Oregon Injury Lawyer Blog

Kevin Pierce’s long journey back to snowboarding is an object lesson for everyone here in Oregon concerned about traumatic brain injuries in sports. Once one of the world’s top riders and a likely member of the 2010 US Olympic team, the snowboarding star was severely injured “when he fell and hit his head on the icy wall” of a halfpipe where he was training.

A few weeks short of the second anniversary of that accident, Pierce got back on a snowboard, last week according to the New York Times. The paper reports that his road to recovery has been long and slow. That first run, at a ski resort in Colorado, was a slow cruise down an easy slope: “No tricks. No big air,” the newspaper reported.

Even now, Pierce’s life remains marked by “an unsteady walk, blurry vision and a diminished memory.”

And this, remember, is the portrait of an elite athlete coping with the after-effects of a traumatic brain injury. For almost anyone else it is safe to say that the road to recovery could well be longer and more difficult.

Pierce’s story is also a reminder to the rest of us that even the most talented athletes can suffer horrendous injuries – a fact that, in turn, places a special burden on equipment manufacturers and those who run athletic facilities: to offer the safest gear and the safest environment possible. From an Oregon product liability attorney’s perspective, it is unfortunate to ever see a person suffer because of someone else’s negligence. Particularly when the injury involves a traumatic brain or spinal cord injury. The law can be an important force in helping ensure that justice is done after tragedy strikes, but any Portland brain injury lawyer will affirm that it is better when things function smoothly in the first place, ensuring that lawyers and courts need not get involved.

New York Times: Pearce to ride for first time since 2009 accident

The National Hockey League’s 2011-12 season kicked off last night with both the defending Stanley Cup champion Boston Bruins and the team they edged out last summer, the Vancouver Canucks, losing close fought, first-night match-ups.

Those games (along with a Montreal-Toronto contest) were the first official ones to be played under new NHL rules that severely restrict (but do not entirely ban) hits to the head during play. Long known as a fast and violent game, professional hockey has shown increasing concern for the long-term health of its players in recent years. Concussions and traumatic brain injuries emerged as a concern partly because of changes in the game itself – players are larger, skate faster, hit harder and wear better padding than their predecessors a generation (let alone half a century) ago, and the wear and tear on their bodies shows. The issue became especially salient for the league in the wake of several high-profile injuries that have sidelined star players for extended periods of time.

The most notable examples are Boston’s Marc Savard who has never completely recovered from a grade 2 concussion sustained in March 2010, and Pittsburgh’s Sydney Crosby, arguably the league’s most famous active player, who has not played since the beginning of the year after suffering two hits to the head in rapid succession during games on January 1 and January 5.

During the off-season the league hired a recently retired star, Brendan Shanahan, as its Senior Vice President in charge of player discipline. In a video distributed to all teams before the season began (and readily available to any fan on the NHL website) Shanahan outlined the new, stricter, rules on contact to the head last month. As soon as pre-season games began he indicated he was serious about his new job by passing out an eyebrow-raising number of suspensions for illegal contact, several of which will extend into the regular season.

From the perspective of a Portland concussion and traumatic brain injury attorney the NHL’s attempt to keep its game rough and fast while improving safety must be applauded. Whatever the League’s shortcomings, at least it is making a serious, public effort to cut down on dangerous plays that may lead to brain or spinal cord injuries. The NHL opted not to go as far as college and international hockey and ban hits to the head entirely, but it is hard not to see the new rules as a step in that direction. The game remains rough, even violent, but at least there is the acknowledgement that in the wake of so many traumatic brain injuries, something in the hockey world needs to change.

New York Times: With stricter rules on hits to the head, some NHL stars are split on a full ban

New York Times: Shanahan is enforcing Rules with Gusto

A class action lawsuit filed in Salem is taking aim at a perhaps surprising target. According to area television station KDRV the lawsuit alleges that a major insurance company has been “fraudulently denying claims after car crashes.”

The target? USAA, a banking and insurance giant that deals exclusively with current and former members of the military and their families. Because of its focus on the military community USAA has long cultivated a customer-friendly, service-oriented image far removed from that of most commercial banks and insurance companies.

The Oregon suit, however, charges the company with “using medical reports by physicians to say treatment for injuries suffered in car crashes were not medically necessary. Plaintiffs allege in their suit that the insurance medical reviewers of their cases never even talked or consulted with them.” The station’s report said USAA “declined to comment on the lawsuit.”

The seriousness of the allegations in this Oregon lawsuit is a reminder of the important role Salem and Portland personal injury attorneys play in our legal system. When confronted with red tape and a large, powerful and inflexible insurance bureaucracy many ordinary Oregonians often feel they have no recourse. It is an unfortunate fact of American life that many of us must buy insurance to cover our basic needs in times of crisis – knowing full well that many insurance companies will do everything they can to avoid meeting their obligations at the moment when, for us, it matters most.

Whether you are fighting an insurance company to get the claims and treatment you deserve in the wake of an Oregon auto or motorcycle accident, a traumatic brain injury, severe burn, spinal cord injury or an industrial accident, it is important to know that Portland personal injury attorneys are available to help you navigate the often intimidating world of the court system in your search for justice.

KDRV.com: Oregon lawyer files suit against USAA

Insurance Networking News: Class Action Suit Brought Against USAA

A recent column in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call highlights a potentially serious attack on patients rights here in Oregon and elsewhere, one that has received relatively little notice in the months since the new Congress convened.

The focus of the piece is HR 5. Formally titled the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-Cost, Timely Healthcare Act (i.e. the “HEALTH Act”), it is billed as a centerpiece of Republican efforts to repeal and replace the health care reform act passed by President Barack Obama and the Democrats last year. According to the federal government’s legislative bill-tracking service, Thomas.gov, the bill is co-sponsored by about half of all the Republicans in the House. Among Oregon’s congressional delegation only Rep. Greg Walden, whose district covers much of rural eastern and central Oregon, is a co-sponsor.

The official summary says that the bill “sets conditions for lawsuits arising from health care liability claims.” In particular, it establishes a three-year statute of limitations for most health-care related injuries. In addition, the bill “limits noneconomic damages to $250,000 (and) makes each party liable only for the amount of damages directly proportional to such party’s percentage of responsibility.” It also forbids the awarding of punitive damages “in the case of products approved, cleared or licensed” by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

In practical terms what does all of that mean for personal injury and medical malpractice victims here in Oregon? The most important effect of the bill would be to sweep away state law where medical malpractice and patients rights are concerned. As the Roll Call column notes, these matters have traditionally been left to the states (making it somewhat ironic that among HR 5’s sponsors are many of Congress’ most vocal defenders of states’ rights). It would, in effect, replace decades of carefully considered state law on Oregon product liability, medical malpractice and patients’ rights with a national, one-size-fits-all, approach.

From a Portland personal injury lawyer’s perspective, this legislation deserves closer public scrutiny. The effect on victims seeking justice for a medical malpractice claim or severe brain injury here in Oregon could be devastating – shifting the scales of justice decisively in favor of large companies or irresponsible players within the health care system. It is particularly worrisome that the legislation would, in effect, provide blanket immunity from lawsuits to any product or drug approved by the FDA regardless of the circumstances of the product’s failure or the nature of the damage it caused. Clients should know, however, that Oregon’s medical malpractice, traumatic brain injury and personal injury attorneys will be here to defend them, regardless of what happens in Washington DC.

Roll Call: Vance: Medical Malpractice Is Issue for the States

Thomas.gov: Official summary of HR 5

A Florida court case involving a defective car seat and a resulting severe spinal cord injury to a child can serve as an important reminder of the crucial role our courts play in holding large companies accountable for the damage they can cause in ordinary people’s lives.

As outlined by the American Association for Justice, the case concerns a Florida girl, now age 7, who suffered a severe spinal cord injury when her father’s car was involved in an accident. Unbeknownst to the father his daughter, then only two years old, “had unfastened the clip (on her child seat) before the collision, leaving her restrained only around the lower torso and permitting a lap-belt-only injury to her spinal cord.”

The article notes that attorneys working for the girl’s parents discovered that the car seat’s manufacturer “had received more than 800 complaints about children unfastening the clip and it had subsequently replaced the clip with a two-piece version that children could not unfasten.” Even so, the manufacturer contended this action on its part was related to “convenience” rather than “safety” and moved to have the suit dismissed. After losing that dismissal motion the company settled with the victim’s family for an undisclosed sum.

From the perspective of a Portland personal injury attorney, cases like this are among the strongest reminders possible of the important role our courts play in protecting the rights of accident victims. A severe Oregon spinal cord or brain injury can be a devastating blow to any family, the moreso when, as in this case, it involves injuries to children.

The accountability our courts demand even of the rich and powerful is one of the most cherished aspects of American life. Helping ordinary people argue for – and win – the justice they deserve is one of the most significant, and gratifying, aspects of an Oregon spinal cord injury lawyer’s job.

American Association for Justice: Defective design of child safety seat’s chest clip leads to girl’s paralyzing injuries

A poignant reminder of the long-term effects of concussions on football players cane over the weekend when Terry Bradshaw revealed in a blog post that “he is suffering from deficits in short-term memory and impairments in his hand-eye coordination,” according to the Los Angeles Times. The newspaper reports that the former Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback, a long-time NFL commentator on television, attributes his ever-worsening problems to “at least six concussions” sustained during his NFL career.

Bradshaw, of course, played in the 1970s and it might be argued that today’s players are better-trained and use better equipment than their predecessors. Two minutes watching NFL films from that era, however, will show any viewer that while today’s equipment may be better, today’s players are bigger, stronger, play the game faster and hit much, much harder than those of a generation ago.

Bradshaw’s revelations of the ongoing effects of brain injuries come at a time when the league is trying to improve its less-than-stellar record of caring for players once their careers are over. It also, as the paper notes, arrives at a time when team officials and players in the worlds of football and hockey are increasingly aware of the damage lesser hits can cause. The Times cites a doctor at UCLA who mentions the cumulative effects of multiple less-than-concussion-level hits – an issue that the NHL has recently begun paying particular attention to.

The lives and long-term health of professional athletes are important not only for their impact on those individuals’ health and the well-being of their families, but because of the signals they send to young athletes.

As a Portland sports injury lawyer, it is especially heartening to see both professional sports and society at large paying more attention to these issues. As I have said before, the legal system is there to help victims an their families obtain justice in the wake of an Oregon brain or spinal cord injury – but when athletes and their families are forced to go to court to protect their rights that is an unfortunate sign that the system has failed in broader, more important ways.

Los Angeles Times: Football concussions catching up with Terry Bradshaw, he says

A surprising – and heartening – article in the sports section of the New York Times last week revealed that heightened awareness of the serious nature of sports-related concussions and other traumatic brain injuries has turned up in an unexpected forum: video games.

The paper reports that “Madden NFL 12, the coming version of the eerily true-to-life NFL video game played by millions of gamers, will be realistic enough not only to show players receiving concussions, but also to show any player who sustains one being sidelined for the rest of the game – no exceptions.”

Considering the extent of the criticism being weathered by the real-life NFL over head injury issues and the long term health of the league’s players, this development can only be called striking. The article quotes John Madden himself saying that the change in the game’s format was driven partly by the desire for ever-greater realism, but also from a belief that children need to understand how serious a matter concussions can be. “We want that message to be strong,” Madden told the Times.

With parents more focused than ever on safety in school sports this is an important development. Here in Oregon we have seen a rise in concern over head and spinal cord injuries, particularly among football players. As Madden highlights in his interview, children develop their attitudes toward the game – and how it should be played – at an early age. Anything that helps reinforce a message of on-field safety should be welcomed.

In the final analysis, it should be schools and coaches, parents and players who serve as the main defense against Oregon head injuries on the athletic field. When the issue reaches the office of a Portland personal injury lawyer that is a sign, frankly, that the rest of the system has failed. Lawyers and courts play an important role in ensuring that justice is done, but their responsibilities come into play only to right wrongs that arise elsewhere.

New York Times: Madden Puts Concussions in New Light in His Game

A Florida judge has issued a key ruling in a closely watched wrongful death case that may have implications for student athletes here in Oregon and elsewhere.

The case concerns the death of Ereck Plancher, a 19-year-old student and football player at the University of Central Florida. Plancher died in March 2008 after collapsing during a spring workout that was being supervised by the university football coach. According to the Orlando Sentinel “an autopsy found that the stress of the workout triggered Plancher’s sickle cell trait, causing misshapen blood cells to damage his organs and shut down his body.”

Though the university “contends it did everything possible to save his life,” Plancher’s parents filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the school, its trustees and the UCF Athletics Association. Last week’s ruling allowed the parents to seek punitive damages in the case, but instructed the jury only to award such damages if the jurors “specifically find that no water and no athletic trainers were present for the final portion of Palncher’s workout.”

This case is worth watching, even from across the continent, because of the increased attention that safety among student athletes has been receiving, especially here in Oregon. Much of this attention has focused on Oregon traumatic brain injuries and Oregon spinal cord injuries. Still, wrongful death stemming from an overly intense workout, or inadequate precautions on the part of a school or its coaching staff, have emerged as issues in several cases in different parts of the country, and it is worth paying attention to how different courts resolve these issues.

The attorney representing the victim’s family put it well, telling the Sentinel: “It’s not about compensating the Plancher family, it’s about stopping football programs from disregarding the safety of student athletes.” Here in Portland, any Oregon wrongful death and traumatic brain injury attorney would agree with that sentiment.

Orlando Sentinel: Ereck Plancher family can seek punitive damages from UCF Athletic Association, judge rules

In terms of violence and physical contact baseball is a far cry from football or hockey, but today’s news brought word that the National Pastime is following in the footsteps of higher-impact competitions in seeking to address concussions and other traumatic brain injuries.

According to an analysis published by Bloomberg News, Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig has announced new procedures for dealing with head injuries in baseball. The measures, which take effect on Thursday when the 2011 season officially begins, include changes to the manner in which “concussions are diagnosed and the determination on when players or umpires can return to the field.”

The news agency notes that each team will be required to designate a brain injury specialist as part of the medical team based in its home city. It also establishes a new, head-injury-specific seven day disabled list and establishes consistent “protocols for evaluating players for a possible concussion after high-risk incidents, such as being hit in the head by a pitched, batted or thrown ball, or colliding with another player or fixed object.”

Though baseball clearly has fewer serious traumatic brain and spinal cord injury problems than some other sports, it is gratifying to see the sport move in a direction pioneered by other leagues, notably the NHL, which has wrestled with rule changes several times over the last few years as it looks for ways to minimize head injuries.

Responsible conduct at the professional level is important not least because of the example it sets for colleges, schools and youth sports programs. Here in Oregon, concern over traumatic brain injuries is rising, just as it is in the rest of the nation. From the perspective of a Portland brain and spinal cord injury attorney, increased awareness is an important first step both toward preventing future accidents and in the fight to obtain justice for those who are already suffering.

Bloomberg: Major League Baseball Institutes Seven-Day Disabled List for Concussions

An important article published in the New York Times last week indicates that the manufacturers of football helmets are moving to address problems in the way their products are used – a move that could benefit many young athletes in a time when traumatic brain injuries stemming from football and other rough sports are an issue of increasing concern.

According to the newspaper, “the National Athletic Equipment Reconditioners Association (Naera) announced (last) Thursday that is would no longer accept helmets more than 10 years old.” As the paper notes, many schools regularly send football helmets in for reconditioning, but concerns have been rising that as the products age it can become difficult if not impossible to bring the gear back to a point where it meets appropriate safety standards. Under current standards, the paper notes, so long as the equipment met applicable safety standards when it was new “helmets of any age and condition can be worn, despite concerns over how the stiffening of foam and the degrading of the polycarbonate shell can leave a player more susceptible to concussions.”

Though the article does not say this, it appears that football helmet manufacturers and reconditioners may be taking a cue from the ski industry. For several decades the manufacturers of ski bindings have indemnified their products for a finite period of years (usually 10 or 12). Once that period expires, skiers quickly discover that few ski techs will agree to make even minor adjustments to the bindings. A cynic might say the companies are forcing skiers to purchase new equipment on a regular basis, but the policy also ensures that the vast majority of skiers are using relatively up-to-date equipment – an important consideration in such a potentially dangerous sport.

The new football helmet standards have the potential to offer significant peace of mind to Portland-area parents who fear concussions and other Oregon traumatic brain injuries when their children participate in contact sports.

Oregon personal injury attorneys are likely to keep a close eye on the new standards. We must all ensure that schools and others running youth sports are paying attention and using the tools the industry is giving them to help fight the battle against Oregon brain injuries.

The New York Times: Group to phase out old football helmets

Senator Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) is making headlines this week as the man leading efforts by Senate Democrats to reform rules governing filibusters. As the New Year begins he also, however, is emerging as the congressional point person for a very different issue: traumatic brain injuries, specifically those sustained while playing football.

According to The New York Times, Udall is calling on the Federal Trade Commission to “investigate what he called “misleading safety claims and deceptive practices” among helmet manufacturers and refurbishers.”

As I noted in this post last fall, safety standards for football helmets have not changed meaningfully since the early 1970s. The Times article notes that Udall “took specific aim at Riddell, the official helmet manufacturer of the N.F.L., for its prominent claim that its popular Revolution models decrease concussion risk by 31 percent.” Udall contends that the testing standards used to evaluate helmets – along with much of the advertising based on those tests – are misleading. A spokesman for the company told the Times that Riddell welcomes the scrutiny, but hopes other helmet manufacturers will be subjected to it as well.

Perhaps the most shocking detail of this story, however, is buried far down: the fact that 4.4 million children under 18 play football in America and that they suffer around 500,000 concussions each year. Put another way: 1 in 9 youth football players suffers a concussion in any given year. In a country that is becoming more and more concerned about traumatic brain injuries in general, and TBI among children participating in sports in particular, these are sobering numbers.

Oregon parents concerned about the effect of football and the possibility of Oregon child injuries resulting from games played using inadequately tested or maintained equipment should consider contacting an Oregon traumatic brain injury attorney to discuss the effects the game may be having, especially on younger players.

New York Times: Senator calls for helmet safety investigation

Earlier this month New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed wide-ranging legislation designed to protect student-athletes in his state. As reported by the website Safe Kids New Jersey, the bill will require the state’s Department of Education “to develop an interscholastic athletic head injury safety training program to be completed by school physicians, coaches and athletic trainers” in both public and private schools.

The website goes on to note that the New Jersey program will include teaching school personnel how to recognize “symptoms of head and neck injuries,” how to judge when an athlete should be allowed to return to the field and when someone requires further treatment, including hospitalization. As the organization notes, “currently, there is no uniform method of handling suspected concussions in interscholastic sports.”

As I have noted in previous posts looking at both football and hockey, concern over concussions and other traumatic brain injuries at all levels of competition is rising here in Oregon and nationwide. Parents as well as coaches and trainers are becoming more and more aware of the dangers improperly diagnosed or treated head injuries can pose, especially to younger athletes. Below you’ll find a link to an especially helpful checklist of questions every parent should know to ask when talking to a doctor treating a child for a suspected head injury (the list is compiled by the federal government’s National Institutes of Health).

The issues surrounding Oregon concussions and other traumatic brain injuries are serious, and it is good to see them drawing more attention both here and nationwide. Legislation is a good first step but, ultimately, both parents and the justice system must remain vigilant to ensure that responsible adults act appropriately, particularly when caring for our children. Consulting an Oregon traumatic brain injury attorney can be an important step for parents wondering whether a sports-related injury could, or should, have been avoided.

Safe Kids New Jersey: Governor Christie Signs Comprehensive Concussion Safety Bill to Protect New Jersey’s Student-Athletes

National Institutes of Health: Concussion – what to ask your doctor – child

As the nation settles in for another football-filled fall weekend many of the sport’s fans are focusing on new enforcement measures announced by the NFL in the last few days. The league wants to contain the damage being caused by violent, potentially catastrophic, hits. As has been reported just about everywhere, an unusually large number of stomach-churning plays last week led the league to issue fines, threaten suspensions and warn players that enforcement of the sport’s existing rules is going to be tougher from now on.

But as a pair of articles published at opposite ends of the country this week remind us, the dangers of traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, concussions or other serious injuries faced by high school, middle school and youth players are, in some ways, far greater than those confronting the highly-trained, closely monitored athletes of the NFL.

In a wide-ranging article published yesterday, the Los Angeles Times noted that, in Southern California, no baseline set of standards exists for medical care at high school football games. The article dramatically contrasts the situation at private schools that can afford to have a staff of as many as four athletic trainers and a doctor roaming the sidelines to that of poor public schools that make due with an ambulance parked at one end of the field. Such a situation, the paper notes, offers reassurance in the event of a catastrophic brain or spinal cord injury, but does little or nothing for players who suffer milder, harder to diagnose – and far more common – injuries, such as concussions.

Concussions, in turn, are the focus of the New York Times piece, which states bluntly that many parents may be putting far too much faith in the helmets their children wear when playing football. “Helmets both new and used are not – and never have been – tested against the forces believed to cause concussions,” the paper reports. It goes on to note that football helmets – standards for which have “not changed meaningfully” since they were first written in 1973 – are designed mainly “to withstand only the extremely high-level force that would otherwise fracture skulls.” Put another way, football helmets do relatively little to prevent the jarring injuries, such as concussions, which are increasingly being acknowledged as an issue at all levels of football.

These articles raise critical issues that Oregon parents need to consider when deciding whether to allow their children to play football or other sports. Oregon sports injuries can cause damage that permanently alters a child’s life. When such a tragedy occurs, an Oregon sport injury attorney can provide essential counsel to parents considering the best way to achieve justice and restore balance to their family. A Portland traumatic brain and spinal cord injury lawyer can be a traumatized family’s most important ally when school or sports officials fail to live up to their responsibilities to create a properly safe sports environment here in Oregon.

New York Times: As injuries rise, scant oversight of helmet safety

Los Angeles Times: High school football’s medical tightrope

Have you ever been to a carnival, or even a child’s birthday party and wondered just how safe those moonwalks, bouncy castles and other portable ‘rides’ are? According to a recent article in the Wichita Eagle, a Kansas court case looks set to bring those issues into focus.

According to the newspaper, the civil lawsuit was filed last month by the parents of a five-year-old boy who died after being thrown from an inflatable ride called King of the Hill. The newspaper describes this as being “designed like a large mattress – flat except for a bulge in the middle – and… surrounded by a 2-foot-high inflatable barrier.” Parents were allegedly told to place a child in the center of the ‘mattress’ and then to jump up and down themselves on the inflatable’s sides, causing the child to fly into the air. Having done this a few days earlier for the boy’s birthday party the five-year-old’s family returned to the same amusement park a few days later, using free passes they had received during the birthday celebration. On this second visit, however, the child was launched over the inflatable barrier. He landed head-first on the facility’s concrete floor, resulting in his death.

The parents also charge that the ride was “underinflated and unsupervised” and that the operator ignored the manufacturer’s recommendation that the ride was for children ages 8 and up.

Any child’s death is, of course, an enormous tragedy. Incidents such as this, however, highlight the importance of tough enforcement mechanisms and the need, here in Oregon, to contact a Portland personal injury lawyer immediately should your child suffer an injury on a carnival ride. Accidents like the one in Kansas are particularly serious because even if they do not result in death they carry significant risk of traumatic brain injury or a spinal cord injury.

It is important that the operators of amusement parks and similar attractions be held accountable when their attractions are operated negligently or in an unsafe manner. Injuries to children are especially difficult for any parent or loved one to think about. If your child has been injured while visiting a carnival or amusement park, prompt consultation with an Oregon child injury lawyer is an essential first step toward protecting your family’s rights and ensuring that justice is done.

Wichita Eagle: Mother sues inflatable company over death of child

New parents have been told for years to use rear-facing car seats until their babies turn one year old and weigh 20 pounds, after which front-facing child seats are the norm. But data from both Oregon and the federal government are leading medical and safety professionals to reassess this long-held belief, according to state publications and a recent article in the Bend Bulletin.

Expert opinion is coalescing around the idea that children should face backwards until they are at least two years old, the Bulletin reports. Oregon’s Public Health Service adds that “children under the age of two are 75% less likely to be killed or severely injured in a motor vehicle crash is they are riding rear facing rather than forward facing.”

There is an especially great danger of Oregon traumatic brain injuries and spinal cord injuries when young children are not properly restrained in an approved car seat. The Bulletin, citing child emergency physician Dennis Durbin, notes that “young children have weaker neck muscles than older children and adults. Their ligaments are looser. And the bones in the neck aren’t locked together in the same way as an adult’s.” These physiological factors put small children at a significantly higher risk of traumatic brain injuries when they are in a forward-facing car seat. Rear facing seats are safer because in a crash they tend to provide more support for a child’s neck and back.

In the horrifying event that your child suffers an Oregon traumatic brain injury as the result of a Portland, Beaverton or Corvallis auto accident the assistance of a Portland traumatic brain injury lawyer can be essential in helping you sort through the accident’s legal and financial consequences. An Oregon brain injury attorney can help address questions of fault and financial responsibility, and advise on compensation to which you may be entitled.

Bend Bulletin: Rethinking Car Seat Safety

Oregon DHS Public Health Office: Link to August 25, 2009 newsletter on car seats

A state appeals court has upheld a $1.4 million Oregon medical malpractice judgment against the Oregon Health & Science University’s hospital and one of its doctors. The court rejected arguments by the university and doctor that state law capped Oregon medical malpractice liability at $200,000, according to local media reports. The Portland Business Journal reports that the hospital plans to appeal the ruling.

The focus of the case is former Portland TV host Ken Ackerman. According to The Oregonian, Ackerman contends that a botched 2003 operation to repair a bulging spinal disk has left him in near constant pain, reduced his dexterity in one hand and reduced his sensitivity to hot and cold on one side of his body. Ackerman sued for $5 million and was awarded $1.4 million after a 2006 Portland medical malpractice trial. His suit also challenged a law limiting damages against state employees performing their official duties to $200,000. The question of whether the law protected the doctor and hospital from damages above that figure was effectively resolved when the State Supreme court overturned the limits in a separate 2007 case.

Ackerman’s latest victory is good news for anyone who has been the victim of Oregon medical malpractice and is seeking compensation for his or her injuries. A Portland medical malpractice attorney can advise clients on the best ways to approach a case, based on the victim’s own particular experiences. In addition to medical bills and lost wages or salary, compensation can include awards for pain and suffering, and for lost potential income. The state’s moves to revise the old caps on liability awards is an important acknowledgement that in this age of ever-rising medical costs the value of damages associated with Oregon medical malpractice claims should also rise accordingly.

The Oregonian: Court rules that former Portland TV personality should get $1.4 million from doctor, OHSU

Portland Business Journal: OHSU will appeal $1.4M ruling