Maryland Injury Lawyers Blog

Maryland medical malpractice law requires that doctors, hospitals and other health care providers comply with the standard of care. The standard of care is defined, in essence, as that degree of care which a reasonably prudent health care provider would use in a same or similar circumstance. For example, if a patient needed a chest x-ray read, and a radiologist interpreted it improperly, that radiologist would be judged according to the standard of care of radiologists in a same or similar setting. A jury evaluating that case would have to decide whether the radiologist did what a reasonable radiologist would have done under the same or similar circumstances.

Similarly, if a patient had a chest x-ray done and an emergency room physician read it wrong, that emergency room physician would likewise be judged according to the standard of care, but the standard of care would be different than if it was being read by a radiologist. It would be whether the emergency room physician did what a reasonably prudent emergency room physician would have done. The emergency room physician is not going to be judged at the standard owed by a radiologist, which may be unfair.

One question that Maryland courts have struggled with for years is whether the standard of care is a national standard, a state standard, or even a county standard. To put it in context, the question is whether a doctor at Western Maryland Hospital is held to the same standard as a similar physician practicing at Johns Hopkins, or at the Mayo Clinic.

The October 11, 2011 Maryland federal court opinion of Willison v. Pandey was another win for the good guys. The case was about the management of clinical T1 renal masses, which can lead to kidney cancer. Judge Ellen Hollander had to decide whether an expert hired by the plaintiff was allowed to testify.

The Maryland rule about the standard of care is found at Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article § 3-2A-02(c)(1):

In any action for damages filed under this subtitle, the health care provider is not liable for the payment of damages unless it is established that the care given by the health care provider is not in accordance with the standards of practice among members of the same health care profession with similar training and experience situated in the same or similar communities at the time of the alleged act giving rise to the cause of action.

The Plaintiff's expert, a New York urologist, truthfully testified (in response to the defense lawyer's questions) that he didn't have a Maryland medical license, didn't research anything about the medical community in Cumberland, Maryland (where the alleged negligence occurred), and didn't talk to any Maryland colleagues about their experiences.

The Plaintiff's lawyer then had a chance to ask questions. The expert testified that there is a national standard of care for urology, and that the standards are the same for urologists in New York and Cumberland. "I can't imagine that because a patient is in a smaller hospital in a more rural area that he should be not entitled or should not receive the level of care that a patient anywhere else in that state or in this country should get."

One rationale for a different standard of care is where a rural medical facility has limited access to high-tech equipment that can only be afforded by major hospitals. In such a case, the doctors are expected to act in accordance with the standard owed by doctors without access to that equipment. Predictably, this would only apply in emergency situations. Otherwise, the patient can be referred elsewhere. This is also not the case for most hospitals in our area.

Judge Hollander decided that Maryland does not apply a "strict locality" standard for expert witnesses. Maryland does not require that standard of care experts be from the same community as the defendant; instead, it requires that experts be familiar with the standard of care required by the defendant. In this case, the expert presented good evidence that the standard in Cumberland, Maryland is the same as the standard anywhere else in the United States.

The reality of medical practice is that local standards of care are disappearing. Doctors often go to medical schools that meet national accreditation standards, which prepare them for practice anywhere in the United States. Doctors attend continuing legal education seminars put on by national companies that deal with standards common to all states. Doctors are board-certified in specialties that have uniform national standards.

Questions that Maryland Medical Malpractice lawyers should ask the defendant doctor and his/her experts:

• Where did you go to medical school? (If it was in a different state, how did they learn the standard of care in this state?) Is that school nationally accredited?
• Are you board-certified? Are there uniform requirements for certification for practitioners in all states?
• Do you believe that doctors should act differently depending on where they practice?
• Where were your most recent continuing medical education courses? (If the courses were put on by a national company and especially if they were in a different state, it shows that the standard of care is identical).
• What medical journals and books (related to the type of care given) do you read?
• Describe your practice and how it is similar to the defendant's practice.
• Describe your familiarity with the medical procedures at issue, and how the training, and experience in it is the same nationally.

Contact us
Many of our Maryland medical malpractice cases come to us from lawyers across the United States. We gladly work with other lawyers who have Maryland, Virginia or District of Columbia cases who need local or co-counsel. Our medical malpractice team includes two nurse attorneys, Jean Jones and Maria Dawson. Please call us at 1.888.213.8140, or contact Christian Mester at cmester@gfmlawllc.com.

We are pleased to report that late last night, less than 72 hours before the trial was scheduled to begin, the Plaintiff Steering Committee in the BP Gulf Oil Spill Litigation announced a settlement with BP. This settlement should fully compensate hundreds of thousands of victims of the Deepwater Horizon explosion which occurred in April 2010. It will also provide a $105 Million Dollar Grant to fund the first 5 years of a Gulf Coast Region Health Outreach Program to promote physical, mental, and behavioural health in the Gulf Region. The program encompasses primary care, behavioral/mental health, health worker training, environmental health and Library/Administration elements. There is no cap on the amount that BP will pay. This is important because the oil spill has impacted all aspects of fishing communities in the Gulf States.

Two separate settlements were reached with BP. The first will pay private economic loss claims due to the Gulf Oil Spill and will include claims for commercial fishermen, oystermen, real properly losses, and vessel of opportunity breach of contract claims. The second settlement invovles claims related to medical injuries from the spill and provides for medical monitoring over hte next two decades (21 years to be exact). Claimants can particiate in either or both settlement programs. It is anticipated that the level of proof required to participate in these settlements will be lower than the levels of proof required by the GCCF. Therefore, if you had a claim that was denied by the GCCF you should contact an attorrey about possibly making a claim under these new settlement terms. The settlement's intent is to be inclusive of all persons and businesses damaged by the oil spill.Unlike the GCCF's rigid formulas, each claimant will be able to choose the months used to measure lost income or profits based on historical earnings; and there will be compensation paid for lost growth potential (known as a Risk Transfer PRemium or "RTP") Multiplier. The specific Risk Transfer Premium Multiplier will depend on the location and nature of the claimant's business.

If you are interested in participating in the settlement contact us at 888-213-8140.

A press release about the Gulf Oil Spill Settlement is attached.
Final Press Release BP Settlement 3-2-2012.pdf

Frequently Asked Questions about the Medical Settlement and for more information about the Gulf Coast Region HEalth Outreach Program, click here:

Medical Settlement FAQ 3-2-2012 (2).pdf

There is one fundamental safety problem with the way most trucking companies pay their truck drivers--they are typically paid by the mile, not the hour. This poses a danger to all of us on the road.

A driver who is paid by the mile has an incentive to log as many miles as possible. In order to log more miles, many truck drivers violate the speed limits. Because of the sheer weight of these trucks, whether fully loaded or not, even a low-impact collision can be devastating or deadly. Drivers are going to be in a hurry to complete their deliveries and begin the next one, which can lead to carelessness while on the road and at all other times in the loading/unloading process. These drivers have less reason to do other things important for safety, including pre-trip inspections. A driver paid by the mile is more likely to rush the inspection process, and hit the road with an unsafe 18-wheeler.

Under the pay-per-mile model, many drivers falsify their driving logs to show compliance with the federal laws on rest--truck drivers are required to take rest periods based on the amount of hours they are driving.

Changing to a pay-per-hour model would likely decrease accidents, and it would do much to eliminate the incentives to falsify hourly driving logs. Because the pay is tied to hourly work, the logs created for compliance with the regulations would be easy to match up with the driver's timesheets and pay. Any disparities between the two would be obvious, and would point to an employer who is clearly encouraging drivers to violate the system.

Paying by the mile doesn't even really make sense. Depending on speed limits and delivery routes, two drivers who work the same number of hours can travel very different numbers of miles. Shouldn't the driver who is forced to maneuver his truck in a city location more frequently (more difficult to do with a big rig) be entitled to more money that a truck driver who leisurely cruises down the highway at 65 mph?

To be sure, the pay-per-hour model might be a little more expensive for truck companies, and that expense gets passed onto consumers. But, trucking companies that use the pay-per-hour model report higher driver retention (a big deal when it costs upwards of $3,000 to recruit and train a new driver) and fewer accidents (which provide a clear cost-savings in terms on work hours, equipment repair and opportunity cost ).

In 2009 there were 3,619 fatal crashes involving large trucks and buses, and 93,000 injuries involving large trucks and buses. The cost of these crashes totaled over $43 billion (FMCSA Commercial Motor Vehicle Facts).

If you've been injured in a Maryland, Virginia or D.C. truck accident, contact us at 1.888.213.8140, or online for a free consultation. We have experience in determining whether truck drivers and their companies violated federal and state rules which may have caused your accident.

For More Information

• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: Interstate Driver's Guide to Hours of Service
• AskTheTrucker: Why Truck Drivers Don't Get Overtime
• AskTheTrucker: Overtime Exception for Buses?
• Dupre Logistics: Paying Their Truckers By the Hour

Spring hasn't hit yet, but we have had some uncommonly good weather. It's only natural for thoughts to turn to warmer days. Some readers of this blog may be bicyclists, whether recreational or professional. Certainly, bike riding can be fun, healthy and environmentally-conscious. However, there are numerous safety concerns when sharing the road, and we encourage Maryland bike riders to be safe. Here's what you need to know about Maryland bicycle laws. Most Maryland laws on bicycle (and motor scooters) operation are found in the Transportation Code at §21-1201 to §21-1213.

Bicycle Rules of the Road
For most purposes, bicycles in Maryland are treated the same as motor vehicles. Here is an overview of key safety laws (there are some exceptions not covered here), with some important ones in bold:

• §21-1103: Driving on Sidewalk--bicyclists cannot ride on a sidewalk (except driveways) unless permitted by local ordinance. If permitted, bicyclists can also ride through crosswalks.


• §21-1205: Bicyclists shall ride as near to the right side of the road as possible when going below the speed of traffic, unless making a left turn, going down a one-way street, passing a vehicle, where the right lane is a turn-only lane, and where the lane is too narrow for a bicycle and motor vehicle to ride side-by-side.


• §21-1205.1: Bicyclists cannot ride on roads where the maximum speed limit is over 50 mph. Where there is a bike lane, it must be used in most circumstances.


• §21-1206: Bicyclists may not ride when carrying anything that prevents putting both hands on the handlebars (this may include cell phone use).


• §21-1207: Lighting--bikes must have lights and reflectors when the conditions are such that objects are not discernible at a distance of 1,000 feet.


• §21-1207.1: Helmets: Helmets are required for all bicyclists (except in Ocean City between the inlet and 27th street during certain hours).


• §21-1209: Drivers of motor vehicles must exercise care to avoid colliding with bicyclists, and must leave at least three feet when passing a bicyclist; a driver of a motor vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a bicyclist in a designated bike lane or on the shoulder when the driver is entering or crossing the bicyclists lane of travel.


• §21-1210: Headphones--bicyclists may not wear headphones or earplugs that cover both ears, with some exceptions.

Safety
We see two main types of Maryland bicycle accidents:

1. The bicyclist is riding on a sidewalk or street against traffic, and a driver pulling out of a perpendicular driveway, parking lot or street does not see the bicyclist because he is looking at traffic coming in the other direction; and
2. The bicyclist is riding on the road or sidewalk as allowed, and crosses an intersection when a motorist coming in the opposite direction makes a left turn and pulls in front of the bicyclist.

In each of these cases, the driver is negligent and has failed to pay attention. The first example is a harder case, because the bicyclist may be negligent for going the wrong way. However, our lawyers are experienced at arguing that the bicyclist's negligence, if any, was not a direct cause of the accident. It could have been a pedestrian, lawfully walking, that the driver hit.

Bicyclists should be especially aware of other cars in these situations. Extra caution may help bicyclists to avoid inattentive drivers.

As an aside, I'm proud to be a member and former past president of the Maryland Association for Justice. Every year since 2000 we team up with the Safe Kids Coalition to raise money and purchase bike helmets for elementary school students. We take a day every year to visit a school and properly fit the helmets on the children as part of a bike safety campaign. We have supplied over 6,500 helmets.

Personal Injury Protection (PIP) for Bicyclists
Bicyclists are entitled to Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits. PIP is no-fault insurance coverage that pays medical expenses, lost wages and other expenses, up to $10,000. The amount of PIP coverage depends on the insurance policy--the most common amount of PIP in Maryland is $2,500. When a bicyclist is injured in a Maryland car accident, he or she can usually go through the PIP insurance of the other vehicle, regardless of fault. One significant exception is where the other driver has waived PIP coverage, or where the other vehicle is a bus, taxicab or motorcycle (most insurance companies do not provide PIP for motorcyclists).

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Insurance
In most cases, when a person is in an accident, and the at-fault driver is either (a) uninsured; or (b) has less insurance than the injured person, the injured person's UM/UIM insurance will apply. Uninsured and Underinsured motorist coverage are somewhat deceptive names. As drivers, part of our premiums go toward this insurance to make sure that we are protected when other driver does not carry enough insurance. Fortunately, this insurance is available to injured bicyclists. Because bicyclists are at higher risk for significant injuries when involved in a car collision, we recommend that they get the highest UM/UIM insurance that they can afford.

Property Damage
Like any Maryland automobile accident, the at-fault driver's insurance is responsible for the cost of repair or fair market value of any property damaged or lost in an accident. For bicyclists, this usually includes the bike, clothing, and any personal property they were carrying at the time. Importantly, the helmet is also covered, and should not be reused after a bicycle accident. Helmets that sustain any sort of impact may have unnoticeable defects that increase the risk of injury in a later accident. If you are involved in a bike accident, do your best to keep track of the cost of repairs and the cost to replace any lost items.

Contact Us
If you have been injured in a Maryland bike accident, and you have questions about insurance or a bike accident lawsuit, please contact us at 1.888.213.8140, or online. We would be pleased to discuss your concerns over the phone or at one of our convenient locations in Silver Spring, Reisterstown or Columbia.

For More Information

• Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration: Current Bicycle Laws (October 2010--it's slightly outdated)
• Maryland Transportation Code: Bicycles (§21-1201 to §21-1213)
• Choose Safety For Life

On Monday, the Virginia Senate Courts of Justice Committee jumped on the distracted driving bandwagon after many false starts, and agreed that texting and e-mailing while driving should be a primary offense. The vote (S.B. 219) was ten to four.

The law right now in Virginia is that motorists can only be pulled over while texting and driving if they are caught committing some other primary offense. The texting fine is $20 for the first offense, and $50 for the second offense.

Under the proposed law, police would be allowed to pull over Virginia drivers suspected of texting or e-mailing without any other evidence of wrongdoing. This bill has already passed the Senate Transportation Committee, and it must now go to the full Senate.

Democratic Senator George Barker, who propounded the bill, has been waging this battle for two years. Opponents believe that existing reckless driving laws are sufficient. Senator Barker is also proposing S.B. 210, which does the same thing as S.B. 219, but for provisional (new) drivers.

Also currently prohibited in Virginia is the use of cell phones or texting by drivers under the age of 18, and school bus drivers.

Our Virginia Auto Accident lawyers have seen first-hand the pain and destruction caused by distracted driving, including texting and cell phone use. The public belief that this is dangerous is so strong that many clients come to us firmly believing that the other driver was on the cell phone or texting at the time of the collision. Whether they are right or not can usually be proven by cell phone records, which our firm seeks in discovery. But the fact remains that we all know it is dangerous. We all need to take the pledge to put the cell phone down before starting the engine. It doesn't matter if it is illegal. It only matters that it is unsafe.

For More Information

• InsideNova.com: Texting While Driving Ban Clears Va. Senate Panel
• Hands-Free Info: Virginia: Cell Phone & Texting Laws, Legislation (history of legislative efforts to criminalize cell phone use by drivers)

Last Thursday, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals decided Murray v. TransCare, a case that has a lot to do with immunities. Let's talk about the backstory before we get to the substance of the case.

Backstory
Murray was litigated on the plaintiffs' side by Stephen Snyder's law firm. This ruling came on the same day as the Court of Special Appeals' decision in Ford v. Exxon, the groundwater contamination case also brought by Mr. Snyder. In Exxon, the trial court, and the jury, gave Snyder and his clients just about everything he could have hoped for. In a 321-page opinion, however, the Court of Special Appeals took most of it away. One can't help but wonder if the Transcare decision was meant to soften the blow of the Exxon ruling. It is comfort, but small comfort. Of course, there will be an inevitable appeal to the Court of Appeals, so it's not over yet.

Basically, Murray was a Maryland medical malpractice case. The plaintiff was sent from a hospital in Talbot County to the University of Maryland Medical System by helicopter. The defendant's paramedic was negligent in not being able to timely locate important life-saving equipment in the helicopter. The result is that the plaintiff suffered a period of time without oxygen, which led to permanent brain damage.

The plaintiff lost at the trial court on three issues. First, the case was transferred from Baltimore City to Talbot County. The more interesting issue, however, was the trial court's grant of summary judgment based on two immunities. The trial judge clearly wasn't sure what to do--first he denied the motion, but then the defendants asked him to reconsider, and he granted their motions. He knew that the case would be sent up to the Court of Special Appeals, and his decision seems to indicate that he hoped it would so that the issue would be clarified for future litigants.

Forum Non Conveniens
The Murray case was initially filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court. However, defendants requested that the judge transfer the case to Talbot County Circuit Court under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which is legal-speak for "even though the case can be filed in one place, it is more convenient and just for everyone if the case is heard in another place." Lawyers often try to get the case into the best court possible, and these lawyers clearly believed that they had a better chance of recovery (or, a better chance of a higher recovery) with Baltimore City judges and jurors, as compared to those of Talbot County. Snyder did nothing wrong in filing the case in Baltimore City--the motion to transfer was not because it could not be filed there, but because, subjectively, there was a better place to have the case. The Baltimore City Circuit Court agreed, probably rightly so, and transferred the case.

One interesting point is that the plaintiffs' lawyers argued "that the Circuit Court for Talbot County's handling of the case and rulings subsequent to transfer demonstrate that the court was not equipped to manage the case and, as such, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City erred in granting appellees' Motion to Transfer." That may not have been a great argument to put forth, especially because this case is heading back to the Circuit Court for Talbot County (as you'll see after you read the Immunity sections, below).

Immunity No. 1: Good Samaritan Act
Long ago, Maryland decided that certain people and corporations providing emergency medical care shouldn't be sued, even if they were negligent. The Good Samaritan Act, as it has become known, was used by the defense to get out of the case. The question for the Court was whether the Good Samaritan Act applied to private commercial ambulance companies like the defendant. Though the trial court ruled that immunity applied, the Court of Special Appeals disagreed.

In reviewing the language of the law, the Court observed that "[t]he Act does not provide a definition of "person," "individual," or "member." A review of the plain meaning of those terms, however, supports the conclusion a private commercial ambulance company, is not covered by those terms, and, therefore, is not immune by application of the Act."

The Good Samaritan Act also provides immunity to certain corporations. It covers corporations that have fire department personnel, which clearly doesn't apply because TransCare has no firefighters. It also covers volunteer fire departments, ambulances and rescue squads. The Court examined that language closely, and determined that TransCare was not a volunteer ambulance or rescue squad.

Immunity No. 2: Fire and Rescue Companies
Fire & Rescue Companies are also immune from lawsuits in some circumstances, according to Maryland law. The Court had a harder time with this one, particularly because "rescue company" is not clearly defined. The law states that

"...except for any willful or grossly negligent act, a fire company or rescue company, and the personnel of a fire company or rescue company, are immune from civil liability for any act or omission in the course of performing their duties."

The Court decided that the defendants, which essentially provided transportation for the injured plaintiff, along with medical services during that transport, do not qualify as a rescue company. It defined an ambulance as "a vehicle equipped for transporting the injured or sick."

I think this decision is not as clear-cut as the decision on the Good Samaritan Act. I could see a court looking at the language of the statute and going either way, but I'm glad that this was the result. Here's why:

Immunities: Eroding Your Rights Every Year
Every year, corporate interests propose legislation in Maryland to grant them immunities. With immunity, those corporations could not be sued for negligence. Immunity leads to corporate irresponsibility. If Ford was immune from lawsuits when it sold the Pinto (which, as you recall, frequently caught on fire in rear-end collisions), they would never have recalled the product or paid victims.

Immunity laws are unjust for another reason--they are not well-publicized, and Marylanders usually don't realize that they have no rights in in some circumstances. If TransCare had immunity in this case, the plaintiffs would have had no way to know, beforehand, that they were giving up their rights. Without that knowledge, there is no way for them to know that, just maybe, they should seek some other way to get to University of Maryland's hospital.

I'm proud to belong to the Maryland Association for Justice (MAJ), where we fight to protect your rights from the corporations who would strip them away, one at a time. In fact from 2009-2010 I was the President of the Maryland Association for Justice. MAJ's legislative team routinely combats these immunity bills, many of which are hidden in hundreds of pages of text, so that your rights to a jury trial are preserved.

Every day, the newspaper websites (does anyone read an actual newspaper, anymore?) have articles loudly proclaiming the amount of money that victims seek in lawsuits (example: Former Volunteer Files $10 Million Lawsuit Against Lakewood Church). These media accounts don't tell people that the amount claimed at the beginning of a lawsuit usually has very little relationship to what is claimed at the end of the lawsuit. The cynic in me thinks that the news stories are simply for sensationalism, but pragmatically I bet that the media just has a very poor understanding of how lawsuits work.

Here in Maryland, we have courts with the following choices:

• District Court: Lawyers must specify the upper end of what they are seeking, either (a) $5,000 (small claims cases); (b) $15,000 (for cases that can only be heard in the District Court); or (c) $30,000 (for cases that can be heard in the District or Circuit Court).
• Circuit Court: Lawyers typically tell the court if they are requesting a maximum of $30,000, or some amount higher than that. The Circuit Court can hear cases with any amount of money in controversy over $15,000.
• United States District Court: civil diversity cases must be filed for a minimum of $75,000.
• Medical Malpractice cases: Lawyers are not allowed to claim a specific amount of damages in medical malpractice cases when seeking over $30,000 (Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-2A-02(b)).

Journalists cite to the amount "sought" in the lawsuit (called the ad damnum clause) because, unless it is a small case filed in the District Court, it is usually a fantastic number. Sometimes it is one, two or three million dollars (or even more). There are two reasons that lawyers request outrageous amounts in their early lawsuit complaints.

First, lawyers often don't know the value of the case at the beginning of the lawsuit. So much depends upon the discovery process, which involves the exchange of information between the parties during the case. Lawyers frequently enter a case with one opinion about the value, and have a completely different opinion by the middle of the case.

The second reason is that the courts require plaintiffs to put a number down, and problems can arise if the judge or jury awards an amount more than what the plaintiff claimed in his lawsuit. It is possible that a court would limit the plaintiff to what he requested in his complaint, and the lawyer could even get sued for legal malpractice. Therefore, the safest route is for the plaintiff to request a large amount that could not possibly be awarded under the law.

In personal injury cases like Maryland automobile accidents, plaintiffs can seek all economic damages relating to their injuries (which includes lost wages and medical bills), and a portion of non-economic damages (including pain, suffering, mental anguish, disfigurement and inconvenience). We have a limit on non-economic damages. For most non-medical malpractice cases, the 2012 cap (effective for injuries that occurred between 10/01/11 through 09/30/12) is $755,000. So, a lawyer should claim an amount of damages that equals the full cap plus whatever economic damages he estimates at the time of filing suit. Then, because we are risk averse, we frequently add a couple of million dollars. You never know--the non-economic damages cap could be overruled, or something might happen to increase the value of the economic damages later in the case.

If we didn't claim a high amount of damages in the ad damnum clause, our clients would have a good legal malpractice claim if the jury awarded more than we asked for, and the judge refused our request to modify the ad damnum clause.

Even Maryland courts know that the ad damnum clause is a mere formality--parties are routinely forbidden from mentioning the amount at trail because it is irrelevant to the case. The legislature has gone so far as to prohibit ad damnum clauses in medical malpractice cases that are filed in the Circuit Courts for more than $30,000. The important number is what the plaintiff asks for on the last day of closing arguments--that's what the plaintiff is really looking for at the end of the case. And that number rarely makes the newspaper headlines.

It would be nice if the Maryland legislature would take the lessons learned from medical malpractice cases and do away with requiring plaintiffs to put a specific number in their ad damnum clauses for circuit court cases. We don't like putting those meaningless numbers in our complaints.

For More Information

• Bijou v. Young-Battle (Maryland Court of Special Appeals case examining and exploring the history of the ad damnum clause)

There are over eight million people currently receiving Supplemental Security Income benefits. Unlike Social Security Disability benefits (benefits for people who paid into social security and are unable to work), Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a program that provides payments to the blind, disabled, and some seniors, regardless of work history. After a freeze since 2009, SSI beneficiaries are finally receiving a cost of living increase in their SSI payments.

Effective this year is an increase of 3.6%, which maxes out at monthly benefits of $698 for one person, and $1,048 for a couple. This was announced by the Social Security Administration last October, after the Consumer Price Index was calculated for 2011 (as compared to the third quarter in 2008).

This is a welcome increase for many people with increasing expenses, particularly in a down economy. It will mean that individuals get up to an additional $24, and couples get an additional $37. It may not seem like much, but it can make a big difference for people on limited incomes who rely on SSI payments to make ends meet. Particularly important to many is more money to pay for increasing numbers of prescriptions.

If you have questions about Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Disability benefits, contact us at 1.888.213.8140, or online for a free consultation. We can help you to recover the money you've rightfully earned. (But please understand we do not represent you in your case until a retainer agreement is signed with our firm).

For More Information:

• Our main SSI/SSD webpage
• SSI Fact Sheet (detailing these and other 2012 changes)
• Social Security Administration Chart detailing the 2012 increase

Six out of every seven, or 86% of all hospital medical errors affecting Medicare patients go unreported. In exchange for the ability to receive Medicare funds, hospitals have a federal obligation to track and report patient harm. The Department of Health and Human Services performed their own investigation into the accuracy of those reports. It turns out that they are failing. Miserably.

Ten years ago, the Institute of Medicine's groundbreaking report "To Err is Human," revealed that there were as many as 98,000 deaths per year from preventable hospital errors. That doesn't include other types of errors, which can cause lifelong permanent injury like cerebral palsy or Erb's palsy.

Prior reporting in 2010 showed that 27% of Medicare recipients were subject to hospital errors requiring additional treatment. That means over one and a half million hospital mistakes are made every year while treating Medicare recipients. Because unknown problems don't get solved, the Department of Health and Services did additional research to find out why hospitals were not self-reporting the vast majority of their mistakes.

Why Are Hospital Errors Underreported?
The study found that these errors are underreported because hospital staff either do not fully understand what constitutes patient harm, or they simply fail to report events that they knew were reportable. The study revealed:

Further, hospital staff reported only 2 of the 18 most serious events in our sample (i.e., those events that resulted in permanent disability or death). Serious events not captured by incident reporting systems included hospital-acquired infections, such as a case of septic shock leading to death; and medication-related events, such as four cases of excessive bleeding because of the administration of blood-thinning medication that also led to death.

Of the 86% of unreported events, 62% were because hospital staff did not believe they were reportable. Of that 62%:

• 12%: Event not caused by perceptible error
• 12%: Event was an expected outcome or effect
• 11%: Event caused little harm or harm was ameliorated
• 9%: Event was not on hospital's mandatory reporting list
• 8%: Event occurs frequently
• 5%: Event symptoms became apparent after discharge
• 4%: Event occurred in patient with a history of similar events
• 2%: No reason given

The other 25% of unreported events was because staff simply failed to report an event that they knew was reportable. So, one-quarter of the time health care providers cause harm or death to a Medicare patient at a hospital that was preventable and avoidable, the health care providers purposely choose not to report it. That is just wrong. This also further reinforces the importance of being your own advocate at hospitals, because if you don't, you know the hospital won't.

Hospitals are going to have to step up their game. In the health care community there is a great deal of concern about "frivolous lawsuits" and the costs associated with paying out medical malpractice claims. Lawsuit costs are a minute fraction of the costs associated with these preventable hospital errors, which require more hospital time, supplies and care. If we are serious about improving patient care and saving taxpayer money, this is where we should be looking to solve problems.

How does this study relate to non-Medicare patients?
It's hard to say exactly what this study and these statistics mean for non-Medicare patients. It could be that non-Medicare patient errors are underreported exactly to the same degree as Medicare patients. Or, it could be that the demographics of most Medicare recipients (older, perhaps having more hospital admissions and medical problems) means that this population has a higher quantity of underreporting. Whatever the answer, it is not a boost of confidence for hospitals.

Do all of these errors constitute medical malpractice?
While these errors may each be medical malpractice, not all of them rise to the level of a medical malpractice lawsuit. If a loved one is in the hospital, make sure someone is there to act as their voice when they cannot - to be their advocate to provide better care so that preventable mistakes are not made, and if they are, to make sure the hospital takes appropriate steps to help the patient. Our firm handles physician and hospital malpractice cases when those errors cause significant or permanent injury. If you or a loved one has been harmed by malpractice, contact us at 1.888.213.8140, or online for a free consultation. If we take your case, we become your advocate and your voice to hold those responsible accountable.

Many motorcyclists are injured and killed in Maryland, Virginia and Washington D.C. due to no fault of their own. These innocent victims and their families should contact a personal injury lawyer with experience handling motorcycle crash claims, and make sure that the law firm understands the additional challenges that come with motorcycle accident cases.

Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC has experience with these cases, and we have obtained great results on behalf of many cyclists with severe injuries including paralysis, broken bones and death. The stakes in a motorcycle accident cases are always high--oftentimes higher than the average car accident case. Motorcyclists have two strikes against them before they even strap on their helmets: (1) they are motorcyclists; and (2) there are fewer barriers between them and significant, permanent injury. It is important that anyone who is injured (or family members of those killed) in a motorcycle accident know and understand the challenges of these cases from the outset because the perceptions and biases that some juror have against motorcyclist can impact the settlement value of the case, and can impact outcomes when these cases go to trial.

Perception is Reality
We all form judgments about others based on whatever limited information we get. When we hear on the news that a motorcyclist was involved in a fatal collision, we assume that the motorcyclist was at fault. This is true especially if it was a young motorcyclist. We remember every time we were driving in the slow lane on I-95, dutifully abiding by the 55 mph speed limit with our hands at ten and two (never mind that we always go at least 5 mph over the speed limit, and we usually drive with one hand). We remember that, while we were so law-abiding, a pack of young twenty-somethings was weaving in-and-out of traffic on their brightly painted crotch-rockets. If we were any older, we'd call those people whippersnappers.

That perception, which most of us are guilty of harboring, is a problem for the motorcycle-riding community when it comes to bringing a personal injury lawsuit for injuries. The reason is that motorcyclists face an uphill battle when convincing a group of people (for example, six jurors) that they were not the cause of the collision. It's hard for us to give motorcyclists the benefit of the doubt. The reality is that motorcyclists often get less than a fair shake at trial. Somewhere deep inside, we want to believe that the motorcyclists are the cause of these collisions--it's easy for non-motorcyclists to believe this because it means that motorcyclists are more often at fault than we are (the psychologists call this a defensive attribution bias). We judge the victims for their conduct (driving motorcycles), and blame the outcome on the victim instead of the real cause of injury. This is the same reason that, statistically, women jurors sometimes have a hard time finding negligence in failure to diagnose breast cancer lawsuits. Many women, when asked, say that they would not take one doctor's word for it that a lump is benign. Instead, they believe that they would get second, third and even fourth opinions. Subconsciously, we all try to disassociate ourselves from harmful outcomes.

Fewer Barriers to Injury
Motorcyclists face a problem similar to victims of semi-truck accidents. In trucking accidents, the sheer size and weight of trucks can cause devastating injuries in what would otherwise be a minor impact. For motorcyclists, not being enclosed in the safer capsule of a car cabin, and without the benefit of seatbelts, means that they are oftentimes ejected from their vehicle suffer more serious and oftentimes permanent injuries.

The Real Reality: Motorcycle Accident Statistics
The national data for motorcycle and passenger vehicle accidents reveals:

• 1998: 31,899 fatal passenger vehicle accidents
• 1998: 2,294 fatal motorcycle accidents
• 2007: 28,933 fatal passenger vehicle accidents (this number has decreased every year between 2002 and 2007)
• 2007: 5,154 fatal motorcycle accidents (this number has increased every year between 2002 and 2007)

For local Maryland data:

• 2008: 1,800 motorcycle accidents
• 2008: 1,500 motorcycle injuries
• 2008: 83 motorcycle fatalities

The rising number of motorcycle accidents is certainly due in some part to more motorcyclists on the road. Particularly in this economy, motorcycles can be an attractive gas-saving option, and are a cheaper alternative to cars and small truck.

Motorcycles can be more dangerous, but there is no data that conclusively shows motorcyclists are predominantly at fault in collisions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration investigated the causes of motorcycle accidents, and published a report in 2010 after seeing a doubling of motorcycle accidents (Click here for the NHTSA Report). The study was small--only 23 accidents in Orange County, California were fully investigated because the study was designed to help create a more comprehensive study. Here are the facts based on this small sample:

• 12/23 (52%): single vehicle accidents
• 3/23 (13%): deaths
• 5/23 (22%): less than 2 weeks of experience in motorcycle operation
• 2/23 (8.7%): between 2 weeks and 1 year of experience in motorcycle operation
• 4/23 (17%): between 16 and 42 years of experience in motorcycle operation
• 6/23 (26%): ages 18-23
• 6/23 (26%): ages 24-40
• 8/23 (35%): ages 41-60
• 3/23 (13%): unknown ages
• 12/23 (52%): had some kind of motorcycle safety training

Unfortunately, the study does not report on conclusions about the causes of the collisions. Even based on this data, it's easy to let our biases sink in--many of the motorcyclists had less than a year of motorcycle experience. Preferably, we would exclude the data on single-vehicle accidents, because those are not cases that would lead to lawsuits. The data was not parsed out in such a way to exclude them, though.

Our Experience
Anecdotally, the motorcycle accident victims we have represent tend to be more experienced, and most of them have taken motorcycle training and safety courses. They all wear helmets, and many of them wear more protective gear, including vests. Motorcycle accident settlements are more difficult because the insurance companies are often willing to take a bet that the jury will enter the case with the biases discussed below, rendering a defense verdict. Therefore, a disproportionate number of motorcycle injury cases go to trial. We are acutely aware of the additional challenges that come with representing a motorcyclist who is seriously injured, and will fight hard to make sure that everything possible is done to combat the negative perception of motorcyclists described above.

For More Information

• Maryland Motorcycle Accidents
• Virginia Motorcycle Accidents
• Washington, D.C. Motorcycle Accidents
• Wrongful Death Lawsuits
• 2012 Maryland Motorcycle Safety Program

Is it unethical for lawyers to accept referrals from negligent parties? About two dozen Maryland hospitals keep lists of "go-to" medical malpractice plaintiff lawyers (see the recent Baltimore Sun article). When the hospital makes what it considers to be a significant (and, presumably indefensible) mistake, the hospital will meet with the family and recommend that the family hire a lawyer. At that time, the hospital recommends a specific lawyer to the family - a lawyer who has agreed in advance to take a 10-15% fee (instead of the customary 33-40%). The Maryland hospitals involved in the program include institutions from MedStar Health, LifeBridge Health and the University of Maryland Medical System.

Here's how it worked in at least one case, as cited by the article. The hospital makes a mistake. They call the injured person or family in for a meeting, acknowledging their error. The hospital will either make an offer to settle the claim immediately, or they will recommend that the injured person hire a lawyer. The hospital gives them the name of a lawyer who has agreed to take a reduced fee on the case. The injured person can then contact that lawyer, or find their own lawyer. In the article's example, the hospital recommended one attorney, but the family later hired another lawyer not from the list.

Attorneys have to be wary of conflicts of interest. In the above examples, the potential conflict of interest lies with the lawyer. If he or she wants to continue receiving referrals from the hospital, the lawyer could conceivably allow that to affect case negotiation. Consciously or subconsciously, the lawyer might be afraid that if he or she does too good a job for his client (the victim), the hospital might not send him more cases. It's worth noting that these cases are significantly easier than the average medical malpractice case--the hospital is admitting liability, which means that the cases are solely about the extent of harm caused to the victim. Most medical malpractice cases take three to five years before a resolution is reached; under the scenario above, the resolutions appear to come much more quickly.

This just doesn't sit right with me - that the corporation who caused permanent injury to me or my family wants to give me the name of a lawyer to represent me, and that the hospital has previously worked out a deal with that lawyer so they accept a reduced fee? How can I fully trust that lawyer? It doesn't seem right.

That said, I don't think there is anything strictly unethical about it. In fact, the article cites to the chair of the Maryland State Bar Association's ethics committee, who doesn't see a problem as long as the lawyer uses his or her best efforts on behalf of the client (though, the chair cannot authoritatively state this--lawyer discipline is the job of the Attorney Grievance Commission and the Maryland Court of Appeals). Moreover, the lawyers the article identified as being on these lists, including Brian Nash and Andrew Slutkin, are ethical, experienced and fantastic trial lawyers. There is no doubt in my mind that they would place the best interests of their client above all else. If they are able to resolve a case for full value, at reduced fees and without filing a lawsuit (and without waiting three or more years to get to the end of the process), then that seems like a favorable situation for the client.

But, it is still one of those things that when you hear it, it sounds wrong. I don't know how a victim doesn't interpret this as a collusive effort between the hospital and the lawyer. You must have 100% confidence in your attorney; that you know they work for you and only for you and not for the party who harmed you.

If you or a loved one is in a situation where the hospital that caused harm to you provides you with the name of a lawyer, make sure you do your due diligence in finding the lawyer that is right for you: if that turns out to be this referral lawyer, then so be it; but if not, make sure you are doing what you believe is in the best interests of you and your loved one. Because you know the hospital always has its own best interest in mind - and its best interest does not mean taking care of you.

The medical malpractice department at Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester handles a wide variety of cases. One of the types of cases they handle are when a baby is diagnosed with a permanent shoulder dystocia injury. A shoulder dystocia injury affects the nerves and causes permanent or partial paralysis the arm, hand or fingers. It occurs where, during delivery, the baby's head emerges but the shoulder is stuck behind the mother's pubic bone. In most cases the obstetrician or midwife can remedy the situation through one or more quick and standard maneuvers. However, when those maneuvers are not done correctly, many different birth injuries could result. The most immediately concerning injury is lack of oxygen to the baby's brain--with the pressure of labor exerted on the neck and body for a sustained amount of the time, the child could develop permanent neurological injuries that could lead to cerebral palsy.

The other problem is an injury to the baby's shoulder nerves when the obstetrician or midwife attempts to complete the delivery. Treated incorrectly, the baby may suffer from Erb's palsy or a brachial plexus injury.

Anatomy
The brachial plexus is a series of nerves that run from the spinal column to the hand, arm, shoulder and neck. It is divided into roots, trunks, divisions, cords and branches. Injury at different areas of the brachial plexus will result in differing levels of disability.

Risk Factors for Shoulder Dystocia
Doctors, nurses and midwives should be prepared to encounter shoulder dystocia with all of their patients; however, there are several risk factors that increase the likelihood. These include a large baby and/or small mother, gestational diabetes, obese mother, mother with a small pelvis, and a prior pregnancy involving shoulder dystocia. These injuries may also occur when forceps or vacuums are used for delivery.

Causes of Shoulder Dystocia Injuries
Shoulder dystocia injuries are often caused by health care providers who panic when the baby gets stuck in the birth canal. It is entirely foreseeable that obstetricians and midwives will encounter this situation, so they should be able to perform the proper delivery techniques in a timely and appropriate manner. Instead, some of them ignore their training and pull, twist or tug on the baby improperly to try to free him from the birth canal. Because of that motion, the nerves in a baby's shoulder may be severely or even irreparably damaged. Damage may occur in four ways:

• Avulsion: the nerve root is ripped out of the spine
• Rupture: the nerve is torn but is still attached to the spine
• Neuroma: a torn nerve heals incorrectly and with scar tissue
• Neuropraxia: the nerve is stretched, though not torn

Proper Delivery Techniques

1. Health care provider should reposition mother's legs during delivery to widen the birth canal (called the McRobert's maneuver)
2. Health care provider should apply gentle pressure to mother's lower stomach (suprapubic pressure)
3. Health care provider can try to gently turn the baby inside the birth canal (rotational maneuvers)
4. Health care provider can break the child's clavicle or collar bone
5. Health care provider can perform an emergency cesarean section

Life-Long Effects of Shoulder Dystocia Injuries
Shoulder dystocia can cause a range of nerve injuries for the baby. The most serious is complete paralysis of the arm. Other types of nerve injuries include Erb's palsy, where victims lose movement of their arms below the elbow, and their arms stay close to the body with the palm facing backward. Klumpke's palsy is the paralysis of the fingers or hands.

Treatment
Ten percent of these nerve injuries may resolve or may improve within six months of birth. In some cases, therapy or extremely expensive surgery can resolve the injury. However, these injuries can be permanent and have lasting effects on the child's quality of life.

Contact Us
If you or a loved one has suffered a shoulder dystocia injury at birth, contact us at 1.888.213.8140 or click here for a free internet consultation.

For More Information

• Maryland Birth Injury Attorneys
• Children's Hospital Boston (good diagrams of brachial plexus anatomy)
• Mayo Clinic: Surgical treatment of a patient with Erb's palsy

Anais Fournier, from Hagerstown, Maryland died on December 23, 2011 of a cardiac arrhythmia due to caffeine toxicity after consuming monster energy drinks. She was a beautifull, caring and smart 14 year old girl. After meeting Anais' mother Wendy Crossland this week, I spent the better part of the past 2 days learning about the dangers of Caffeinated Energy Drinks such as Red Bull, Monster Energy Drink and Full Throttle. What I learned is scary. These drinks are completely unregulated, and are marketed aggressively to children and teenagers. For those of you with a short attention span----here is what you absolutely need to know (and the caffeinated energy drink manufacturers will not tell you this)----If you (or your children) have an underlying heart condition of any kind--even a minor one--THEN DO NOT CONSUME THESE DRINKS.

Anais's mother is taking action. She is circulating an a petition asking Congress and FDA to regulate the caffeinated energy drink industry and to ban the sale of such drinks to minors.

The caffeinated energy drink market in the United States was estimated at $5.4 Billion in 2006 and it probably is close to $7-$9 Billion today. The main stimulant in these drinks is caffeine, but they also have other substances such as Taurine, riboflavin, guarana and other derivatives. It has been reported that the caffeine content ranges from about 50 milligrams per serving to 505 milligrams per serving.

These dangerous caffeinated energy drinks have been removed from the market in some Eurpoean Countries such as France, but here in the USA they remain on the market, are marketed to our kids, and are not regulated by the FDA. The reason these energy drinks are unregulated goes back to 1980 when the FDA tried to regulate the caffeine content in soda and colas. Soft drink manufacturers (and their lobbyisists) somehow convinced the FDA that caffeine was a flavor enhancer in soda, and that it was not used a "psychoactive ingredient." The FDA does not regulate sodas but limits the caffeine content in soda to .02% (71 milligrams per 12 ounce drink). Almost all of the Energy Drinks that have come onto the market in the last 10 years exceed hte .02% limit set for the cola industry. These new manufacturers of caffeinated energy drinks claim that they are not subject to the .02% limit because they claim their products fall under the 2004 Dietary SUpplement HEalth and Education Act. The bottom line is that the FDA has not enforced the .02% limit against Monster Energy Drink and other caffeinated beverage manufacturers and---shockingly---DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY WARNING LABELS. An example of how ridiculous the inconsistency is and the absurd result this has lead to is that Over the Counter stimulants such as No Doz with just 100 mg of caffeine per tablet are required to give consumers extensive warnings yet energy drink manufacturers who market 500 mg caffeinated energy drinks to kids do not have to give warnings and do not have to disclose the amount of caffeine in their product.

The Scientific Community is finally conducting studies on the dangers of these drinks. Once such study called "Caffeinated Energy Drinks--A Growing Problem"

Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC is investigating claims and lawsuits against the manufacturers of these caffeinated energy drinks such as Monster and Red Bull in circumstances where they cause injuries. We believe that the corporate manufacturers are negligently marketing these energy drinks to children and adults and are not providing proper warnings on thse products of known dangers. For more information call us at 888-213-8140.

Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor. I don't play one on T.V., though some of what I know about medicine I learned watching E.R. on television. Some is from helping people who have been involved in Maryland car accidents--I talk to their doctors, I read their medical reports, I research their injuries, and I talk to our two nurse-attorneys, Jean Jones and Maria Dawson. I should also note that my father is a heart doctor (Cardiologist) in Montgomery County, Maryland and I have learned a lot about the medical profession from him.

Sometimes our automobile accident clients ask me about medical treatment. We get a lot of calls from automobile accident victims who want our advice on what doctors to go to. It's not for the reasons you might think--it's not because they want to bilk insurance companies for everything they can; it's not because they want a doctor who will look the other way while they exaggerate their injuries for the purpose of a lawsuit. We don't represent those people. No, the people who ask me for medical advice truly need it because they can't get help anywhere else. Many of our clients don't have health insurance and we are happy to try to help them get the medical treatment they need when necessary. In a personal injury case it is important to have a great doctor so that our clients can get better, but it is also important to have a medical doctor or chiropractor who knows how to properly document injuries with the correct CPT Codes and descriptions so that insurance companies, judges and juries understand our client's injuries.

It all has to do with insurance. When some of us are hurt, we might go the emergency room, follow-up with our primary care doctor, and get referrals to a specialist if necessary--an orthopedist or a physical therapist, for example. Every appointment, we hand over our health insurance card, pay a little co-pay, and everything gets handled. Our injuries hopefully resolve, and life is good.

For some people, though, it is not that easy. In 2009, about 14% of Marylanders had no health insurance according to U.S. Census statistics. People without health insurance have fewer options for medical care. They might get to an emergency room (which they have to pay for), but follow-up is typically very difficult, even if they have Personal Injury Protection (PIP) . PIP is a part of an automobile insurance policy that pays a certain amount (usually $2,500 to $10,000) of medical expenses and lost wages following an accident, regardless of who is at fault. The problem is that many doctors and other health care providers do not accept PIP insurance. Or, even if they do, it might be exhausted after a significant hospital visit.

So for the uninsured, it can be difficult to get reliable medical care after an accident that was caused by someone else. It might take 6 months to a year and a half to resolve a lawsuit after an automobile accident victim stops medical treatment. Money from an accident lawsuit often doesn't come soon enough to help provide that medical treatment. Also, the recovery from a lawsuit is mostly based on the existing medical bills--it is difficult to get a verdict for future medical intervention in musculoskeletal injury cases unless there is a surgery on the horizon, or very well documented testimony from a medical doctor that the future care plan will be needed. In more serious injury cases, we use a life care planner to cost out the future medical needs of Maryland accident victimss.

Fortunately, there are some doctors, physical therapists and chiropractors who are willing to treat the uninsured who have auto accident cases and are represented y an attorney without any money upfront. No immediate doctor bills. No co-pays. No out-of-pocket prescription costs. These doctors are willing to take a chance on our clients. If there is a settlement or verdict, the doctors get paid at that time. In many cases we are able to find a high quality medical doctor to treat our client with the understanding the doctor or chiropractor will get paid at the end of the case. In most of these situations, the client and lawyer sign an Authorization and Assignment. This basically gives the medical doctor a lien on the personal injury recovery.

Sometimes there are benefits to consulting the physicians you know and go to regularly. If they won't take PIP (In Virginia it is called Medpay) or you don't have health insurance or money to pay, you need to get better. Talk to friends and get recommendations. If that doesn't work out, talk to us. Our main goal as Maryland automobile accident lawyers is to help you get better, and to be sure that you are property compensated for your injuries.

If you apply for Social Security Disability Benefits, and If you die before the benefits are awarded, the Social Security Administration doesn't have to pay you. They have a secret code for applications that don't need to be processed because the applicant died after submission: DXDI. The SSA's motto might very easily be "slow and steady wins the race." The hurt, injured and disabled workers are not the winners in this game.

The Wall Street Journal reported that "Growing Case Backlog Leaves Terminally Ill Waiting."

It reports that there have been 15,043 DXDI classifications in the past 6 years. That article highlighted the experiences of two Maryland social security disability applicants: Dexter Penny of District Heights, Maryland and Philip Barnes of Indian Head Maryland. Here are their stories:

• Dexter Penny: in February 2009, Mr. Dexter applied for disability benefits after his terminal colon cancer diagnosis. He was denied. He appealed that denial. He was denied. He hired a lawyer through Legal Aid, and he was finally granted benefits in December 2010--nine days after his death. A mere 45 days later, Mr. Dexter's family received a letter revoking the benefits because Mr. Dexter did not respond to the acceptance letter.
• Philip Barnes: while working at a hotel in November 2007, Mr. Barnes was robbed and shot four times, with bullets hitting him in his left arm, spleen, kidney, left buttock and lower back. Significant medical intervention was required, including a plate in his arm and a stent in his kidney (which needs to be replaced yearly). He has significant back pain to this day. He is still waiting for benefits.

The SSA is taking microscopic baby steps to fix the problem by looking for the terminally ill, and letting them skip ahead in the line. With over 771,338 cases on appeal, that's hardly a great fix, though. The reality is that the SSA doesn't have the time, manpower or energy to take care of people who have paid their part. Remember, these are folks who have worked and paid into social security. When they need to avail themselves of the process, they are routinely denied without so much as a cursory glance at the medical records. The sad reality is that most people have their initial applications denied, and must file a string of appeals, hoping for progress.

A cynic might think that the Social Security Administration knows it will pay out fewer claims by taking their sweet time at all steps of the process. Let's look at the 2009 statistics for workers (people who are applying for social security disability benSocial Security Administration knows it will pay out fewer claims by taking their sweet time at all steps of the process. Let's look at the 2009 statistics for workers (people who are applying for social security disability benefits based on their history of wage-earning):

• 48.6%: Approvals at the initial application level (809,439 decisions, 393,092 approvals) (Frankly, I was surprised that the percentage is this high. In my experience as a social security disability lawyer i have seen so many people who have serious injuries wrongfully denied benefits at the initial application and reconsideration stage)
• 10.5%: Approvals at the reconsideration level (226,824 decisions, 23,826 approvals)
• 85.4%: Subsequent approvals (hearings, etc.)(65,382 decisions, 55,829 approvals)

Remember, these are only statistics for SSD. The denials for SSI are much higher. This means that the initial decision-making process was wrong and had to be corrected in 79,655 cases in 2009. These statistics do not include any of the 15,043 applicants who died while waiting for some level of appeal.

Insurance companies, with their "Delay, Deny, Delay" tactics could learn a thing or two from the SSA. Anyone who has been through the labyrinthine process that is the Social Security Disability application knows that it takes time. For over 15,000 people, it takes too much time. Too many people just give up after their claim for disability benefits is denied. I urge anyone involved in the proces to hang in there, and FIGHT. Hire a lawyer to help you. If you have paid into the system, have the appropriate work history, and are disabled now such that you cannot work, then you owe it to yourself and your family to get the benefits you deserve.

For anyone who has been denied in their quest for social security disability benefits (or SSI benefits for that matter), it is important to remember that there is a strict 60 day deadline to appeal that denial. The key to getting through this process as quickly as possible is to proactively file the necessary forms and documents, and to timely respond to requests for additional information by the Social Security Administration. We've been through this process, and we can help to make sure you don't become a statistic. Contact us at 1.888.213.8140, or online for a free consultation.

More Information on Social Security Disability

• Our main Social Security Disability Webpage
• Social Security Administration's website