up-to-date facts on the cruise ship case that has rocked the coast of Italy as well as most of mainstream media.
As of the middle of last night (US time), Italian rescue teams had determined to resume their search and rescue efforts in the aftermath of the crash of the Costa Concordia. Before that, however, an exclusive interview with one of the chefs aboard the Costa Concordia was obtained – and analyzed – by many high-profile legal commentators on a variety of news networks. The chef broke the story that after the ship had already struck rocks, the ship’s captain, Franceso Schettino, ordered dinner for himself and a female friend of his, all the while knowing that the ship was in trouble.
There are photos of the two friends dining comfortably during the time that Schettino should have been implementing security measures that might have been able to prevent lives being lost in the aftermath of the ship. Furthermore, telephone records show that Schettino spent a considerable amount of time on the phone with the cruise line’s owner, Carnival Corp., during the time that he could have been conducting a damage assessment and figuring out a correct course of action.
So, Schettino was enjoying a cruise ship dinner and chatting with this bosses during the time that he should have been surveying the ship, implementing evacuation routes, and above all else, calling the Italian coast guard for help. What could Carnival Corp., based in Florida, have done to help a prematurely grounded ship? In addition, it took nearly 60 minutes from the time that the ship hit a rock for Schettino to reach out for help – and that was after he on the ship received a call from the Coast Guard! A guest on the ship had the wherewithal to contact a relative on land, and that relative, in turn, contacted the Italian Coast Guard, who had the decency to do their job and reach out to the ship in distress.
Clearly, Schettino is guilty of negligence on multiple counts. To begin with, he should not have had the ship sailing so close to shore. Then, after the ship hit rocks, Schettino should have been more concerned with doing his job and saving lives than enjoying a meal with a female friend and saving face with his bosses. Clearly, this is an issue of human error.
Nevertheless, Schettino’s failures are the cruise line’s owner, Carnival Corp.’s, responsibility. The company, by employing Schettino, assumed responsibility of his actions (and inactions) in both a legal and financial manner. For example, the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which occurred nearly two years ago, was clearly the result of human error in judgment. Nevertheless, the financial claims being made in a response to the spill were sent to – and, for the most part, covered by – BP, the company that owned all of the mechanisms involved in the oil spill. In summation, while it was Schettino’s abject failure, it will be Carnival Corp.’s legal liability and, therefore, their financial responsibility.
If you have any questions relating to this or any other legal matter, please don’t hesitate to contact us at the Law Offices of Aronberg & Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.
January 18, 2012
As promised, here is an update to the Italian cruise ship crash incident that has been dominating headlines in all hemispheres of the earth this week. To best understand anything that will happen over the coming weeks, we have to make sure that we have accounted for all of the facts in the case. Below is a short summary of the most important pieces of information relating to this crash that will help dictate the legal debacles which are sure to characterize the coming months (and years).
FACTS KNOWN THIS FAR:
Location of Incident: Off the Tuscan coast of Italy
Date of Incident: Friday, January 13th, 2012 (they always said nothing good happens on Friday the 13th)
Name of the Ship: Costa Concordia
Name of Ship’s Captain: Francesco Schettino
Owner of Ship: Carnival Corporation Confirmed
Deaths Due to the Incident: 11
Missing People: 28
At this time, rescue efforts have been suspended at the place of incidence because of rough seas in the immediate area which would both impede rescue capabilities and further endanger search and rescue workers. Among the missing are two Americans, a married couple named Jerry and Barbara Heil. Of course are prayers and best wishes are with them and their families during this gut-wrenching time.
When one thinks of the tragedy of a cruise liner sinking, the images and stories of the Titanic come to mind. The Titanic was thought to be an indestructible ship, built to withstand any impediment that could be placed in its way. However, when a giant iceberg tore through the side of that great ship on that fateful day, the ship’s Captain, Edward Smith, set a precedent for all ship captains to follow. He assisted in the evacuation efforts and was last seen standing on the bridge of the ship as it finally sunk underneath. It has been customary on the high seas to expect a ship’s captain to “go down with the ship” if the worst should come to be. Francesco Schettino’s actions following the crash fly in the face of that responsibility. It is reported that Captain Schettino abandoned the ship on a life boat, reached shore, took a taxi cab to a hotel and asked the cab driver where he could buy a clean pair of socks. All of this happened, mind you, while people were dying and the Costa Concordia was going under. He has since been arrested, placed under house arrest, and charged with manslaughter. His defense is that he “fell” into a lifeboat and was forced to shore.
Despite his blatant disregard to his duties as Captain, he may not face lawsuits from the injured parties (notwithstanding an Italian tort law unbeknownst to me). Schettino’s actions (however wrong they may have been) are covered under the liability umbrella provided to the ship by its owner, Carnival Corporation.
Please keep checking back for more updates on this story as it progresses. For information on this or any other matter, please contact the Law Offices of Aronberg & Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.
January 16, 2012
Over the weekend, a cruise ship, the Costa Concordia, negligently ran aground off the coast of Italy, resulting in deaths, injuries and mass mayhem. The owners of the cruise ship have chalked the mistake up to a human error on the part of the skipper, saying that the man in charge of the ship made an “unapproved, unauthorized maneuver” in straying from the ship’s predetermined course.
The company that owns the Costa Concordia, Carnival Corp., based in Miami, indicated that the skipper, a man named Francesco Schettino, probably brought the ship too close to the rocky coast, thereby endangering the 4,200 passengers aboard the ship (not to mention the 2,300 tons of fuel on board). Soon after the crash, which resulted in a capsized ship that has been photographed in dramatic fashion around the world, Shettino “abandoned ship” and was subsequently arrested by Italian police. In doing so, he abandoned his duty to the passengers on the ship, not even remaining on board to assist in the rescue of the passengers, many of whom, including a few Americans, are still unaccounted for.
Though Schettino’s actions were reprehensible to say the least, the damage incurred on board the ship, including multiple deaths (and more to be reported), is both his and the owner’s of the ships’ responsibility. As an issue of legal liability, the passengers and their families who suffered fatalities and other injuries (whether they be physical, emotional or mental) have a claim against the cruise line’s owner, Carnival Corp., located in Miami and chaired by Micky Arison, owner of the Miami Heat basketball franchise. Mr. Arison’s public statement thus far has been that at the present time, Carnival’s “priority is the safety of [their] passengers and crew.” While there’s no doubt that at the current time the priority is the safe handling of the lives involved, it’s clear that the damage will send shockwaves across the Atlantic.
Carnival Corp., the world’s biggest cruise line company, estimates that the damage that has already become known could cost at least $95 million, with additional costs not determined at the present time. Surely that number will go up as a result of the injuries caused on board the Costa Concordia. The medical bills, out-of-pocket expenses (and, I’m sure, refunds) will be forwarded on to Carnival Corp. by the injured parties and their attorneys. And although the crash took place in Europe, the lawsuits may, most likely (barring any information undisclosed at this point), be filed in Miami, Florida, where Carnival is based.
As of Monday, Carnival Corp.’s stock value has plummeted nearly 20% as a direct response to the tragic events that took place over the weekend. There’s no question that the true implications of the disaster have yet to be understood, but we can be sure that as they come to surface, there will be a great deal of legal footwork involved in tying responsibility to the liable party. As the events unfold, we will keep you up-to-date with news updates and legal commentary.
If you have any questions or comments relating to this or any other legal matter, please don’t hesitate to call the Law Offices of Aronberg & Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.
January 13, 2012
Do you have a medical malpractice case? Maybe. We want to provide you with some information relating to the issue of medical malpractice litigation so that you can have a well-informed approach to the question of whether or not you have a valid claim. There’s no simple chart of types of medical issues which can be labeled as “good” or “bad” in terms of eligibility for a medical malpractice claim. Every incident, just like every person, is unique and different from the one before it and the one that will follow it.
Let’s start by understanding what medical malpractice is: it’s pretty much just an issue of negligence on the part of a medical professional (or some other healthcare provider such as a home-aid nurse). This can range from improperly bandaging a gash in your leg to operating on the wrong side of your rib-cage.
Because doctors can improve lives so drastically, their instruments also have the ability to level damaging (and even fatal) blows to their patients if misused (whether intentionally or not). Medical malpractice judgments are entered when it is proven that a medical professional had failed to maintain what is called a “standard of care” that is something that is both legally recognized and expected of someone in their position. This “duty of care” is one that is bestowed upon someone who is in the position where they are responsible for the well-being of another. Just like a store owner must meet a standard of care for the customers who walk down the aisles of the store, a doctor must maintain a standard of care for the patients who are in his or her care.
Because a great deal of a doctor’s work pertains to that which the eye can’t see – i.e. body parts underneath the skin – you might not realize that something has gone wrong until well after the time of incident. For example, if you have surgery in January, you might not start feeling the effects of a medical error during that surgery until a few months after the fact. That is whyFlorida law says that you have two years from the time that you realized (or should have realized) that you have sustained an injury due to the malpractice (wrongdoing) of a medical professional.
So, let’s look at the above example: if you have a surgery in January, and then you realize in April that the doctor screwed up, you have until two years from that day in April to settle the claim, file a lawsuit, or kiss any chance of compensation goodbye. Be aware that the statute of limitations varies for children and is reliant on when the student becomes a legal adult. This time frame is known as the “statute of limitations” and it applies to all cases in which a lawsuit might be filed. Being aware of the statute of limitations that applies to your situation is a key component of making sure you take the right steps in an often tricky journey.
In order to pursue a medical malpractice claim, it’s imperative that you contact an attorney such as one at the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg; we’ve handled many medical malpractice cases and have become attuned to the intricacies of the process. Proving negligence can be a difficult thing to do, and an attorney who has handled medical malpractice cases is fully aware of how to go about proving whether your medical provider was negligent.
Clearly, the issue of medical malpractice is a confusing one. For more free information, please contact us at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.
