Denver Personal Injury Lawyer

Denver Airport Traffic Snarled Following Accident

Chrissie Cole — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:56:00 GMT

Traffic was snarled Thursday afternoon following a car accident which involved a Denver Police car.

The accident happened early afternoon, near the toll plaza and wait area approaching Denver International Airport.

The officer was reportedly responding to a two car accident when another vehicle rear-ended the officer’s parked cruiser, according to police.

No one was injured in the crash. Following the accident, Pena Boulevard was closed for about two hours and later re-opened.

In a separate accident on Friday night, a Denver Police officer was injured when his patrol car was struck by a suspected drunk driver.

The officer was taken to the hospital but treated and released for minor injuries.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Woman Survives Five Days In the Wilderness After Crash

Chrissie Cole — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:56:00 GMT

A Colorado woman survived five days in the wilderness with no food or water by drinking rainwater from her hair, after crashing her vehicle.

Cynthia Blair-Hoover, 52, swerved to avoid a deer when her car ran off the road and plunged down a hillside, landing on its top. She suffered 11 broken ribs and a punctured lung among other injuries.

Armed with only a golf club, she faced the threat of wild animals, rain, freezing temps and no food, but she managed to stay alive by draining water from her hair into her mouth.

Eventually she was able to crawl 450 yards to a mine where she cried out for help and was heard.

She is recovering in a hospital in Denver.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

50 Year-Old Man Killed After Three Car Collision Near Fairplay

Margaret Embry — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:04:34 GMT

On July 27^th, a three car collision on U.S. 285 south of Fairplay, CO killed a 50 year-old man and injured two others, according to The Flume. The crash caused U.S. 285 to be closed for almost five hours while crews worked on the scene.

According to the Colorado State Patrol, a 2001 Ford F-350 was traveling southbound on U.S. 285. The driver of the F-350 failed to keep his vehicle, which had no passengers, in the southbound lane as he met a 2001 Chevy Suburban hauling a trailer. The F-350 subsequently collided with the trailer.

Following this collision, the 2001 Suburban traveled off the east side of the road where the vehicle came to rest. The Ford F-350 continued into the northbound lane where he collided with the driver’s side of a 2005 Chevy Suburban, driven by a 50 year-old man and carrying his wife and mother.

Both vehicles traveled off the east side of the road, causing the 2005 Suburban to roll onto its passenger side. The driver of the 2005 Suburban was killed and his wife and mother were taken to a Denver hospital with serious injuries. All others involved in the crash were uninjured.

No charges have been filed yet.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Margaret Embry

Risks of Cell Phone Use While Driving

Margaret Embry — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:14:50 GMT

A year ago, Michelle Smith hit and killed a 9-year-old girl, Erica Forney, riding her bike in the bike lane in Fort Collins. Though she doesn't have a clear memory of the crash, it is believed that Smith was distracted after finishing a cell phone call while driving. As part of her plea agreement, Smith was required to write a letter of apology to the victim's family which was recently published, according to The Denver Channel, ABC 7 News.

The newspaper [Fort Collins Coloradan] reported that Smith wrote in the letter that, if she had appreciated the risks associated with cell-phone use while driving, Erica Forney might still be alive.“My heart and prayers are and will always be with the Forneys,” she concluded in her letter.

Below are some cell phone driving statistics provided by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company.

Distraction from cell phone use while driving (hand held or hands free) extends a driver's reaction as much as having a blood alcohol concentration at the legal limit of .08%. (University of Utah)

The No.1 source of driver inattention is use of a wireless device. (Virginia Tech /NHTSA)

Drivers that use cell phones are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves. (NHTSA, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety)

10% of drivers aged 16 to 24 years old are on their phone at any one time.

Driving while distracted is a factor in 25% of police reported crashes.

Driving while using a cell phone reduces the amount of brain activity associated with driving by 37%. (Carnegie Mellon)

Please see the Governors Highway Safety Association to check your state cell phone driving laws.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Margaret Embry

Wagner Paint Sprayers Recalled

Chrissie Cole — Tue, 05 May 2009 02:07:00 GMT

Wagner Paint Sprayers has voluntarily recalled its Paint Sprayers because the on-off switch can be dislodged from the casing resulting in exposure to electrical connections which poses a shock hazard to users.

To date, the company has not received any reports of incidents or injuries.

The recall includes the Wagner Control Spray Plus Model No. 0414248.

The following date codes are affected by the recall:

	Model Number	Manufactured Date Code
Control Spray Plus	0414248	Y182R thru Y365R
		Z001R thru Z366R
		A001R thru A021R

Consumers should immediately unplug and stop using the sprayers, and contact Wagner for a free repair.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, please contact Wagner toll-free at (888) 925-6244 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or visit the firm’s web site at www.wagnerspraytech.com

The recall is being conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Truck Driver Charged With Careless Driving

Chrissie Cole — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:25:00 GMT

A Nebraska man, 34, lost his life on Friday night when his car struck an overturned tractor-trailer in Yuma County.

According to Trooper Gilbert Mares of the Colorado State Patrol, a tractor-trailer went off the right side of Highway 34, over-corrected and rolled onto its side.

Tim Steinbeck of Haigler, Neb., was traveling west in a Pontiac Sunfire when he struck the truck’s trailer. Steinbeck was pronounced dead at the scene, Mares said.

The driver of the truck, Jennie V. Suhr, 75, of Iowa was not injured. She is being charged with one count of careless driving causing death.

An investigation into the crash is ongoing to determine if alcohol was a factor. “The use of alcohol may have been contributed by the deceased; however, officials are unsure,” Mares said.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Trick or Treat. Halloween Safety Tips

Kyle Bachus — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:49:28 GMT

Most children think of Halloween as a time to dress up and eat candy, but four times the average of 5-12 year olds are injured on this goulish night. The majority of these injuries are not caused by poisoned apples but by falls and car accidents due to badly lit conditions. With some careful planning, most accidents can be avoided for a safe and fun night. The tips below, from the American Academy of Pediatrics can be a good way to keep Halloween mishaps at bay.

Children should–

Go only to well-lit houses and remain on porches rather than entering houses.
Travel in small groups and be accompanied by an adult.
Know their phone number and carry coins for emergency telephone calls.
Bring treats home before eating them so parents can inspect them.
Use costume knives and swords that are flexible, not rigid or sharp.

When walking in neighborhoods, they should–

Use flashlights, stay on sidewalks, and avoid crossing yards.
Cross streets at the corner, use crosswalks (where they exist), and do not cross between parked cars.
Stop at all corners and stay together in a group before crossing.
Wear clothing that is bright, reflective, and flame retardant.
Consider using face paint instead of masks. (Masks can obstruct a child's vision.)
Avoid wearing hats that will slide over their eyes.
Avoid wearing long, baggy, or loose costumes or oversized shoes (to prevent tripping).
Be reminded to look left, right, and left again before crossing the street.

Parents and adults should–

Supervise the outing for children under age 12.
Establish a curfew (a return time) for older children.
Prepare homes for trick-or-treaters by clearing porches, lawns, and sidewalks and by placing jack-o-lanterns away from doorways and landings.
Avoid giving choking hazards such as gum, peanuts, hard candies, or small toys as treats to young children.
Inspect all candy for safety before children eat it. Do not allow children to accept unwrapped candy.

Parents and adults should ensure the safety of pedestrian trick-or-treaters–

Make sure children under age 10 are supervised as they cross the street.
Drive slowly.
Watch for children in the street and on medians.
Exit driveways and alleyways carefully.
Have children get out of cars on the curb side, not on the traffic side

Please use the following sites as additional resources to keep your children safe.

http://www.safeusa.org/halloween.htm

http://www.halloweenmagazine.com/articles/keep-safety-in-mind.asp

Kelly McSparran

Intake Specialist

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Kyle Bachus

Utterly Un-American - Are You Really Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

Darin Schanker — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:05:51 GMT

I know, for a fact, that if you google my name there are four or five of my counterparts that spring up. And there are some odd similarities that spring up, there is another Nathan Swanson in Colorado, two who went to colleges that I considered. I’ve never met any of them, but the fact that there are a number of people with the same name and some similarities to my life is always fascinating.

Fascinating, till it turns problematic. It seems that the Denver Police Department has a little problem with mistaken identity, and the ACLU has filed a federal lawsuit, demanding the city fix a broken system where the police throw people who are clearly not the criminals in jail. And I mean clearly, like not fitting the description of the accused, or not having the tattoos and known features of the accused, or having different names.

Driving to work today, I was listening to a segment about this very case on the news, and I heard a Denver official state, and I’m paraphrasing, something to the effect of that there needed to be a balance between ensuring that innocent people are not hassled and guilty people are not released. Except there is no balance; there are basic precepts of our justice system that are being ignored here. Chief among them “innocent till proven guilty” and “rather 100 guilty men go free then 1 innocent be punished.” The DPD seems to think that once they have someone, then it is wrong to let that person go until every doubt is removed as to their identity. But that is just the opposite of what the police should be doing, they should not be arresting people unless they have no doubt what so ever that this

is the person they want. To do anything else is, and I say this with only a little bit of melodrama and hyperbole, utterly un-American.

Nathan T. Swanson
Summer Intern
JD Candidate, 2009
University of Denver

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Darin Schanker

Doctor Faces Manslaughter Charges in Death of Abortion Patient

Kyle Bachus — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:59:39 GMT

In a rare move, a Cape Cod grand jury indicted Dr. Rapin Osathanondh on a charge of manslaughter, following the October 13, 2007 death of 22-year-old patient, Laura Hope Smith. While, as Dan Slater noted, “it’s rare that even the most egregious instances of medical malpractice qualify as crimes,” Cape Cod District Attorney Michael O’Keefe told the Boston Globe that during Smith’s surgery, an abortion, “there was an inattention to the kinds of procedures of a lifesaving nature that one would expect in a place where an operation with anesthesia is being performed… There was nobody monitoring her, long enough to result in her death. There were a number of other shortcomings that make up the willful, wanton, and reckless conduct."

The litany of allegations brought by the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine, claim that among these other shortcomings, Osathanondh failed to have someone present to administer and monitor sedation or to assist in resuscitative measures, failed to monitor Smith’s blood pressure, pulse, or heart rate or have oxygen available, failed to timely initiate a 911 call, and “failed to adhere to basic cardiac life support protocol.” Osathanondh is also alleged to have lied to the Board by stating he administered oxygen to Smith and monitored her pulse, that he and the other staff member present were ACLS certified, and that the procedure took place in a different, better equipped room. He is also alleged to have "fraudulently obtained renewal of his medical license by providing false information."

Osathanondh, a Harvard School of Public Health research associate who apparently left a previous hospital “under a cloud of threatened nurses,” is expected to plead not guilty. His attorney told the Globe that “this is a tragedy that sometimes happens in medicine, but it happens; patients die inexplicably in the course of even routine procedures . . . . This is not a matter that belongs in the criminal courts."

Whether it does or not is an extremely close call. That Osathanondh committed malpractice seems to be clear, but where’s the line between medical malpractice and criminal activity? As noted in the comments section at the Wall Street Journal’s legal blog, some facts regarding the type of anesthesia aren’t clear, neither is whether he is charged with voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. Other questions that come to mind: what differentiates this doctor’s conduct from similar egregious forms of medical malpractice? Did the fact that Smith’s death occurred during an abortion play any role in the decision to prosecute? Is the level of care generally lower for these types of procedures? The conclusion that this young woman’s tragic death was avoidable, however, is unquestionable.

Thomas Connell

Summer Intern 2008

J.D. Candidate 2010

University of Colorado

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Kyle Bachus

A New Supreme Court Decision: Forfeiture by Wrongdoing Explored Further

Kyle Bachus — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:09:15 GMT

A defendant has a constitutional right to confront a witness that is accusing him. The basic rule is that prior statements cannot be used unless the defendant has had a chance to cross exam the witness. There are two exceptions that have been recognized: if the statements are made as the witness is dying or that the defendant forfeits his constitutional right by wrongdoing.

Forfeiture by wrongdoing refers to when the witness is detained or kept by means or procurement of a defendant from testifying. Justice Alito wrote the opinion in Crawford which held that a defendant could not keep a witness from testifying and then have prior statements excluded. However, in Giles v. California , No. 07-6053, the Court further interpreted this exception. The interpretation of the word procurement can mean just that the defendant caused the absence, but can also mean that it is limited to causing that is designed to bring about the result procured.

The Giles opinion held that the defendant did not detain the witness with the design to keep the witness from testifying. This is true since the defendant is on trial for the murder of his girlfriend, who is the witness. She had told police that the defendant had threatened to kill her when he beat her 3 weeks prior to her death. The Supreme Court decided that since he did not kill her to keep her from testifying, it violated his constitutional right to confront the witness to have her statements to the police admitted into evidence of trial.

It is understandable to need to keep interpretations narrow so not too be so over-inclusive as to deteriorate the defendant’s constitutional rights. Constitutional rights are important and should not be sacrificed. However, the distinction that he didn’t kill her to keep her from testifying does not sit well with me as a reason that he has not forfeited his right of confrontation. He is still the reason she is not able to testify. He killed her, which I see as a wrongdoing.

A post by Lauren Altdoerffer, created when the Supreme Court granted certiorari, posed the question whether the Court would follow the defendant’s assertion that the forfeiture by wrongdoing does not apply because he did not kill with the intention to silence her testimony or follow the “maxim” in Reynolds v. US that a defendant cannot benefit from his wrongdoing. The answer appears to be the former.

Erica Baasten

Summer Intern 2008

J.D. Candidate 2010

University of Colorado

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Kyle Bachus