Previous Posts
- Partner Joseph Cammarata Wins Appeal in D.C. Court...
- DC-TLA President Siegel Lectures at Trial Lawyer's...
- Partner Allan Siegel Settles Slip and Fall Case fo...
- Woman Suffers TBI While Entering a Restaurant Obta...
- Frequency of Drowning and Near-Drowning Incidents
- Near-Drowning
- Brain Injury Services, Inc.
- Non-Economic Damages Cap in Maryland
- The Effects of Partial and Total Sleep Deprivation...
- How Traumatic Brain Injuries Are Treated
Archives
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
Serious Personal Injury Lawyers Blog
Friday, November 7, 2008
Partner Joseph Cammarata Wins Appeal in D.C. Court of Appeals
Our client was stopped at a light and rear-ended by a car driven by Mr. Clemencia. Our client suffered an injury to her neck. Efforts to resolve our client’s claim without the need to file a lawsuit were unsuccessful resulting in Partner Joseph Cammarata and the law firm filing a law suit against Mr. Clemencia in the D.C. Superior Court. After Mr. Clemencia was served with the Complaint, Mr. Clemencia did not timely file an answer to the Complaint. The Court them entered an Order of Default against Mr. Clemencia for his failure to timely answer the Complaint. Mr. Clemencia, through his lawyer from State Farm, made at least two attempts to overturn the default. Mr. Cammarata resisted these attempts and the Court agreed with Mr. Cammarata that the default should not be overturned.
A hearing was later held to determine the amount of our client’s damages. The Court, after hearing testimony from our client, her neurologist, and an economist, awarded our client $230,000. The amount of insurance available was $100,000. Mr. Clemencia, through his State Farm attorney, sought to overturn the Court’s damages award. The Court denied the request.
Mr. Clemencia appealed the case to the D.C. Court of Appeals arguing that the Court improperly held Mr. Clemencia in default.
At the D.C. Court of Appeals, the law firm filed a memorandum of law on behalf of our client and appeared at a hearing to present argument in our client’s favor. After reviewing the law and listening to oral argument in the matter, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of our client stating that the lower court properly found Mr. Clemencia to be in default.
A hearing was later held to determine the amount of our client’s damages. The Court, after hearing testimony from our client, her neurologist, and an economist, awarded our client $230,000. The amount of insurance available was $100,000. Mr. Clemencia, through his State Farm attorney, sought to overturn the Court’s damages award. The Court denied the request.
Mr. Clemencia appealed the case to the D.C. Court of Appeals arguing that the Court improperly held Mr. Clemencia in default.
At the D.C. Court of Appeals, the law firm filed a memorandum of law on behalf of our client and appeared at a hearing to present argument in our client’s favor. After reviewing the law and listening to oral argument in the matter, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of our client stating that the lower court properly found Mr. Clemencia to be in default.
Labels: auto accidents
posted by Biera Campbell at 7:22 AM
Monday, November 3, 2008
DC-TLA President Siegel Lectures at Trial Lawyer's Seminar
Partner Allan M. Siegel was a featured lecturer at an all day seminar on October 17, 2008 on litigating automobile and tractor-trailer cases. The seminar was sponsored by the D.C. Metropolitan Area Trial Lawyers Association. Mr. Siegel is currently the President of that organization, and was instrumental in the planning of the seminar.
The all-day seminar focused on teaching lawyers how to maximize results in car accidents, truck accidents, tractor-trailer accidents, or any other accident involving a commercial vehicle. Mr. Siegel made a presentation regarding uninsured and underinsured motorist cases in Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia. An uninsured or underinsured motorist cases arise when the victim of a motor vehicle accident is injured by a person who either does not have insurance, or does not have enough insurance. In such cases, the injured party must file a claim against his own insurance company. These claims can be very complicated, since each of the three local jurisdictions – Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia – have very different laws relating to how the injured party must proceed. Mr. Siegel went through the differences in each state, and shared some the strategies that he has used over the years to maximize settlement and trial results in these cases. In addition, to Mr. Siegel there was a panel of elite lawyers from around the country discussing persuasion techniques, cross examining expert witnesses, litigating truck, tractor-trailer and other commercial vehicle cases and ethical issues facing Plaintiff’s lawyers. The program was very educational and received high reviews by all of those who attended.
The all-day seminar focused on teaching lawyers how to maximize results in car accidents, truck accidents, tractor-trailer accidents, or any other accident involving a commercial vehicle. Mr. Siegel made a presentation regarding uninsured and underinsured motorist cases in Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia. An uninsured or underinsured motorist cases arise when the victim of a motor vehicle accident is injured by a person who either does not have insurance, or does not have enough insurance. In such cases, the injured party must file a claim against his own insurance company. These claims can be very complicated, since each of the three local jurisdictions – Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia – have very different laws relating to how the injured party must proceed. Mr. Siegel went through the differences in each state, and shared some the strategies that he has used over the years to maximize settlement and trial results in these cases. In addition, to Mr. Siegel there was a panel of elite lawyers from around the country discussing persuasion techniques, cross examining expert witnesses, litigating truck, tractor-trailer and other commercial vehicle cases and ethical issues facing Plaintiff’s lawyers. The program was very educational and received high reviews by all of those who attended.
Labels: tractor trailer
posted by Biera Campbell at 5:46 AM
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Partner Allan Siegel Settles Slip and Fall Case for $100,000
Our client had parked his car in the parking lot of a local retail store. He got out of his car and slipped and fell on a large puddle of oil and/or antifreeze causing him to strike his head and neck. He ultimately was diagnosed as having a herniated disk in his neck.
The owner of the store claimed that it was not responsible for the our client’s fall since its employees did not cause the oil spill – arguing that the spill on the parking lot was likely caused by another vehicle on the parking lot for which they had not control.
Partner Allan M. Siegel filed a lawsuit against the storeowner and set out to prove that the fall was not merely caused by a single leaking car on the parking lot, but rather was the result of the store’s pattern and practice of failing to adequately monitor and police the activity on its parking lot. During the course of the litigation, Mr. Siegel learned that the store had a policy that forbade customers from doing mechanical work on their cars on its parking lot. The reason this policy was in place was that the storeowner knew that automobile fluids and substances, such as oil and anti-freeze, could pool in the parking lot and create a dangerous condition. Mr. Siegel also uncovered that this “no work” policy was regularly and consciously violated, and that the store’s employees would allow customers to do work on their cars and spill fluids in the parking lot. A spot inspection by an expert retained by the firm, revealed that plastic oil bottles were frequently strewn across the parking lot, discarded by customers after adding oil to their cars, further demonstrating the consistent violation of the store policy. This inspection also revealed that the run-off from the parking had caused a large swath of grass to die between the parking lot and the closest storm drain where rain water runs off. The law firm had the soil tested, which demonstrated that the soil surrounding the parking lot was contaminated with high levels of oil and other automobile substances.
When Mr. Siegel had finished dissecting the store’s policies and procedures, it was clear that whether that our client’s fall was a direct result of the store’s failure to take any reasonable efforts to monitor or inspect its parking lot. The case settled at mediation for $100,000.
The owner of the store claimed that it was not responsible for the our client’s fall since its employees did not cause the oil spill – arguing that the spill on the parking lot was likely caused by another vehicle on the parking lot for which they had not control.
Partner Allan M. Siegel filed a lawsuit against the storeowner and set out to prove that the fall was not merely caused by a single leaking car on the parking lot, but rather was the result of the store’s pattern and practice of failing to adequately monitor and police the activity on its parking lot. During the course of the litigation, Mr. Siegel learned that the store had a policy that forbade customers from doing mechanical work on their cars on its parking lot. The reason this policy was in place was that the storeowner knew that automobile fluids and substances, such as oil and anti-freeze, could pool in the parking lot and create a dangerous condition. Mr. Siegel also uncovered that this “no work” policy was regularly and consciously violated, and that the store’s employees would allow customers to do work on their cars and spill fluids in the parking lot. A spot inspection by an expert retained by the firm, revealed that plastic oil bottles were frequently strewn across the parking lot, discarded by customers after adding oil to their cars, further demonstrating the consistent violation of the store policy. This inspection also revealed that the run-off from the parking had caused a large swath of grass to die between the parking lot and the closest storm drain where rain water runs off. The law firm had the soil tested, which demonstrated that the soil surrounding the parking lot was contaminated with high levels of oil and other automobile substances.
When Mr. Siegel had finished dissecting the store’s policies and procedures, it was clear that whether that our client’s fall was a direct result of the store’s failure to take any reasonable efforts to monitor or inspect its parking lot. The case settled at mediation for $100,000.
Labels: slip and fall
posted by Biera Campbell at 6:58 AM
Monday, October 27, 2008
Woman Suffers TBI While Entering a Restaurant Obtains Settlement
On November 10, 2005 at approximately 2:30 p.m., our client was entering the California Grill restaurant in Washington, D.C. when her foot got caught on a portion of the floor which was not level with the door threshold, causing her to fall. Her knees struck the floor and her body fell forward causing her head to strike a glass wall which was in the vestibule directly in front of her.
The door and its threshold had just been replaced and the new door threshold was not flush with the tile floor, causing a trip hazard. The owner of the restaurant placed a wet floor sign near the door to allegedly warn customers of this hazard. However, he failed to take the most simple and logical precaution of posting a sign on the door warning customers to “watch their step.”
Our client suffered extensive injuries and damages, including a closed head injury, (also referred to as a traumatic brain injury or concussion) with cognitive impairments, post-traumatic headaches, a left rotator cuff tear, cervical radiculopathy, cervical strain, lumbar strain and bilateral knee contusions. As a result of the closed head injury our client’s doctors diagnosed her with a condition called Dysautonomia. Dysautonomia is a malfunction of the autonomic nervous system which can cause lightheadedness, dizziness, headaches, and syncope episodes (fainting). Following the incident, our client had multiple fainting spells, which required extensive hospitalizations. The Defendants disputed that the fainting spells were caused by the incident.
Partner Allan M. Siegel filed a lawsuit against the owner of the restaurant, the owner of the building, management company of the building, and the company that installed the door. The case settled at mediation. The terms of the settlement are confidential.
The door and its threshold had just been replaced and the new door threshold was not flush with the tile floor, causing a trip hazard. The owner of the restaurant placed a wet floor sign near the door to allegedly warn customers of this hazard. However, he failed to take the most simple and logical precaution of posting a sign on the door warning customers to “watch their step.”
Our client suffered extensive injuries and damages, including a closed head injury, (also referred to as a traumatic brain injury or concussion) with cognitive impairments, post-traumatic headaches, a left rotator cuff tear, cervical radiculopathy, cervical strain, lumbar strain and bilateral knee contusions. As a result of the closed head injury our client’s doctors diagnosed her with a condition called Dysautonomia. Dysautonomia is a malfunction of the autonomic nervous system which can cause lightheadedness, dizziness, headaches, and syncope episodes (fainting). Following the incident, our client had multiple fainting spells, which required extensive hospitalizations. The Defendants disputed that the fainting spells were caused by the incident.
Partner Allan M. Siegel filed a lawsuit against the owner of the restaurant, the owner of the building, management company of the building, and the company that installed the door. The case settled at mediation. The terms of the settlement are confidential.
Labels: slip and fall, traumatic brain injury
posted by Biera Campbell at 5:20 AM
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Frequency of Drowning and Near-Drowning Incidents
Drowning deaths number more than 8,000 per year with approximately 1,500 of these deaths occurring with children. In the toddler group of children, most incidents occur in bathtubs or swimming pools while in the adolescent group, most incidents occur in natural bodies of water. For every death from drowning, there are an estimated four individuals hospitalized as a result of near-drowning. Perhaps surprisingly, drowning deaths of children aged 1 month to 14 years is second only to motor vehicle accidents. In three states, Arizona, California and Florida, drowning is actually the greatest cause of death within that age group. Submersion related injuries are the fifth leading cause of accidental death in the United States in all age groups occurring approximately 2.5-3.5 per hundred thousand individuals. Unfortunately, true incidents of near-drowning cannot be accurately defined since many cases are not reported.
Labels: near-drownings, pool safety
posted by Biera Campbell at 11:24 AM
Monday, October 20, 2008
Near-Drowning
Drowning is defined as death secondary to a loss of oxygen while immersed in a liquid, usually water, or within 24 hours of submersion. Drowning does not usually take place when an individual is helplessly gasping and thrashing in the water. That is rarely the report of a drowning victim. Instead, it is a more ominous scenario of a motionless individual floating in the water or quietly disappearing beneath the surface. Near-drowning on the other hand, connotes the immersion of sufficient severity to warrant medical attention and may lead to serious injury or death. Near-drowning victims frequently have profound, permanent brain injury requiring full-time care for all of their daily life activities.
Labels: brain damage, drowning
posted by Biera Campbell at 2:02 PM
Friday, October 17, 2008
Brain Injury Services, Inc.
Brain Injury Services, Inc., a Springfield, Virginia organization whose mission it is to improve the lives of people who are affected by brain injury through community-based programs, education and advocacy have provided information regarding a series of seminars which will take place from October all the way through July 2009. The recovery group’s topic schedule is appended hereto as an attachment and may be reviewed along with the contact information for any individual or family believing they could benefit from this. Brain Injury Services, Inc. is a private, non-profit agency that helps individuals with brain injuries in northern Virginia and Fredericksburg. Brain Injury Services, Inc. recognizes that although 80% of all traumatic brain injuries are classified as “mild”, a mild injury does not mean a mild deficit. The law firm of Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C., as a responsible member of this community determined that it is appropriate to notify our readers of the existence of this resource.
Labels: brain damage, traumatic brain injury
posted by Biera Campbell at 4:18 PM
