NEW ORLEANS, LA – As any sufferer knows, back pain is costly and difficult to endure. But you may not know that injuries to the back are one of the most common causes of pain in the United States today, with an astonishing 80% of adults suffering from acute or chronic back pain in their lifetime! In addition to being one of the more common injuries occurring as a result of the estimated five million annual car accidents, approximately one million back injuries are sustained in the workplace each year. The economic costs are high: nearly fifty billion dollars are spent annually on treatment, and over 264 million “days” are lost from work each year when spread across the population of afflicted employees.
However, one of the greatest concerns today are the dangers of addiction or dependency caused by narcotic pain medication. A recent review performed by Harvard University focused on the rise of narcotic pain medication for lower back pain and determined that there is little benefit of long term pain treatment with narcotics, and a very high risk of dependency, addiction, or even death found with long term narcotic use.
Today, many patients are foregoing narcotic pain medications to manage their pain in a different way. Epidural Steroid Injections, used since 1952, offer a patient weeks or even up to one year of pain relief following a single treatment, without any need for narcotic medication. This is because ESI provides a dose of anti-inflammatory steroid along with an anesthetic such as lidocaine, directly to the epidural space surrounding the spine. The procedure is quick, involving minimal discomfort.
Injections can also provide the relief needed for a patient to perform necessary therapeutic exercises, potentially shortening the recovery period, and are used as part of a comprehensive health-care plan that will consider individual needs and problems.
As with any medical procedure, Epidural Steroid Injection is not without risk. Bleeding or even infection at the sight has been known to occur. However, complications and side effects are rare for most people. Your doctor will help you to determine the best course of treatment for your unique situation.
ESI offers the back-pain sufferer many rewards, while also helping the patient to avoid the high risks associated with narcotic pain medication. If you require ESI due to an accident suffered as the result of another person’s negligence, the negligent party’s insurance company may be called on to pay for the cost of your Epidural Steroid Injections, along with compensation for your pain and suffering. If you have been the victim of another person’s negligence, contact The de Boisblanc Law Firm today to receive a free consultation.
Mr. David Ostrom of Paola, Kansas, frustrated by a custody battle with his ex-wife, has requested the Iowa District Court grant his motion for trial by combat, as the insults and troubles he alleges caused to him by his adversaries are so grave that satisfaction and justice can only be found “on the field of battle where (he) will rend their souls from their corporeal bodies.”
Of course, in this day and age, gentlemen such as Ostrom rarely have the appropriate soul-rending instruments at immediate hand, and therefore, Ostrom further requests of the Court a 12 week continuance in which he might procure or forge a suitable katana or wakizashi sword.
Ostrom argues that trial by combat has never been explicitly legally banned. He would also allow his ex-wife to select a champion to fight for her. Ostrom suggests that her attorney, Mr. Matthew Hudson, accept this honor, but Mr. Hudson appears to have declined, helpfully advising that “a duel could end in death.”
As sensational as this may seem to some, the trial of legal questions through combat has been requested of courts in the very recent past. In 2015, a New York defense attorney, feeling himself dishonored by the allegations of his adversary, moved for the opportunity to dispatch the offending party over the River Styx. It appears that this request wasn’t granted.
While this might seem strange in Iowa, Kansas, or New York, in New Orleans, satisfaction through combat is well established in tradition, and was practiced by the finest and most upstanding members of the community. In fact, according to preeminent historical scholar Alcée Fortier, more than ten individual duels were fought on a single Sunday in the city, and more duels were fought here in the 1830s than in any other city in the world!
Honor, especially the honor of the French Creoles, demanded that a gentleman be prepared to avenge insults on the field of battle. Schools were established throughout Old New Orleans where the young sons of prominent families would learn the art of swordsmanship.
Of course, not everyone in the city believed that men should be permitted to engage in consensual single combat. Dueling was technically illegal in New Orleans, but as it was a widely practiced cultural norm, not many were likely to report a duel to the authorities. Also, there was a very good chance that the authorities themselves might also have satisfied their honor on the field once or twice!
While the law itself didn’t concern New Orleanians, deference to the sanctity of law was something else entirely, and it became common to conduct one’s dueling in places that wouldn’t offend or inconvenience the general public, nor flaunt the dueler’s disregard of laws offensive to his own honor. Famously, a pair of grand live oak trees on the Allard Plantation became a popular site for settling an affaire d’honneur. Today, the Allard Plantation site comprises New Orleans City Park, and locals and visitors alike can visit the spot, where one of the trees still stands.
With the recent interest in judicially sanctioned dueling, nostalgic New Orleanians may cherish faint hopes that one day, a motion may be heard in Civil District Court to permit the remedying of insults in the most traditional of manners: on the field of honor.
Accident, Car Accidents, How to Be a Good Plaintiff, Motorcycle Accidents, Traumatic Brain Injury, Truck Accidents
NEW ORLEANS, LA — Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death worldwide, with an average of 155 people in the United States dying each day from injuries which include TBI. At The de Boisblanc Law Firm, we’re actively involved in securing justice for victims of TBI caused by another person’s negligence, and part of our efforts include keeping current with the latest advances in treatment, along with cutting edge methods of early TBI detection, so that treatment can be more effective.
Currently, methods of early detection are limited. Accident victims may not show pathology in CT or MRI scans which would support a TBI diagnosis, even though a brain injury has occurred. The victim may miss out on crucial medical interventions and appropriate treatment. However, a promising new advancement offers accident victims in the emergency setting the possibility of an early TBI diagnosis.
Medical researchers have discovered that plasma concentration of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) correlates with intracranial injury visible on CT scan. Perhaps more critically, this protein may concentrate in the blood after a head injury even when there are no positive findings using a CT scan or MRI scan. In layman’s terms, this means that a simple blood test done post-accident in the ER has the ability to alert medical professionals that a brain injury has occurred, even if radiological methods can’t detect your injury. Early intervention and rehabilitation for severe TBI are known to improve outcomes, giving the plasma GFAP test the potential to be an invaluable tool.
Studies regarding plasma GFAP are ongoing, and potential protocols are being discussed which consider utilizing the test to structure treatment in patients who show no visual or radiological evidence of TBI. This is important because many cases of TBI can’t yet be detected by CT or MRI scan, and there are many different mechanisms for causing injuries to the brain which leave very subtle signs.
Should this test become available and commonly used in local emergency departments, early detection of TBI will increase. So will the accident victim’s ability to secure justice for a TBI caused by someone else’s negligence. It can be difficult to prove the Traumatic Brain Injury to an insurance company, especially in mild cases where CT or MRI scans produce false negatives. The detection of a concentration of glial fibrillaryacidic protein provides objective evidence of injury.
The de Boisblanc Law Firm is experienced in fighting for justice for victims of Traumatic Brain Injury. If you or someone you love has received a Traumatic Brain Injury due to the negligence of another person or group, it’s important that you engage an experienced attorney as soon as possible, who can protect your rights and fight against the insurance companies while you focus on healing. Call The de Boisblanc Law Firm today to schedule your free consulation.
NEW ORLEANS, LA — You’ve been seriously injured by another person’s negligence, and have had to file a lawsuit. Or maybe you’re just starting the claims process, and you believe you might be forced to file a lawsuit because the insurance company isn’t being fair with you. At some point in the litigation process, the insurance company’s lawyers are going to ask you if you’ve ever been arrested or convicted of a crime. If the answer is yes, especially if you don’t have a lawyer to advise and protect you, admitting to past involvement with law enforcement might frighten you. It might even discourage you from pursuing a claim. You don’t want this past history coming out in civil court. You fear the insurance company’s lawyers will use this against you. You may even feel like having an arrest record somehow turns you from the victim of another person’s negligence into a guilty party. So, how concerned should you be about a past criminal history, if you’ve been injured by someone else?
The answer is complicated. While it may seem unfair that having a criminal record could affect your pursuit of justice, insurance companies have a right to investigate claims to discover any potential fraud. Also, under certain circumstances, a past criminal history can be used against you in court, if that history demonstrates that you’ve been a dishonest person. However, when an insurance company asks if you’ve “ever been arrested,” they’re fishing for information that can’t necessarily be used against you.
Louisiana law wisely attempts to balance the right of injured parties not to have past transgressions held against them, with the right of insurance companies to protect themselves against fraudulent or dishonest claimants. Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 609 allows defendants to attack a plaintiff’s credibility only by revealing to a jury the name of the crime you have been convicted of, and only then if it involves “dishonesty or false statement,” or if it is punishable by death or more than six months in prison if a judge feels that this information’s importance to the case outweighs the prejudice such a revelation will create against you. And in both cases, if it’s been more than ten years since your conviction date, or if you were later pardoned or the judgment annulled, then it isn’t admissible. Juvenile judgments are generally not admissible, either.
Despite the requests for disclosure that the defendants will make from you or your attorney, a record of arrests, indictments, and prosecution can’t be used to attack your credibility at all. From the perspective of a person protecting a plaintiff’s rights, the defense, when asking if you’ve ever been arrested, is throwing a wide net in hopes of catching some foolish fish!
If you’ve been convicted of a crime that can be used against you, you still shouldn’t fear pursuing your claim. People who make mistakes get injured too. If justice is to truly be blind, we must fully examine the merits of each case. We must recognize that having a past conviction isn’t a defense for someone to hurt you. If you’ve been the victim of someone else’s negligence, don’t let a past criminal record stop you from seeking justice. Call the experienced attorneys at The de Boisblanc Law Firm today!
NEW ORLEANS — The increasing popularity of vaping has led to decreases in sales of traditional cigarettes, but has also contributed to a disturbing spike in youth nicotine addiction. Nicotine use has serious detrimental health effects on children—and there’s concern that vaping companies such as JUUL might intentionally be targeting yours.
It’s important that all parents understand how nicotine impacts a teenager’s developing brain. Studies have shown that nicotine exposure even in small quantities “increases the risk of developing psychiatric disorders and cognitive impairment” because the chemical targets the delicate neurological structure in the brain. In adolescents, whose brains are still undergoing changes and are less developed in areas that control understanding risks versus rewards, nicotine’s disruption of the brain’s chemistry is enhanced. Immediately upon consuming nicotine, teenagers have disturbances in working memory as well as reduced prefrontal cortex activation, among other complicated effects. The prefrontal cortex of the brain is responsible for executive functions and attention performance, and is one of the last brain areas to mature. Continued consumption of nicotine in adolescence correlates with a progression of deleterious effects on the prefrontal cortex that suggest an impairment lasting later into life. Animal studies demonstrate that exposure during adolescence induces changes in gene expression within the brain. Your teenager is more susceptible to becoming addicted to nicotine because her brain’s ability to evaluate risk is not as developed as yours, while the “reward” of the nicotine high has a greater effect on her. And the nicotine itself, at very low levels, can cause irreparable harm to her mental health and cognitive ability. It’s a vicious cycle: children are more likely to use nicotine because of their immature minds, and nicotine harms their minds’ healthy maturation.
While our scientific explanation for teenage behavior progresses over time, we’ve known for years that children are more susceptible to addictions, have less willpower than adults, and are more easily swayed by short-term pleasures and rewards than adults. With that understanding, we might expect that purveyors of highly addictive chemicals would do anything possible to keep their products out of the hands of children. Unfortunately, evidence shows that the opposite is true.
Leaked internal documents from the major cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris demonstrates that they have intentionally targeted children since at least the 1970s. Below, some choice excerpts demonstrate Philip Morris’s strategy concerning children:
“Marlboro’s phenomenal growth rate in the past has been attributable in large part to our high market penetration among young smokers . . .15 to 19 years old . . . my own data, which includes younger teenagers, shows even higher Marlboro market penetration among 15-17year-olds.” [Philip Morris Document #1000024921/4927, May 21, 1975]
“Sales—Outstanding! Outstanding! Outstanding! . . .This account is located 2 blocks from Bellingham High School. Our pre-sell has sold through. The account had reordered and received more product. Sales field report.” [PM Doc. #87051949, March 8, 1988]
“[To support Marlboro’ s growth, Marlboro must] continue growth among new, young smokers…While Marlboro continues to attract increasing shares of young smokers, expected declines in the number of young people restrict future volume gains from this source.” [PM Doc. #2043440057/0112, 1985]
“Because of our high share of the market among the youngest smokers, Philip Morris will suffer more than the other companies from the decline in the number of teenage smokers.” [PM Doc. #1000390803/0855, March 31, 1981]
“Thus, the ability to attract new smokers and develop them into a young adult franchise is key to brand development.” [PM Doc. #2044895379/484, 1992]
“It is important to know as much as possible about teenage smoking patterns and attitudes. Today’s teenager is tomorrow’s potential regular customer, and the overwhelming majority of smokers first begin to smoke while in their teens . . . it is during the teenage years that the initial brand choice is made.” [Special Report, “Young Smokers: Prevalence, Trends, Implications, and Related Demographic Trends,” PM Document #1000390803/55, March 31, 1981]
“We wonder whether such children may not eventually become cigarette smokers in their teenage years as they discover the advantage of self-stimulation via nicotine. We have already collaborated with a local school system in identifying some such children in the third grade. . . Report on study of hyperactive children.” [PM Doc. #1003288122, June 10, 1974]
“[If Philip Morris took] a more progressive position on tobacco, it would enable the company to move onto a higher moral playing field, to neutralize the tobacco issue and to focus attention on other, more appealing products.” [PM Doc. #2023586677, December 3, 1992]
This “more progressive position” evolved into promoting electronic cigarettes and vaping as a “healthier alternative” to cigarettes. The “more appealing product” is one with no odor, that comes in a variety of child-friendly flavors including candy-sweet fruit flavors, and flavors replicating popular childhood cereals. The CDC now believes that a recent decline in youth cigarette smoking is directly related to a spike in children vaping. To the astonishment of parents everywhere, the Unites States Government has investigated and concluded that vape purveyor JUUL actually targeted children in camp and school under the guise of educating them about their health and the dangers of cigarettes
It may come as little shock, then, that the parent company of Philip Morris, author of last century’s campaign to turn children into customers, owns a 35% stake in JUUL.
Vape manufacturers who target children deserve to be held accountable for the severe, potentially permanent damage their product can cause. Class action lawsuits are forming to bring companies that target children to justice. If your child is using vapes like JUUL, contact The de Boisblanc Law Firm today.
NEW ORLEANS, LA — Experienced in the handling of Traumatic Brain Injury cases, The de Boisblanc Law Firm understands the unique challenges faced by TBI patients. We’re not just committed to winning TBI victims money for their injuries; we’re also determined to help our clients increase their awareness of developing therapies and positive lifestyle changes which could lead to health improvements for TBI patients.
In previous articles we’ve discussed the complex injuries that are known generally as Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). TBI interrupts the normal functioning of the brain. Victims experience a range of symptoms from “brain fog” and emotional changes, to coma and loss of vital functions. The symptoms can resolve over time, they can be a part of a permanent change, or the injury can be fatal. The American Academy of Neurosurgeons estimates that nearly 1.7 million brain injuries occur each year, and of these, up to 70% may be caused by motor vehicle collisions. According to the CDC, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of TBI death for persons 5-24 years of age.
Due to the frequency of TBI, a great deal of research is ongoing to help understand how best to treat it. An increasing number of studies demonstrate that environmental and lifestyle factors, such as diet, can have a major impact on a TBI patient’s treatment outcome. For example, research shows that omega-3 fatty acids, can increase production of molecular systems that serve synaptic function, while diets rich in saturated fats do the opposite.
According to this study, vitamin E, found in certain nuts, oils, and vegetables such as spinach, functions as an antioxidant and is useful in “reducing free radicals in the brain which would otherwise impede optimal function of neurons.” Curcumin and caffeine are also examined for their effects on brain health.
Vitamin D supplements also are shown to help reduce inflammatory response and reduce neuronal injury.
A recent Institute of Medicine report identifies the B vitamin choline, creatine (an amino acid-like compound), n-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA) and zinc as the most promising areas for further research into the effects of nutrition on TBI.
These studies contribute to understanding and improving a holistic approach to treating Traumatic Brain Injury, accounting for the fact that the body has many interrelated systems. Neither these studies nor this article are intended to advise or replace medical treatment. Instead, they offer victims of Traumatic Brain Injury hope that with rapid scientific advancement, suffering can and will be lessened for many victims.
An essential component to recovering from any trauma is to obtain financial assistance. TBI often presents lifelong medical challenges. It’s important for any victim of an accident involving TBI, or their loved-ones, to hold the responsible party financially accountable. Insurance companies will try to settle your claim quickly, and for much less than its. In the aftermath of any accident, it’s important to consult with an experienced attorney regarding your rights. When the accident involves TBI, it’s essential to enlist an established, knowledgeable, and aggressive attorney who will hold the responsible party accountable, and seek the maximum available financial recovery. If you, or someone you love, has suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury due to the negligence or fault of another person, contact The de Boisblanc Law Firm today for a free consultation.
LOUISIANA — A high-school student attends a school affiliated ROTC camping trip at a private facility, where he drowns in the campground’s lake. This scenario is one of many variations on a parent’s worst fear, especially as the young man was with trusted authorities in whom most parents would feel their trust was well placed. While litigation is never the first thought in such disastrous circumstances, eventually the grieving parents filed an action against multiple involved parties, including the school district and property owners, see Robinson v. Jefferson Par. Sch. Bd., 9 So. 3d 1035, 1044–45 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2009), writ denied, 17 So. 3d 975 (La. 2009). The immediate and natural thought would be that some responsible person was negligent, thus causing or contributing to the student’s death. It would seem logical to a lay person that the school and/or the campsite would be responsible for any such negligence. However, in this case and other cases with certain facts in common, an accident victim or their surviving next-of-kin would not be able to recover any damages due to Louisiana’s recreational immunity statutes.
Recreational immunity is granted to certain landowners under LSA-R.S. 9:2791 and R.S. 9:2795, meaning that persons injured while involved in recreational activities on the landowner’s property might not be able to recover damages for their injuries. Recreational activities often come with high risk of injury, and include but are not not limited to the following: hunting, fishing, trapping, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking and hiking. The intention was to persuade owners of vast tracks of rural property to allow the public to recreate on their land, by preventing the landowner from being held liable if, for example, a hunter injured himself by falling into a hole left behind by an uprooted and fallen tree. Clearly, a landowner could not be expected to spend innumerable hours patrolling his property for naturally occurring hazards threatening individuals who may cross that property, with or without the owner’s knowledge. When seen in this light, recreational immunity statutes are a sensible compromise between protecting property owners, and promoting public recreation (which for the good of society as a whole). In the past, in order to be immune under the statute, a three prong test would have to be met, as follows: 1) Is the area where the injury occurred undeveloped, non-residential, and rural or semi-rural? 2) Was the injury the result of activities that can be pursued in the “true outdoors”? 3) Was the injury-causing instrumentality of the type that would normally be encounters in the “true outdoors”?
However, in 1985, the Legislature amended La. R.S. 9:2795(B)(1)(c) to add “caused by any defect in the land regardless of whether naturally occurring or manmade.” And in 2001, La. R.S. 9:2795 was again amended to include urban land as well as rural, which some have argued defeats the entire original purpose of exposing the public to natural wilderness. As a result of this, we see defendants arguing for immunity when patrons injure themselves on dilapidated man-made structures in public city parks, or other such fact patterns wherein immunity would never have been previously considered.
Plaintiffs should know, however, that there are still exceptions to recreational immunity which would allow recovery for damages in such an accident. If you have been injured in any recreational activity, it’s important to contact an experienced attorney as soon as possible, to help you understand how recreational immunity statutes may alter your rights. The de Boisblanc Law Firm offers free consultations for accident victims, including victims of accidents which may involve recreational immunity statutes. Call today to find the answers you need!
HOUSTON, TX — Louisiana residents know all too well how powerful storms can damage property and change lives forever. But what happens when victims of a flood say that actions taken by the government caused flooding to damage or destroy their property?
In a previous article, we discussed the August 5, 2017 New Orleans flooding which may have been aggravated by actions taken or neglected by the previous mayor’s administration. Today, Houston-area victims of flooding related to Hurricane Harvey are preparing to put the United States government on trial over allegations that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers caused their homes to flood.
These claims focus on the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs. The plaintiffs allege that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers knew that the reservoir capacities would exceed federally owned land, impacting private property. Furthermore, they state that water intentionally released from the reservoirs’ dams caused homes downstream to flood. According to attorney Daniel Charest, victims are seeking “just compensation for the taking of their property.”
Attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice respond that Harvey was a “historically large rainfall event” and state that flooding was inevitable. Officials state that they opened the dams because of concerns that the dams would fail.
The trial, with a focus on just thirteen properties, will serve as a test for whether or not the federal government can be held liable for damage to reservoir-flooded homes. Similar cases indicate that the government can be held liable, and, perhaps even more significant to us all, argue such damages caused by the government are a Constitutional matter addressed by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Takings Clause provides that Americans are protected from a government that seizes their property for public use without just compensation, and there is precedent for considering government-caused flooding a taking of property which merits just compensation.
In Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012), the United States Supreme Court, citing Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166 (1872), held that “where real estate is actually invaded by superinduced additions of water, earth, sand, or other material . . . so as to effectually destroy or impair its usefulness, it is a taking, within the meaning of the Constitution.”
The government has argued that the Fifth Amendment only prevents permanent takings, and does not provide that citizens should be protected from or compensated for temporary takings, but in Arkansas and other cases, the law demonstrates clearly that this is a poor interpretation of the Constitution. However, past decisions of the Court can be seen as weakening the protection of the takings clause, such as the Court’s controversial decision in Kelo v New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) While Kelo involved the government transferring private property from the original owner to a private development company connected with New London’s government, and not the government temporarily taking property to hold flood water in attempts to manage the effects of a weather disaster, Kelo does demonstrate that courts can interpret the law to offer broader license to the government and less protection to American citizens.
The thirteen plaintiffs in Houston serve as a test not only of whether or not Harvey-affected families will be compensated for property damaged by floods connected to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but as yet another measure of what the government may and may not do, without just compensation, to citizens and their property. We should all pay close attention.
NEW ORLEANS, LA — When the person who injured you was engaged in actions that society finds particularly egregious, a court may order that the liable party must pay you punitive damages in addition to traditional damages such as compensation for medical bills or pain and suffering. Punitive damages have a well-established history in British common law, and therefore are common in many American states.
However, Louisiana law is largely built on French jurisprudence, with origins in Roman law, and does not generally recognize punishment or revenge as appropriate in civil cases. At the same time, due to the growing Anglo-American influence with its heritage of British common law, punitive damages began to be discussed in 19th Century Louisiana. Lively debate ensued both in court and out, with Justice C.J. Slidell referring to the esteemed French jurisconsult Charles Toullier’s writing, “Si la faute qui pauvait causer du dommage n’en a point causé, la loi n’inflige aucune peine, à moins qu’une défense de commettre l’action n’eût été portée sous une peine déterminée; car alors a peine dérive d’une desobéissance, d’une contravention à la loi.” Considering Louisiana’s Civil Code in an 1855 case, Slidell opined that the discretion allowed to a court or jury to rule on certain elements of damages “by no means involves the idea that in the assessment of damages, the court or jury can travel beyond the enquiry how far the sufferer himself is affected, or exaggerate the amount for the purpose of vindicating offended public justice, or punishing the offender as an example to others.” Black v. Carrollton R. Co., 10 La. Ann. 33, 45 (1855).
Today, as a result of this tension between the Anglo and Franco-Roman traditions, Louisiana law does allow punitive damages, but only in circumstances specifically described by statute. Of these, there are very few, but the circumstance most relevant to the average plaintiff is the statute allowing for punitive damages to be assessed in a civil proceeding against a motorist who was operating his vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs when an accident occurred. Article 2315.4 of the Louisiana Civil Code states“In addition to general and special damages, exemplary damages may be awarded upon proof that the injuries on which the action is based were caused by a wanton or reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others by a defendant whose intoxication while operating a motor vehicle was a cause in fact of the resulting injuries.”
To complicate matters, even if a Louisiana court has the ability to award punitive damages after your accident with an intoxicated driver, some insurance companies exclude punitive damages from certain policies. It is critically important that you engage the services of an experienced attorney if you or a loved one has been injured by a person under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Further reading on punitive damages provides interesting information, spanning from the Code of Hammurabi to the Digest of 1808 and onward. To discuss punitive damages or any other aspect of your accident or case, call The de Boisblanc Law Firm today.
“In the real world, with all of its complications and imperfections, accident victims are often people who have already been hurt in some way”
NEW ORLEANS, LA — In the ideal personal injury claim, a victim is healthy before an accident, and only afterwards has clearly demonstrated accident-related injuries. But as we all know all too well, life is rarely ideal or clean-cut. In the real world, with all of its complications and imperfections, accident victims are often people who have already been hurt in some way. It’s important for the victim with pre-existing conditions to understand, first, how ordinary your circumstances actually are: you are not alone! The second thing you need to know, is what your rights are.
Take back injuries, for example. The spine and all of its connecting ligaments, nerves, and soft tissue is one of the easier regions of the body to injure during a motor vehicle accident. Each year approximately three million people are injured in motor vehicle accidents. At the same time, millions of Americans endure acute, degenerative, and chronic back injury and pain. This substantially increases the chances that an individual who endured a back injury in a collision, also suffers from a pre-existing back condition.
Research suggests that a full one-third of Americans between the ages of 40-59 years old suffer from degenerative disc disease. Women are more likely to suffer from this condition, at a rate of 40-70% higher instance of pathology than men of the same age.
Furthermore, up to 80% of Americans suffer, or have suffered, from low back pain. Of this number, 20% will commonly develop chronic low back pain.
Victims who have a pre-existing condition may be reluctant to come forward after someone else’s negligence has caused them further injury, or made their pre-existing condition feel worse. Big Insurance will discourage these fragile victims from pursuing their claims. However, victims need to know that the law is on their side. A victim’s pre-existing condition is NOT a defense for injuring him or her. In fact, the Eggshell Plaintiff Doctrine instructs us that we must “take a plaintiff as he comes,” meaning that a negligent person is responsible not only for any new injury they cause, but also for any aggravation to a pre-existing condition. This holds true even if you are severely injured from accident forces which wouldn’t cause as much harm to a healthy person. The law, in the interest of public policy, recognizes that certain individuals are more fragile, more easily injured, and that these people deserve just as much protection from negligent actions as healthy people. You are not to blame for your pre-existing condition!
If you have a pre-existing condition and you’ve recently been a victim of someone else’s negligence, it’s important to be up front with an experienced personal injury attorney regarding your medical history, so that this information can be properly presented to the negligent party and their insurance company. Your medical providers can then determine exactly how much your condition has worsened due to your accident. This will allow you to hold the negligent person responsible, so that you can recover for your medical costs, pain and suffering, and any other damages you may have suffered. At The de Boisblanc Law Firm, you can have a free consultation to discuss your accident as well as any pre-existing conditions you may have, jump starting your road to recovery.