Virginia Injury Attorney Blog

On October 13, 2009, Gloucester Circuit Court ruled Plaintiffs were entitled to have their expert review first-hand the Defendant’s disputed computer documents and history of creation, modification, etc. The case is Gagnon v. Burns, involving a brain injury victim.

The Court also imposed deadlines in this brain injury case for document production, expert review and identification, and discovery depositions. Hearing on sovereign immunity is scheduled for December 16, 2009.

Continue reading "Virginia Brain Injury: Discovery – a Lawyer’s Expert" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries , Crime Victims

Bookmark:

On May 28, 2009, Gloucester Circuit Court granted over Objection the Plaintiff’s Motion to amend their complaint and to depose the primary Defendant for additional time. The case, Gagnon v. Burns, involves brain injury to a student attacked at Gloucester High School.

Continue reading "Virginia Brain Injury: Discovery - a Lawyer’s Deposition" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries , Crime Victims

Bookmark:

On May 8, 2009, Gloucester Circuit Court granted the Motion for Reconsideration of a brain injury plaintiff. The Court Order entered on May 28, 2009, required Gloucester High School to produce the office computer of the defendant Assistant Principal.

Previously the plaintiff brain injury victim had been denied discovery of the defendant’s computer. The case is Gagnon v. Burns.

Continue reading "Virginia Brain Injury: Discovery – a Lawyer’s Computer" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Brain Injuries , Crime Victims

Bookmark:

Senate Bill 1275 passed the 2009 Virginia General Assembly. Effective July 1, 2009, it amends Va. Code Ann. §8.01-399.

That statute codifies the so-called “physician-patient” privilege. That privilege renders confidential from disclosure communications between patients and physicians in the course of treatment for brain injuries and other personal injuries.

Before the amendment, overly aggressive physicians asserted that the privilege was theirs to waive, and disclosed confidential information of their patients to help defense-oriented interests, such as other healthcare providers committing medical malpractice, vehicle accident offenders, defective product manufacturers, defective premises owners, sexual abuse perpetrators and other criminals. But the statutory amendment is clear that the patient alone will control whether any privilege is waived and confidential communication is disclosed.

Continue reading "Virginia Personal Injury Communications: Va. Code Ann. §8.01-399(Amended) – a Lawyer’s Privilege " »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Crime Victims , Medical Malpractice , Nursing Homes , Sexual Abuse , Special Cases , Vehicle Accidents

Bookmark:

Senate Bill 1154 passed Virginia General Assembly in 2009. Effective July 1, 2009, It amends Va. Code Ann. §8.01-413.

Prior to the amendment, healthcare providers routintely were charging a flat fee of $10.00 plus $0.50-$1.00 per page for providing their patients their account statements. That obviously cost victims of vehicle accidents, nursing home abuse, other medical malpractice, product or premises defect, sexual abuse or other crimes who simply were trying to get their bills paid.

After the amendment, healthcare providers must provide all patients an itemized listing of charges and account balance at no cost. Indeed, a victim patient will be entitled to request free printouts up to three times every twelve months.

For many patients the cost savings will be multiplied across numerous healthcare providers. Most victims of vehicle accidents, nursing home abuse, other medical malpractice, product or premises defect, sexual abuse or other crimes have to consult the variety of healthcare providers.

Continue reading "Virginia Personal Injury Bills: Va. Code Ann. §8.01-413 (Amended) – a Lawyer’s Charges" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Crime Victims , Medical Malpractice , Nursing Homes , Sexual Abuse , Special Cases , Vehicle Accidents

Bookmark:

House Bill 2035 passed the 2009 Virginia General Assembly. Effective July 1, 2009, it amends Va. Code Ann. §8.01-419.

That statute routinely is introduced unto evidence in cases of vehicle accidents, nursing home abuse, other medical malpractice, product liability, premises liability and other cases involving wrongful death, brain injury and other personal injuries. Its actuarial table of life expectancy helps a jury or judge quantify the duration of a victim’s damages.

Virginia citizens generally living longer translates into higher life expectancy figures. That means victims of wrongful death, brain injury and other personal injury generally will suffer longer and deserve greater damage awards.

Continue reading "Virginia Life Expectancy: Va. Code Ann. §8.01-419 (Amended) – a Lawyer’s Table" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Crime Victims , Medical Malpractice , Nursing Homes , Sexual Abuse , Special Cases , Vehicle Accidents

Bookmark:

Senate Bill 39 passed the Virginia General Assembly in 2009. Effective July 1, 2009, it amends Va. Code Ann. §46.2-373.

The new amendment increases the threshold at which motor vehicle accidents are subject to written reports by the police. The vehicle damage threshold moves from $1,000.00 to $1,500.00 to be reportable.

From a personal injury standpoint, the amended statute stands to create more “he said, she said” disputes after-the-fact, because no independent officer will be taking statements or otherwise recording facts independently. Hence, the onus will be on victim’s of such vehicle accidents to identify witnesses themselves, which may prove a daunting if not impossible task given the accident circumstances and their personal injuries.

Continue reading "Virginia MVA Reports: Va. Code Ann. §46.2-373 (Amended) – a Lawyer’s Witness" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Crime Victims , Medical Malpractice , Nursing Homes , Sexual Abuse , Special Cases , Vehicle Accidents

Bookmark:

Despite refusing to comply with Va. Code Ann. §8.01-413(B) in medical malpractice, wrongful death, vehicle accident, and other personal injury cases, some healthcare providers try to avoid enforcement by companion §8.01-413(C). Their threshold argument that statutory enforcement under §8.01-413(C) constitutes impermissible litigation discovery is unfounded.

Va. S. Ct. Rule 4:9 (c) is inapplicable to a statutory enforcement proceeding under §8.01-413(C). Most Subpoenas are issued pursuant to Rule 4:9(c) as litigation discovery. But a §8.01-413(C) Subpoena is different. Contrary to Rule 4:9(c) subpoenas, it enforces patient’s pre-service statutory right to healthcare provider “records or papers” without resort to ordinary litigation discovery after service. Significantly, §8.01-413(C) specifically directs issuance of this Subpoena pursuant to it as the sole remedy for non-compliance with §8.01-413(B).

It is hornbook law that a specific statute of the General Assembly takes precedence over general Rules of the Court. See, e.g., Virginia Constitution, Art. ¬6, Sec. 5. Indeed, Riverside and Mary Immaculate have so conceded on point in medical malpractice cases. See, 7/10/07 Licare v. Riverside Hearing Transcript Excerpt at 29.3-14; 1/30/08 Morel v. Mary Immaculate Hearing Transcript at 18.18-21. Further, it also is hornbook law that §8.01-413(C) and Rule 4:9(c) should be harmonized; and the only way to harmonize them is to recognize §8.01-413(C) as an entirely different and independent source of authority for issuance of a Subpoena from Rule 4:9(c) or, at the least, that §8.01-413(C) is a limited statutory exception to the general, Rule 4:9(c).

Holding Rule 4:9(c) superior and preemptive would eviscerate the clear letter and intent of §8.01-413(B&C), thereby encouraging, facilitating and countenancing potential and/or actual defendants to withhold all or at least key records or papers of victim patient plaintiffs in violation of statute. Also, in medical malpractice cases, it inequitably would force a patient plaintiff to meet his statutory pre-service expert certification requirements under §8.01-20.1 and/or §8.01-50.1 without the benefit of the facility records and papers to which he is entitled by statute, frustrating the same. Additionally, it violates the procedural and substantive due process rights of victim patients against offending defendants.

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice, Wrongful Death, Vehicle Accidents, & Other Personal Injury: Va. Code Ann. §8.01-413 - a Lawyer's Records" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Crime Victims , Medical Malpractice , Nursing Homes , Patient Falls , Premises Liability , Sexual Abuse , Vehicle Accidents , Wrongful Deaths

Bookmark:

Medical malpractice, vehicle accident, wrongful death, product liability, premises liability, sexual abuse, and all other personal injury cases depend on complete prompt access of victims to their healthcare records. That critical access is guaranteed by Va. Code Ann. §8.01-413.

§8.01-413(B) requires provision of “records or papers” to a patient: “copies of hospital, nursing facility, physician’s or other health care provider’s records or papers should be furnished within 15 days of receipt of such request to the patient….” Notably, §8.01-413(B) speaks of all “records or papers,” not some amorphous “patient chart”. The latter just is an artificial construct of facilities, insurers and their lawyers; and self-servingly excludes whatever they choose. As Judge Tench observed in a recent medical malpractice case, “Medical records are much more than just the chart hanging there.” See, 7/10/07 Licare v. Riverside Hearing Transcript Excerpt at 38.16-23 (emphasis added). §8.01-413(B) is broad, encompassing and not susceptible of such convenient defense abuse.

§8.01-413(C) requires the patient in a pending civil case to issue a Subpoena for his records or papers if the healthcare provider fails to comply with a written request under §8.01-413(B). “[U]pon the failure … to comply with any written request made in accordance with subsection B…, the patient …may cause a subpoena duces tecum to be issued. The subpoena may be issued…in a pending civil case .... *** The subpoena shall be returnable within 20 days of proper service, directing the [healthcare provider] … to produce and furnish copies of the reports and papers to the clerk who shall then make the same available to the patient....” (emphasis added). The letter of §8.01-413(C) mandating enforcement through a “pending” case evinces the intent of companion §8.01-413(B) mandating provision of records and papers during a “pending” case. Also, the Court can award attorney’s fees, court costs and all other expenses for non-compliance. §8.01-413(C).

§8.01-413 is analogous to §2.1-340, et seq., with purpose, motivation and litigation status likewise being irrelevant. Va. Code Ann. §2.1-340, et seq. is the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). The Virginia Supreme Court held “the purpose or motivation behind a [FOIA] request is irrelevant to citizen’s entitlement to requested information.” Associated Tax Servs., Inc. v. Fitzpatrick, 236 Va. 181, 187 (1988). Following Fitzpatrick, Justice Lemons ruled a requestor’s status as medical malpractice plaintiff was irrelevant to and did not disqualify her Virginia FOIA request. Stevens v. Lemmie, 40 Va. Cir. 499, 513-514 (Petersburg 1996). “The broad policy of FOIA mandates that public information be made available to all citizens regardless of their interest in the information,” wrote Justice Lemons. “This Court finds no exception to FOIA that precludes its use where the information sought may become evidence in a pending or contemplated civil suit.” Id. at 514. §8.01-413 is analogous to §2.1-340: it too reflects a broad exception-less policy mandating availability of information. A requestor’s litigation status under §8.01-413 likewise is irrelevant.

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice, Wrongful Death, Vehicle Accidents, & Other Personal Injury: Va. Code Ann. §8.01-413 - a Lawyer's Enforcement" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorneys Forum , Crime Victims , Medical Malpractice , Nursing Homes , Patient Falls , Premises Liability , Sexual Abuse , Vehicle Accidents , Wrongful Deaths

Bookmark:

On January 8, 2009, The Daily Press covered a successor suit for traumatic brain injury filed by Avery T. “Sandy” Waterman, Jr., Esq. in Gloucester. Its headline is titled “New suit seeks $9M over fight”.

In December, 2006, a Gloucester High School student was victim of a vicious unprovoked assault and battery by another student, who allegedly was encouraged to attack by his older sister. The siblings recently were named as Defendants since both now have graduated and are adults.

Gloucester Assistant Principal Travis Burns remains the primary Defendant for his alleged gross negligence in completely abdicating his ministerial duty to intervene as specifically requested and promised hours beforehand. By Deposition attached as an exhibit, a fellow student already has testified under oath that Burns assured he would alert Gloucester High School, security hours before the attack; and by separate Affidavits attached as exhibits, the victims parents have averred further under oath Burns subsequently admitted to each of them independently that he “dropped the ball” in not protecting their child at school.

The attack victim suffered traumatic brain injuries which persist and increase, including among other things memory loss; balance, vision and learning problems; seizures; and psychological issues. As averred, he needed special academic accommodation to graduate Gloucester High School; cannot attend college or even drive; and has limited employment and other prospects.

Although the suit has requested $9,350,000.00 for the victim’s damages, Mr. Waterman previously sought unsuccessfully to settle case with Assistant Principal Burns and the Gloucester County School Board within their very substantial insurance coverage limits and remains open to such a resolution. So far, Mr. Waterman has discovered two insurance policies covering Burns that can provide at least $6,000,000.00 in coverage for his client’s traumatic brain injuries.

The suit also alleges that Gloucester officials have secreted all school investigative materials in the attacker’s records to keep them from the assault and battery victim. Any such withholding of key facts enables Defendants to deny them without impeachment.

Continue reading "Gloucester $9,350,000.00 Brain Injury Suit – a Lawyer’s Coverage" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Brain Injuries , Crime Victims , Legal Recognitions

Bookmark:

On January 7, 2009, the Gloucester Gazette reported a brain injury suit filed by Avery T. “Sandy” Waterman, Jr., Esq. The article is titled “Suit seeks $9 million in GHS incident”.

Virginia Municipal League Insurance Programs retained Richmond counsel for Defendant, Assistant Principal Burns, who was new on the job in 2006. Burns enjoys $6,000,000.00 in insurance coverage for the GHS assault and battery.

The Plaintiff suffered permanent brain injuries in 2006 from being attacked by another student, who reportedly was encouraged by his older sister. Gloucester High School made accommodations to allow the victim to graduate in 2007.

By deposition, another Gloucester High student testified that he warned Assistant Principal Burns the victim was being targeted for an altercation, that Burns promised he would alert security, and that Burns took absolutely no action instead. By affidavits, both of the victims’ parents swore under oath Burns admitted his fault, that he had “dropped the ball”.

Continue reading "Gloucester $9,000,000 Brain Injury Insured – a Lawyer’s Representation" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Brain Injuries , Crime Victims , Legal Recognitions

Bookmark:

Virginia law provides compensation for wrongful death caused by vehicle accidents, patient falls, other medical malpractice, defective products or other negligence. A wrongful death action must be brought by the personal representative of the deceased’s estate, i.e., the administrator, administratrix, executor or executrix. Generally any Virginia wrongful death lawsuit must be filed within two years of death, though there are some very limited exceptions.

Virginia statute specifies a jury or judge may award compensation for the damages of wrongful death. Those include, but are not limited to: (1) sorrow, mental anguish and solace of certain family members; (2) loss of income of the deceased; (3) services, protection, care and assistance of the deceased to those family members; (4) hospital and other healthcare expenses of the deceased; (5) funeral expenses; and for willfulness, wantonness or recklessness showing conscious disregard for the deceased’s safety (6) punitive damages up to $350,000.00. Solace of family members includes loss of society, companionship, comfort, guidance, kindly offices and advice of the deceased.

Family members entitled to compensation in Virginia wrongful death cases are classes of so-called “statutory beneficiaries”. The primary class consists of any surviving spouse, all surviving children and any child of a predeceaseing child of the deceased. If nobody is in that class, the secondary class is any parent, any sibling, and any other relative living with and finically dependent on the deceased. Adopted children and step-siblings are covered. See generally, Va. Code Ann. 8.01-50, et seq.

Continue reading "Virginia Wrongful Death Law - a Lawyer's Commentary" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Crime Victims , Defective Products , Medical Malpractice , Nursing Homes , Patient Falls , Premises Liability , Sexual Abuse , Special Cases , Vehicle Accidents , Wrongful Deaths

Bookmark:

On January 16, 2008, The Daily Press reported a $2,350,000.00 suit filed by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. for traumatic brain injury suffered by a Gloucester High student attacked at school. New Assistant Principal Travis Burns was named a Defendant based on sworn Affidavit allegations of a fellow student that previously he warned Burns of the attack, that Burns assured him school security would be alerted, and that Burns did absolutely nothing instead.

The assault and battery was committed by another student at Gloucester High School. Gloucester County Sheriff’s Office responded to the attack and recommended charging the perpetrator with “malicious wounding”.

The attack was aggravated for being unprovoked and causing permanent brain injury. Among other things, the victim immediately required and still requires healthcare intervention by multiple providers; needed significant special academic accommodations by Gloucester High School to graduate, and cannot continue with college education; and still suffers from memory and other problems.

Continue reading "Gloucester $2,350,000.00 Brain Injury – a Lawyer’s Filing" »

Posted by Avery T. "Sandy" Waterman, Jr., Esq. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Brain Injuries , Crime Victims , Legal Recognitions

Bookmark: