The case is Silkworth v. Boca Raton Regional Hospital. The South Florida woman alleges her injuries were caused by failure of the hospital staffers to adhere to appropriate medical guidelines in immediately immobilizing her spine in the wake of a horrific car accident. She had been a passenger in the backseat of a taxi late one night when the vehicle was T-boned by another motorist. She was rushed by ambulance to the hospital. She concedes she was in serious condition when she arrived at the hospital, but the standard of care in her case dictated that medical workers immediately immobilize her spine. But they didn’t do that, and now, she says, she is permanently paralyzed from the waist down.

Medical reports indicate plaintiff didn’t have any symptoms of paralysis until long after she got to the hospital and underwent treatment – without her spine first being immobilized.

An attorney for plaintiff alleged the hospital breached the standard of care by repeatedly moving her around without protecting her spine. This resulted in complete paraplegia, something he opines was preventable. According to Courtroom View Network, the hospital’s own internal policy instructed emergency medical staffers that if they were in doubt about whether immobilization was necessary, they should do so anyway as a precautionary measure. Doctors could always from there work to rule out an unstable spinal fracture, but there is no going back if the spine isn’t protected from the moment of injury.

Plaintiff says her spinal injury has upended her life, resulting in millions of dollars in damages in medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering. It has affected her ability to be a good parent to her son, to work and to care for herself day-to-day.

Defendants don’t at this point deny the extent of her damages. However, they contend the spinal cord injury and paralysis were caused solely by the crash. Expert witnesses for the defense testified during depositions that the impact of the collision “obliterated” plaintiff’s spine, resulting in her permanent paralysis before she ever entered the hospital doors. They allege she was not wearing a eat belt at the time of the crash. She was reportedly intoxicated (hence, why she was taking a taxi that night) and, according to defense, was unable to give a full and proper accounting of the events or her injuries in the immediate aftermath of the car accident.

Defense attorneys added that emergency responders in depositions characterized their own post-crash reports as “unreliable,” adding that none conducted a neurological assessment of plaintiff’s lower extremities. This was a mistake, and one that muddied the record, which should have reflected that plaintiff was a paraplegic by the time those vehicles came to rest.

Although the facts of this case are unique, causation is a commonly disputed issue in medical malpractice lawsuits. That’s why it’s imperative to have an experienced attorney advocating on your behalf.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Hospital Negligence Paralyzed Car Crash Victim, Attorney Says as Med Mal Trial Begins, Nov. 30, 2016, By Arlin Crisco, CVN

More Blog Entries:

Davis v. Baez – Florida Negligence Claim Against School Bus Driver Gets Green Light, Dec. 2, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Spinal Injury Lawyer Blog

We know those drivers may be held liable if they are distracted and cause a crash. However, an emerging legal trend involves holding accountable those with whom the driver is communicating.

Take for example the recent case Gallatin v. Gargiulo, In that case, a Pennsylvania trial court judge decided that two men who were texting with a driver before and during a fatal car accident could be held liable for resulting wrongful death claims.

That case follows a precedent set in a New Jersey case from 2013 in which an appellate court ruled that a 17-year-old girl could potentially be held liable for car accident injuries that resulted when the 18-year-old boy with whom she was texting crashed. The teen driver crashed into a motorcycle in the midst of their exchanges on evening in 2009. In that decision, the court ruled that a person sending text messages has a duty not to do so with someone they know or have special reason to know the recipient is going to view that text while driving. Ultimately in that case, the court ruled there was not enough evidence to prove the 17-year-old had special reason to know the boy with whom she was texting was driving, and there was also no proof that she actively encouraged the boy to text her while driving.

Proving all of these elements in a distracted driving accident case could be difficult, but not impossible. Perhaps the greater benefit to the public is that the possibility of civil liability could drive down the number of texting-while-driving accidents.

In general, police have a tough time ascertaining whether distraction was an issue in an accident. We know it accounts for at least 424,000 injuries and 3,500 deaths every year – but we also know that’s a low number. Part of the reason we don’t have an accurate accounting is because it’s tougher to determine whether a driver was distracted as opposed to whether they were drunk. Police can’t test for distraction the same way they can alcohol or drug impairment (and drivers don’t often admit it).

Lawmakers in New York are proposing the implementation of a devices dubbed “textalyzers.” These are machines that would be carried by police and could be hooked up to a smartphone following an accident to determine whether the phone was used in a way contrary to state law at the time of an accident. The proposed law would require drivers to hand over their phone for analysis following a crash or else risk suspension of their driver’s license.

Some legal analysts are raising privacy concerns about the bill, so it’s future is uncertain.

There is also question as to whether app or phone developers could be accountable. Take for example the recent Georgia lawsuit in which social media platform Snapchat is accused of encouraging drivers to speed, take pictures and share those images. It has been compared to gun manufacturer liability; Congress has immunized manufacturers from liability for most firearm deaths, unless there was an actual defect with the weapon.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Texting a Person While They’re Driving Could Land You in Jail, May 3, 2016, By Jennings Brown, Vocativ

More Blog Entries:

Trotter v. Harleysville Ins. – “Per Vehicle” and “Per Accident” Insurance Claims, May 15, 2015, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Attorney