It’s difficult to fast-forward our minds sometimes to imagine how things might be in the future, and how we would look back on how things are now in relation. With regard to unarmed thieves, drug abusers and white collar criminals, the prison system and its violence is an unacceptable part of modern American society that we may one day regret.

Why in this day and age, where American life is so evolved and technology so advanced, are prisons akin to a bunch of violent animals in shared cages. Prisoners rape one another, stab one another and assault one another. How could this be allowed to go on in America? It seems more like an Eastern European or African nation scenario. In America? Caged up men fighting it out and raping one another? Really? This goes on in modern America? To me it seems barbaric. Imagine, Federal or district judges sentencing men to live in violent societies where their lives and limbs are constantly at risk. Our legal system, the most advanced system in the world, and judges, the most highly regarded people in our society- are the catalysts for imprisoning men in situations where they, as known to us all, attack and rape each other.

To be clear, I am tough-minded on crime. Murderers and rapists should be locked up in prison cells-or killed. No question about it. They should have boring, bland, and punishing lives without conveniences or decent food. There should be no television or entertainment. I am discussing non-violent criminals. These men should not be sent into enclosed yards with other violent men and be subjected to beatings, rapes and extortions- which is the reality. Ethically we can argue the point, but as a national policy, it doesn’t sound right, and when viewing it on television documentaries, it doesn’t look right. It demeans us as a civilized people.

Even in the case where murders and rapists are subjected to these constantly dangerous communities, burglars and marijuana smokers who have been convicted certainly should not be. And what about the innocent prisoners, of which there are thousands?

Cells and prisons should be designed so that prisoners are separated from other prisoners most of the time. Prisoners should have the option to be in the yard and amongst the population or not. If an inmate feels under threat then he should not be required to be amongst the people he fears, or be exposed to violence in any way. Men should shower under guard-watch 10 at a time, not 50 or 100. Food should be brought to prisoner’s cells, not served in a caferterias. They should exercise in very small groups inside of small gated areas, not in one large yard with different gangs laying claims to different real estate.  This system also makes the guards safer as there is less opportunity for prisoners to scheme and transact. Again, even if this policy does not apply to murderers and rapists, it should apply to unarmed robbers and burglars, drug users and white collar criminals.

It’s hard for me to accept or fully comprehend that in modern America, we put violent men in big yards or caferterias or main prison areas where the state can’t and won’t guarantee protection of any one man. Prison should be a miserable experience for all-which it is. But it should not be a place where men are permitted to rape and assault other men at-will in the name of their gang, or if they feel disrespected. Prisons are mostly run by states and federal governments. Allowing this kind of violence is beneath the status of our nation.

I was watching an episode of Lockup this past weekend. A man was imprisoned in San Quentin with a life sentence for killing another man in a drug dispute over territorial rights. The killer was convicted of 1^st degree murder.

Thirty years later, we find the drug dealer remorseful and understanding of the nature and abhorrence of his crime. His parole hearing was coming up in a week. Parole hearings are very tricky in that even if you plead “not-guilty” at your original trial, if you continue to claim you are not guilty, parole boards will penalize you. They will take the position that you are not accepting responsibility for your crime and therefore are at best unremorseful and deserve more punishment, and at worst, a continuing threat to society where you do not regret murder or accept responsibility, and therefore need to be locked up for society’s protection. If a man is truly innocent, this process of course raises a host of issues.

Let’s however, take the situation where a man pleads guilty, so as to remove this catch-22 from the issue at hand, and accepts responsibility for his acts at his parole hearing. The issue here is whether who the victim of the crime is should be evaluated in the context of his killer’s punishment. When a man has taken a life- or committed some violent crime against a victim who is a violent criminal himself- is there more room for forgiveness after a harsh punishment has been suffered over many years than if the victim was a lawful citizen, where remorse and rehabilitation is evidenced by the killer? Can we evaluate a life in that context, or is every life as valuable as every other life?

Ethically speaking, neither the penal system nor a judge can consider the value of the victim’s life in determining the appropriate sentencing. Judges can of course consider the nature of the crime and the victim’s role in his own death. This brings in some element of judging the victim. But to actually base a sentence on the value of the life lost is improper.

If a drug kingpin was killed by his competitor, it can be argued that this fact does not make the killer of that kingpin any less dangerous to society because he killed a drug dealer than if he killed a law-abiding citizen. Thus, the sentencing may be equally as harsh as if a law-abiding citizen was killed. However, after 30 years, it may be practical for a parole board to consider who the victim was in continuing to punish the killer? Why might this be reasonable? The killer may have been engaging in activities as a younger man that he has outgrown, such as drug dealing. Since he killed a drug dealer, not an ordinary citizen, it may be likely that his criminal activity was limited to mixing it up with other criminals. Since that part of his life is so far in the past, it may present a strong unlikelihood of reoccurrence. While at the time of the murder, this should not has been considered since the killer was so enveloped in a criminal life that anyone of any walk of life could have gotten hurt, 30 years later, this is a less likely scenario- “if “ the killer has shown a change of behavior, attitude, seems rehabilitated and is expressing believable remorse.

If a convicted murderer has clearly shown a change of heart and remorse for a murder he committed, is it reasonable for a parole board to take into consideration that his victim was a druglord and likely a murderer himself, playing in the same dangerous world as the killer- as opposed to say, a father of three who worked two jobs to support his family and never broke a law in his life? No one should get off for murder or other violent crime, even if against another violent criminal, if for no other reason, because anyone who has a proven propensity for violence ought to be off the streets so that innocent people are safe from them. But if a perpetrator spends 20, 30 , 40 years in prison for a violent act he committed as a young man against another violent young man with a violent history himself-and that perpetrator has shown for 10 years his changed behavior, attitude, and values, is there a point that a long harsh punishment has been long and harsh enough?  Of course, from a religious standpoint, every life is as valuable as every other. But in a non-religious sense, from a secular societal standpoint, is it practical and reasonable to release the killer of a criminal who was a killer himself, after sufficient and extreme punishment of the perpetrator who evidences remorse and appears rehabilitated?

There is a genre of video games known as virtual reality. This means that it’s not quite reality, but has similar aspects.

There is a class of communications known as text messages, where we don’t actually hear a human voice, but receive texts that convey thoughts and emotions.

An undertaking in private industry is under way to build robots to do our work and handle our tasks so that humans ultimately don’t have to do them ourselves.

Communication technologies allow us to be-or force us to be- served in our basic and immediate needs by people in distant lands.

If this is progress, is progress regressive?

Let’s begin with a virtual reality. By using a virtual reality system we can feel like we are playing baseball, sitting on a mountaintop or waterskiing from a boat. But virtual reality is just that- not quite reality. Wouldn’t you prefer to actually be on a field playing baseball, actually on a mountaintop or actually water skiing? Why participate in virtual games in the name of progress when you can do the real thing? Sure, now and then when we are in the mood to do things that we are otherwise unable to do virtual reality gives us an alternative. But in most cases these days, kids are playing video games in lieu of participating in the actual activities, and not as the last option.

Let’s look at it another way. What if we “only” had a virtual way of doing activities we enjoy? Only through a computer screen could we play football or go fishing or go running through a field. What if we really could not actually do these things? What if we were physically handicapped and could only engage in sports from a remote control? When we call virtual reality “progress” I wonder what that really means. Seems more like the minimum involvement level you can have in an activity. Not quite reality-but virtually reality.

Let’s use text messaging as another example. Imagine a world where we can’t hear anyone’s voices whom we communicate with. We could only discuss things in writing. Sounds like the days of the Pony Express in early America, huh? In that scenario, we would be ecstatic about a voice machine where we could actually hear the voice of the person with whom we are communicating. We could experience their tone and tenor and convey thoughts so much more easily and accurately- like we were standing there next to the person we are talking to. A neat idea. Looking at it that way, being limited to the text of words on a page or screen seems regressive rather than progressive.

The next dimension in progress is robots. We want to program robots to do things for us from work to play. So this means what? We will no longer work or play? Is that the ultimate goal- to have and do nothing real? To not really interact with others? To not really work? To not really play? To do so only through a machine and via a robot proxy?

As for customer service, we use modern technologies to allow people in far away places who speak foreign languages to serve our needs. These people neither share our manner of speech or ideals but also have no idea or interest in knowing who we are. This sounds more similar to world history than world present. Makes me think of a time when we were less connected, rather than more. As service is less customized and less personal and harder to achieve- as it has become, it seems that all our progress toward human societies, where we act as one community for the greater good, is diminished. If one’s jokes or manners of speech are largely misunderstood by the people we work with, that can hardly be seen as human progress.

Virtual reality, text messages and robots are not driving us forward as a people, they are actually bringing back major themes of the past. There was a time just hundreds of years ago when people could not directly communicate easily, when experiences were limited by time and space and where people were isolated from other people. We, as a species, worked hard over the years to open up new lines of actual and direct communication, to bring people closer to each other and build communities, and provide access to all kinds of real experiences to people. When we develop and use technologies to limit direct communications, limit actual experiences, separate people from those serving their communities and limit human ability to experience things for themselves rather than through others (or through robots) it seems like we are using technology to return to a time when we had no technology at all.

Neil S. Siskind, Esq.
www.Siskindlawfirm.com
Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, Bankruptcy, Debt Negotiation, Commercial Collections

I often wonder what the purpose is of manufacturing a motor vehicle that has the ability to go faster than the law allows. If the law permits vehicles to reach 65 miles per hour, then why are there not laws regulating vehicle manufacturers that ensure a vehicle can not reach over 65 miles per hour?

 Understandably, a motor vehicle may need to speed up quickly in order to avoid danger. But speed up to 80 miles per hour-or more- to avoid danger? I think not.

While manufactures struggle to make more fuel efficient vehicles due to the rising cost of refined gasoline, wouldn’t it make sense to limit the speed that a vehicle can travel? That seems like one simple solution. If you have 30% of cars going 80 miles per hour now going 65 miles per hour, then could save a lot of fuel.

Of course, special vehicles meant specifically for racing could still be manufactured- but the assembly line car or motorcycle should be restrained by law from hainvg the the ability to break the highest state speed limit. This would save lives, prevent lawbreakers form outrunning the police, lessen the need for police on highways that could be serving other purposes, and save on fuel.

Speeding can not be taken seriously as a violation of law until lawmakers themselves take it seriously. If speeding in a vehicle is against the law, then manufacturing and selling the mechanisms that allow for it should also be.

Movies and television are filled with violence and sexual content to which our children are regularly exposed. Actors are seen smoking cigarettes, taking drugs, racing fast cars, robbing banks and committing murders.  When parents lash out against the onslaught of violent impressions imposed upon our children, Hollywood actors, producers and creators never concede their negative roles or accept responsibility. Rather, they respond by blaming parents for not watching what their children are doing. Moreover, they go on to claim that it is just entertainment and that most balanced people understand that.

As for the first issue of parenting, it is nearly impossible to prevent exposure to these images. They are everywhere- on television, on the Internet, in movies, on cell phones-there is simply no escape for the modern child. Parents have little defense from the technological onslaught. It is just irresponsible unrealistic babble to think otherwise. The best parents in the world could not stop a child from seeing a homepage on the Internet filled with stupid and violent headlines and photos. Should a parent follow a child around all day explaining how that child should be interpreting the data and visuals coming across to him or her? I, like any other person, can speak for all other people when I say that most times my parents had no idea what I was thinking about a television show or movie’s impressions at any given moment. How could they?

While producers and writers dispute that their work has an effect on people’s actions, this is a direct contradiction to the purpose of television commercials. The goal of a television commercial is to have people, people of all ages, emulate and aspire to what is being promoted. How can one separate one medium’s affects on a viewer from another? A televisions show is not meant to inspire emulation but a television commercial is. And the viewer should mentally and psychologically be inspired to act by one but not the other? It’s ridiculous and flawed logic and an unacceptable distinction. A billion dollar industry called “advertising” exists merely to encourage others to act through the use of words and images on the screen- because it does in fact affect one’s thoughts and perceptions. It’s been proven by the advertising industry time and again.

Thus, I submit that television content, along with other factors such as parenting and home life, is somewhat responsible for the actions of young people, their desensitization to violence and their emulation of sexual scenarios. It is uncontroverted that many young women have hurt themselves or even caused their own deaths strictly as the result of emulation of thin runway models splashed all over the TV.

Likewise, it should make one wonder why many actors become actors in the first place anyhow. I submit that a major factor in that decision is that they think those on the screen before them look cool and what they do looks interesting. They are greatly impressed upon by these images- so impressed that they make a life choice, such as a career choice, based on those images. How could they therefore not understand it happening to others?

Moreover, despite their outcries about damage to our earth’s environment, many movie and television professionals do a great deal of flying and have private jets and fleets of cars and yachts, polluting the air and water. Additionally, a University of California study revealed that the film and TV industry contribute more to pollution in the Los Angeles region than most industries including aerospace manufacturing and hotels. So the hipocracy continues.

Am I suggesting that digital and video content be expelled from modern society? Of course not.  But responsibility must be placed where it belongs and accepted for what it is.  Distributors of content need to use discretion in their choices of content that gets disseminated to children. Is this a realistic expectation? Of course not. Especially now that the Internet offers individual content creators the ability to distribute whatever they can and want to whomever they can and want, the flood gates for violence and smut to be imposed upon us all are forever open and we may be defenseless to it. With no filter as to what is acceptable and the inability to shut it out, our children’s eyes and ears are targets for those who are just seeking attention and notoriety with no care for the resulting social impact nor whom have any risk of a negative financial impact. The mediums are in place to ensure that children can be reached if they are home by the TV, in a car with a video device, or in school on a computer. Who knows what could pop up at any time?  Makes me sort of wish that the control was in someone’s hands at least….even if it’s  someone who uses discretion simply because he or she has to answer to shareholders or higher corporate powers, rather than our being bombarded with content freely flowing from individuals filming and emailing out videos from their basements without care or  recourse. Come to think of it- maybe Hollywood producers aren’t so bad after all.

Neil S. Siskind, Esq.
The Siskind Law Firm
www.Siskindlawfirm.com
Personal Injuries, Medical Malpractice, Bankrutpcy, Debt Negotiation, Commercial Collection

I was recently admitted to an emergency room with foot pain and tingling. The emergency room doctor ordered x-rays. After his review of the x-rays he advised me that I had degenerative discs in my neck which are the likely causes of my symptoms. I took the x-rays to my friend, a Physical Therapist, who scoffed. He said that my x-rays were fine and the doctor was wrong. Turned out that he, my friend, was right. So I saw another doctor who diagnosed and resolved my issue. By the way, that emergency room doctor gave me a pain medication prescription based on his misdiagnosis. By the time I left that doctor’s care I thought I had a problem I did not have, still had the problem I originally had, and was taking drugs I did not need. Pretty scary.

In more serious cases, a misdiagnosis can be deadly. Even in luckier cases where the proper diagnosis is eventually realized, there will be a slowdown on the road to recovery since proper treatment can not even begin without a proper diagnosis. The majority of malpractice cases involve the misdiagnosis or failure to diagnose a disease. There are four main elements that will improve your likelihood of getting a proper diagnosis: (i) find an experienced doctor whom you believe will provide a competent and thorough examination based on the symptoms he is hearing and who is able to properly interpret the results of any tests, (ii) ensure that your doctor is giving you time to explain your symptoms adequately and that he is being responsive and thoughtful, (iii) use a medical office or medical facility with the medical equipment necessary to thoroughly review your case, and (iv) get a second (or even third) opinion from doctors whom you trust and can rely on based on objectively sufficient medical credentials. When these elements are combined properly, it could determine the difference between life and death.

Knowledge and Experience:

First, a doctor needs to have the requisite education and clinical experience to decide which tests to order and whether to order them at all when working towards a diagnosis. If you fail to take the time to find a doctor whose opinion can be relied upon, you begin your search for a resolution to your issue with a severe handicap. Check into your doctor’s credentials and reputation before you put your life in his hands. Even after doing some homework you still may not know who your doctor really is and he may not do a great job. But as thinking people, we must exercise some judgment in these matters vs. throwing caution to the wind. Though convenience in terms of location is an important matter in your decisions to use any service, your choice of a doctor needs far more consideration then which doctor is the closest to your house. The first step towards getting the right diagnosis is getting the right doctor.

The quality of care in greater populated areas has a tendency to be more sophisticated than in lesser populated areas. The best doctors from the best medical schools with the most acclaim are more likely to be in Boston, Massachusetts, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and New York, New York than in Minnetonka, Minnesota or Cape Coral, Florida. To be sure, doctors can be good for different reasons, including the time they spend with and concern they have for patients. But when it comes to a major condition, you want to be exposed to the more highly educated doctors in the larger facilities with the highest acclaim and medical resources. That’s my feeling anyway. Of course there will be exceptions where a renowned doctor is in a more remote area.

Listening and Responding:

You want to ensure that your doctor is taking the time and giving the focus to your symptoms and complaints. An otherwise excellent doctor who isn’t giving you his full attention or putting thought into your problem is of little use. Once the doctor gets results from any tests you took and provides a diagnosis, ask him what he saw in those tests that is driving his conclusion. Ask your doctor what his experience with this type of illness or condition is. Ask if he interpreted these results himself or whether he is going on the opinion of the lab technician. Mistakes happen in labs. Moreover, the lab technician may not be someone whose final judgment will suffice for you. Certainly, if you do not know this person, it should never suffice.

Most importantly perhaps, under the model of today’s medical system, short of a malpractice claim, doctors have little incentive, other than moral ones, to spend enormous amounts of time on a diagnosis. They are paid to dispense drugs, order tests and perform services such as surgery. If you “feel” like you were rushed out the door or that you were not heard or responded to in a comprehensible manner, then you need to see another doctor. While I do not believe that doctors don’t care about getting a diagnosis right and healing patients, some level of human nature comes into the mix, and without incentives to get it right and with incentives to perform surgeries and prescribe medicine, doctors are themselves handcuffed by having to make livings. That is part of the reality of our system. That is also where the societal value of the malpractice lawyer becomes indispensable.

Adequate Equipment and Related Resources:

The resources available to a doctor can also determine whether a proper diagnosis is reached. Doctors in small hospitals and in rural areas may lack the diagnostic tools needed to test patients using the most modern methods. Advanced equipment, and even up-to-date equipment, is not available everywhere. A big city hospital can provide more testing options than that one in a small town. Also, it is helpful when a doctor has an abundance of competent colleagues with whom to discuss issues.

In addition to any equipment and academic limitations, doctors may be handicapped by insurance companies. Just because a doctor wants a test to be run does not always mean an insurance company will pay for it. So if a doctor is being very cautious and willing to look at several possibilities, the patient has to have the financial ability to pay for the tests. Often this means insurance, and that can mean a fight.

A Second, and Third, Opinion:

Finally, the second or third opinion is crucial to a diagnosis. Backup opinions should come from doctors in different facilities than that of the doctor who gave the first opinion. Also, they should come from doctors of different specialties. For instance, if a surgeon recommends surgery, see another surgeon. But also see a Physical Therapist. In the case of an illness, after the diagnosis, see another doctor that works in this specialty, but also see a doctor who handles other medical areas that have a possibility of causing the symptoms- just to be sure. If you have a good insurance plan, it will cost you about $25 in the form of a co-pay to get another opinion. Isn’t that worth it? Just make sure that each doctor you see has the necessary credentials and reputation to handle your kind of issue. You must do your homework before you take medical advice.

The first step in getting better is getting a proper diagnosis of your medical condition. If you get that right, your chances greatly improve. If you get that wrong, you could get into trouble. The right doctor with access to the best resources and a second or third opinion together give you the best shot of receiving a proper diagnosis. The right diagnosis is the key to a possible resolution or cure. If this part goes wrong, short of the body healing itself, which often happens, you are fighting an uphill, and perhaps un-winnable battle.

If you have been given a misdiagnosis that has lead to an enhanced illness or unnecessary treatment that has harmed you, contact The Siskind Law Firm today to learn about the compensation to which you may be entitled.

The Siskind Law Firm
1385 Broadway, 24th FL
New York, NY 10018
Tel: 646.530.0006
wwww.Forinjuries.com
We offer a special Estate Planning discount to our personal injury and medical malpractice clients.

Forty-six years after the assassination of President Kennedy there is still valid dispute not only as to who planned the killing, but also as to who pulled the trigger. This controversy endures despite profound analysis using the most sophisticated investigative techniques, the highest governmental inquiries, and even actual film of the crime scene at the time of the shooting. Even when adding this to the testimony of people who knew Lee Harvey Oswald and understood his psyche, and testimony of the world’s foremost forensic experts, we, as a society, are still not “sure” what really happened. Contrast this with the assassination of President Lincoln where there is no doubt as to who the killer was. John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln in front of an audience of people who actually saw the gunshot take place. Like in the Oswald case, there is speculation that Booth was a part of a greater conspiracy, one of southern separatists out to get Lincoln. Yet, with all of the conspiratorial innuendo surrounding both assassinations, we are still absolutely sure Booth pulled the trigger on Lincoln- but question whether Oswald was the actual Kennedy assassin. The difference of the two? Eyewitnesses.

When you are injured, the value of a witness to your injury, or at least a witness to the actions that caused your injury, can be invaluable to your lawsuit. An eyewitness is a person (or in the case of the O.J. Simpson trial, a barking dog) who personally viewed the happening of an injury or who personally viewed some relevant facts related to the injury. Such person may agree to convey what they saw in a deposition or to a finder of fact in court. An eyewitness may be compelled by subpoena to describe in court or in a deposition what they saw. As a general matter, any party to a lawsuit with an eyewitness is working at an advantage to the party without any eyewitnesses of their own when a material fact is in dispute.

There are many possible areas of dispute in a lawsuit:

Sometimes pivotal facts are in dispute. Consider: Two 10 year old kids run up to you and one has a black eye. The one who has a black eye says, “He hit me”, and points to the other boy. The second boy responds, “He hit me first.” This is what a trial is at its essence in many cases- one’s word vs. another’s. How do we determine who hit whom first?

Other times, the facts are stipulated to by the parties, but the reason for an injurious action is in debate. Consider: A young girl says to her mother, “My brother hit me with his bicycle.” The brother replies, “Someone fell down in front of me so I swerved so I wouldn’t run him over and I’m very sorry.” In this case, the sister and brother both agree to the behavior that caused the injury. But we would have to determine fault and whether the boy acted reasonably in swerving out of the way. We must find out the true reason that the boy swerved into his sister. Was he being careless and wild, or was he diverting from greater harm to another?

In both of the above cases, short of doing a forensic analysis and bringing in character witnesses for the parties, both of which are done if necessary, eyewitness testimony would be the most helpful evidence in determining what really happened. If one side had five eyewitnesses whom were deemed reliable and who testified, while the other had no eyewitnesses, then in these cases it would be far easier for finders of fact to determine fault with a level of confidence, even though they personally were not there, and even in the face of other evidence. Would you want to be in a trial where five people claimed to have seen one thing and you claim to have seen another?

If you don’t have a witness to the actual injury, try to find a witness to the positioning of things at the scene or to the actions of the defendant before, during, or after the time of the injury. For example, a man may be throwing rocks off of a bridge into the water to scare up the fish. One rock may hit you in the head as you are fishing down below in a relatively secluded fishing hole. There may not be anyone that sees you get hit, but there may have been other people fishing from atop that bridge. These people may have been witness to the man throwing rocks off the bridge. Or perhaps they saw a man run from the scene saying, “Oops, I think I hit someone.” These are also “eyewitnesses”, even though they may not have actually seen the rock hit your head.

When you are injured, if you are truly hurt, the first thing on your mind should be getting medical assistance. I would say, as an attorney, ideally, that the next thought in your mind should be to take note of who is in your proximity and may have seen the action that caused you harm. This may be a person standing nearby, or a friend you are engaged in an activity with, or a passenger in your car. If you are walking down the street, you should take note of bystanders and shopkeepers who may have seen whatever it is that happened. If you are in sufficient condition you should get names, take note of faces or point potential witnesses out to the police if they are on the scene. Although it is asking a lot for a person who is hurt to think about the legal process, just remember how many times in your life you have accused someone of something, but had no proof, and how hard that was to make your case. It is human nature for people to believe only that which they see with their own eyes or hear with their own ears. Short of that, it takes a lot to gain a juror’s trust to your account of facts, especially considering you are someone they don’t even know. The best way to sway them may be with as many eyewitnesses to back up your story as you can possibly find.

Because there were eyewitnesses to the shooter taking the shot that caused the injury, John Wilkes Booth is the most infamous Presidential assassin in history- while Lee Harvey Oswald may forever be one of history’s most infamous prime suspects.

The Siskind Law Firm
1385 Broadway, 24th FL
New York, NY 10018
Tel: 646.530.0006
www.Siskindlawfirm.com
We offer a special Estate Planning discount to our personal injury and medical malpractice clients.

Leaving an elderly person in a nursing home without regular check-ins is like leaving your house unlocked with nobody home. The bad guys know there is an easy target and little chance of getting caught. If a house has alarms and people at home, criminals will skip to the next house that is an easier target with less risk of getting caught. The same applies to human targets.

Typically, employees in nursing homes are low wage workers. Because most nursing home residents pay with Medicare or other governmental payment program, the nursing home must be run very leanly in order for an owner to make a profit. Employees that are regularly around elderly residents include nurses, nurse assistants, cleaning staff, janitors and clerks. While for financial reasons you may have no choice but to place a loved on in a nursing home, you should not think that it is a place that they will be safe from harm. On too many occasions the opposite is the case. Elderly residents in nursing homes are targets for abuse, theft and harassment. According to governmental statistics and documented cases, residents may be victims of any of the following:

Bedsores * Ulcers * Fractures or broken bones * Unexplained bruises or injuries * Accidents of unknown origin* Inappropriate use of retraints * Physical abuse * Sexual abuse * Verbal abuse * Failure to turn patients in bed or move them from wheelchairs * Slip and fall accidents * Malnutrition * Dehydration * Failure to use bedrails resulting in falls * Medication errors* Theft

If any of these actions occurred with intent (many can only be intentional) there is of course recourse under the state criminal laws. But even in cases where no harm is intended, negligence can be the cause of the harm. Negligence may occur as a result of both the lack of quality and quantity of staff. They may be under-skilled, lacking in thought, or overwhelmed with work. There are of course caring, hardworking, intelligent, skilled and honest people working in nursing homes. This is probably the majority. But the minority is the problem. It only takes one person with financial or emotional problems, or one unskilled or incapable person, to hurt a loved one.

The best and only way to really protect a loved one from abuse is to be present. A family member or other outside person needs to either make regularly scheduled check-ins or random unannounced visits. Either way, the staff needs to see that someone is checking in, checking up, and checking out the personal property and physical and emotional condition of the resident. Unfortunately there are many elderly nursing home residents that have noone to check in on them, so be sure that the staff knows that your loved-one is being monitored from the outside with regularity.

If you have good reason to suspect that a loved-one who has spent time in a nursing home or assisted living facility has been injured or even died as the result of intentional abuse or negligence in that facility, contact The Siskind Law Firm today. We can help you look into the facility, the staff, the facts, and the possibility of compensation for harm.

The Siskind Law Firm
1385 Broadway, 24th FL
New York, NY 10018
Tel: 646.530.0006
www.Forinjuries.com
We offer a special Estate Planning discount to our personal injury and medical malpractice clients.

We look forward to your questions and comments below.

The old saying goes, “When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. People see resolutions to problems in terms of what they are trained to see. A boxer sees a punch as the resolution to an argument, a lawyer sees a lawsuit as the resolution to a grievance, and an army sees a gun battle as the way to resolve a land dispute. When it comes to doctors, they often have what I call Doctorvision, tunnel vision by doctors. They see the resolutions to problems in the forms of pills and surgeries. Doctors prescribe what they believe can help a patient based on their training. But their judgment can be exercised carelessly leading to medications and operations as the first resorts rather than the last. There are three reasons that doctors prescribe medication or surgery when other answers may be available. First, that is what they are trained to do. For a medical doctor to prescribe yoga in answer to a medical problem is blasphemy. That is not their job. Second, they may have financial considerations. Doctors do make their livings by being doctors. Third, we as a society demand fast fixes and immediate resolutions causing doctors to feel external and internal pressures to resolve medical problems in the most expeditious manners.

Many observers are increasingly concluding that we, as a society, are overmedicated. Less rhetoric is given to whether we are over-surgeried (my own term). But I believe that this idea will also come under increasing scrutiny in the media and in medical professional circles. I have personally been recommended for surgeries that I did not need. In fact, one of my health concerns for which two separate reputable surgeons recommended surgery was ultimately resolved by a 10 day cycle of Advil, twice per day. Surgeons recommend surgery as a problem-solver because that is what they do. Is a surgeon going to recommend that you buy a new car, take a relaxing vacation, or file a lawsuit? No, because they are not car salesmen, travel agents or attorneys. If you speak to a real estate salesperson in a neighborhood, it is her natural instinct to tell you why her neighborhood is the best. She may even actually believe it or may just convince herself of it. An Audi salesman may believe that the Audi handles better than the BMW. He may really believe it or may subconsciously convince himself of such because he has to. This is how he makes a living. In theory, doctors have a higher ethical standard before services and products are recommended. We as consumers have to ensure that this theory is followed in practice.

I am not trying to suggest that doctors have bad motives or greedy intentions. I am suggesting that as in any other aspect of life, doctors get caught up in their own work, their own abilities, their own training and their own way of seeing the world. Their minds are on medicine-and rightly so. But in that regard, they are susceptible to Doctorvision, seeing medical procedures and pills as the first best answers. Even where medication or surgery will likely resolve a problem, they may not be the safest route and maybe should not be the first or even second resolution attempted- unless there is an emergency.

When a doctor mentions surgery and you are not in an emergency situation, you need to get a second opinion. Then you need to do your own research to see what the options are before surgery. Speak to other kinds of doctors and see if they can offer other options as long as they have little risk of harm. When doctors prescribe medication, see if a natural alternative is available or maybe use less of the medication or use it for a shorter time period than prescribed. Often other answers take longer to achieve results and require behavioral changes, making surgery and pills quicker fixes. But surgery and medication come with risks and side-effects, and they may be risks you don’t need to take.

Your surgeon or doctor may be the best at what he or she does, and they may have the utmost integrity. But as human beings, we get tunnel vision and see things in regard to what we know and what we believe. When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Do your homework, check out all options on the table and protect yourself from the unintentional yet sometimes harmful results of Doctorvision.

If you have suffered a serious injury as the result of what might have been medical malpractice, contact The Siskind Law Firm today.

The Siskind Law Firm
1385 Broadway, 24th FL
New York, NY 10018
Tel: 646.530.0006
www.Forinjuries.com
We offer a special Estate Planning discount to our personal injury and medical malpractice clients.

Business owners have enough on their minds, especially these days. But business owners need to be aware of risks and potential hazards in the workplace that could lead to employee or visitor injuries, and end up costing the business money. This applies even if the business is limited to office space, rather then warehouses or factories. People can be injured anywhere, especially in close quarters with lots of wires, cords, and miscellaneous hardware equipment in the area. On a hassled and harried day in a confined business space, seemingly innocent situations can create hazards for the unwary.

If an employee is hurt on the job, a business is covered by worker’s compensation insurance (or should be, as required by law). If an employee gets hurt or becomes sick because of the work, the employer is required by law to pay for worker’s compensation benefits. Worker’s comp. insurance may provide several benefits depending on the state: medical care, temporary disability, permanent disability, supplemental job placement benefits or vocational rehabilitation benefits.

The worker’s compensation system is a trade-off between employers and employees. Employees are entitles to receive prompt, effective medical treatment for on-the-job-injuries no matter who is at fault and, in return, are prevented from suing their employers over those injuries. But a claim by an employee under his or her employer’s insurance can affect that company’s insurance rates. These days, an insurance company, like any other company, will find any excuse to raise rates and feed their revenue.

Employees are not the only people often found on a businesses’ premises. There are customers, salespeople that come up announced and unannounced, independent contractors, buyers, delivery people, and other random visitors that are not covered by the company’s worker’s compensation insurance, and who can sue for the full extent of their injuries on the premises. Any liability in this scenario can cost a business or its insurance company (and ultimately the business in the form of a premium increase) a lot of money.

As a business owner, you should take note of:

Loose wires from electronic or computer equipment. Makes sure all wires are safely tucked away or tied with a bind. Makes sure cords are not old and tethered or exposing the underlying wires;

Heated equipment such as computers, portable heaters, coffee makers. Such items should not be unduly hot at anytime such that someone could be burned;

Employees complaining of pain, such as back pain or carpel tunnel. A company should document these things in the company files;

Sharp edges from ceiling trim, computer hardware or other office equipment. Make sure that equipment edges don’t extend into walkways where someone can come around the corner and be stabbed or cut. When this is not possible, signs should be put up. The best idea is to move the item to another location in the office if possible;

Loose carpeting, rugs or welcome mats. These items should be secured or tacked down so that no one slips;

Loose ceiling tiles. Ceiling tiles and lighting should be secured so as not to spontaneously fall on anyone’s head;

Open Windows. Windows on higher floors should not open wider than necessary for air to circulate to prevent falling out from being a risk.

Contractors on the premises who do not have worker’s comp coverage through an employer. Ensure that contractors or subcontractors handling your businesses’ work on the premises have worker’s comp. under their own employer’s company.

Excess driving by employees. Minimize driving task of your employees, as many accidents happen while driving.

Excessive lifting of heavy items by employees. Be careful to match any physical task with the physical capacity of the employee you have handling it. Minimize physical labor when possible.

While on a day to day basis, a hazard may seem small and all employees may know of it, it is in the course of business when people’s minds are in other places that they can get hurt- and cost you money. Moreover, you can never be sure, especially in a more populated area or a larger office, when a sales call or customer may come to your office or a delivery may be made to your office. Any such person who is injured on your premises may be entitled to sue to the fullest extent of their injury.