North Carolina Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Your Posts Can Make Or Break Your Case

While your posts may seem harmless at the time, they can make or break your personal injury case. Recently, Courts have decided that the social media profiles of the parties to a legal action may be discoverable evidence, and that a person's social media profiles can be requested by an opposing attorney as long as the profile and its contents are relevant to the legal action. What this means for you is that a defense lawyer has the right to ask to see your social media profiles and to examine the contents of those profiles up to and including any posts, messages, and pictures that are deemed to be relevant to your case.

Relevancy is interpreted broadly, and it is likely that any posts, pictures, or messages that
are located on your profile will be discoverable, meaning that the information will be able to be seen by defense lawyers and possibly a jury once your case goes to trial. It is the defense lawyer's goal to portray the Plaintiff in a bad light and often times they will use any means necessary in order to do so. However, there are certain steps that you can take to avoid having your social media profiles negatively affect the outcome of your case. Following these easy tips will prevent any harmful post-injury information posted on your profile from becoming a tool that the defense can use against you.

Continue reading "Warning! Facebook Can Ruin Your Case" »

A North Carolina worker who injured his back while working for a tire company sought a final settlement with a demand of $315,000 for Medicare plus $65,000 for Medicare Set-Aside (MSA), or future medical expenses not covered by Medicare. Negotiations occurred between the tire company's insurance agency and the injured worker, with an understanding that the MSA proposed by the plaintiff would need to be approved by the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS). The defendant submitted the MSA amount of $65,000 to the CMS, which was refused. CMS ultimately determined that the plaintiff should be awarded $266,207.00 and no MSA. The defendant withdrew their offer to the injured worker, which led the injured worker to file paperwork with the North Carolina Industrial Commission and the Full Commission alleging an agreement had been reached with the defendant's insurance agency. Both concluded there was no agreement, and the injured worker filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals agreed with the Industrial Commission and the Full Commission's assessment that no formal agreement had been reached between the injured worker and the defendant's insurance company. The communication between the worker and the insurance company revealed a discussion of $65,000 for MSA and a settlement around $300,000 for the injured worker's Medicare. However, the defendant's agreement to pay for the $65,000 hinged on the approval of the CMS. Because the CMS refused the amount and left the medical payment issue open, the Court of Appeals found that there was no meeting of the minds and upheld the Commissions' Ruling.

This case demonstrates the ways in which workers' compensation law stretches beyond proof an injury occurred while on the job and the costs incurred because of the employment-related injury. Most of the time cases are settled between the parties and are not tried in front of a jury or fact finder. Settlements are memorialized by a Settlement Agreement which is essentially a contract between the parties. This document typically shows how much the injured party will be paid to be made whole and releases the defendant employer from future liability.

Contracts are supposed to reflect a "meeting of the minds", or that the parties agree on terms; thus, they are usually written in one formal document. However, one party may state (as the injured worker did in the case described above) that an agreement was reached and reflected by multiple pieces of informal communication instead of one formal document. A judge or fact-finder may determine that the communication reflects a meeting of the minds and that a binding agreement exists between the parties.

Continue reading "North Carolina Industrial Commission Ruling Against Injured Worker Upheld by Court of Appeals" »

North Carolina's Court of Appeals recently held that an injured plaintiff can proceed with his medical malpractice action against a thoracic surgeon in Durham County. The defendant hospital and surgeon moved for directed verdict after the injured plaintiff presented their case. The judge awarded a directed verdict to the defendants based on the testimony of the plaintiff's witness who compared the standard of care at the hospital where the injury occurred to similar hospitals across the nation.

The injured party was a delivery truck driver who began to experience pain and numbness in his left arm. He was diagnosed with Thoracic Outlet Syndrome, a condition where there is inadequate nerve supply due to the first rib. The injured party was referred to a surgeon who took out his second rib instead of his first rib and failed to inform the driver when it was discovered by x-rays taken after the surgery. The injured party continued to have pain since the condition was not relieved, and learned of the wrongly removed rib at a post-surgical visit for an infection. Even after a second operation by a different doctor the injured party continued to have pain, numbness, and limited mobility in his left arm.

North Carolina statute N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 90-21.12 (2009) requires anyone suing for a personal injury caused by medical malpractice to prove by a greater weight of the evidence that they suffered harm by a health care provider who failed to give care at the standard of practice common among members of the same health care profession with similar training and experience in the same or similar communities at the time the medical procedure that led to the injury occurred. In this case the judge determined, that a directed verdict in favor of the defendant should be given based on the expert's testimony which compared the medical care of the defendant doctor and hospital to a national standard rather than the community standard of care the North Carolina statute requires.

In this decision, the Court of Appeals looked at a North Carolina Supreme Court decision that determined an expert standard of care testimony met the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 90-21.12. In that case, the expert looked at the defendant's peer institutions for a sense of physician skill and training and the hospital's facilities, equipment, and funding, and did not limit his comparison to hospitals within a certain geographic region. (See Rucker v. High Point Mem'l Hosp., 285 N.C. 519, 206 S.E.2d 196 (1974). Based on this precedence, the Court of Appeals determined that the lower court erred in their assessment, and reversed the directed verdict which allows the injured party to continue his medical malpractice case against the defendant hospital and physician.

Continue reading "North Carolina Court of Appeals Allows Injured Truck Driver to Proceed with Medical Malpractice Action" »

The health and safety of adults residing in a North Carolina nursing home facility can weigh heavily on family members. When your loved one's care is entrusted to someone else, you expect the caretakers to maintain the industry standards for care and behave professionally.

Unfortunately, there are those who take advantage of the physically vulnerable and subject them to abuse. A gentleman in Goldsboro, North Carolina was placed in a resident facility after suffering from a series of seizures. He already operated under limited mental and physical functionality from polio that occurred while he was a child. Once the gentleman went into the facility, severe bruises reportedly began to appear on his body. He informed his niece on separate occasions he was beaten with a shoe and a belt. These allegations, among others, prompted his niece to file suit against the skilled nursing facility.

The injured party, or family member acting as a representative of an incapacitated or deceased party, may seek compensation from the abusive caretaker through a personal injury or wrongful death suit. The injured or representative can pursue compensation for the injuries or emotional distress that occurred as a result of the abuse. To succeed in a civil claim for battery, there must be proof that the caretaker deliberately engaged in the wrongful act. Aggressive investigation may be needed to show that an injury was not caused by an accident or aggravated medical condition, but resulted from purposely inflicted harm. Compensation for emotional distress may also be available if there was extreme, outrageous behavior by the caretaker who intended to emotionally harm their patient. Proof of the emotional distress is necessary, and can be shown through medical and psychological records.

Negligent care is also sadly prevalent in nursing home facilities. Nursing home owners and operators may be liable for injuries that occur due to the neglect of their employees. Caretakers and facility owners have a duty to maintain a safe and healthy environment for their patients. However, patients are not attended to with the frequency that is required for their conditions, and they are left with bedsores or exacerbated medical problems. Nursing home caretakers are expected to maintain industry standards of care, and records may reflect missed rotations or inadequate distribution or application of medication. Negligence actions require proof that an injury was the result of negligence, and it may be necessary to retain a medical expert. Nursing home residents generally have complicated medical histories and an expert can explain how an injury occurred from neglect and was not the result of an accident or medical condition.

Continue reading "Allegations Of Patient Abuse At A North Carolina Skilled Nursing Facility Prompt Lawsuit " »

Recently, the Education Department's Office of Civil Rights received a complaint from a group of current and former students and a former administrator who alleged that hundreds of victims of sexual assault had their cases mishandled at UNC Chapel Hill. The investigation is still ongoing and university officials have denied underreporting sexual assault cases. In general, the federal government and watchdog groups both want campuses to be proactive and aggressive in preventing sexual violence and protecting the rights of the accused.

Victims of sexual abuse may be able to hold their abusers accountable through a personal injury action in addition to actions in the criminal justice system or campus disciplinary process. Even if there is not a criminal case or discipline action, a victim may still file suit for their sexual assault case in North Carolina's state or federal courts. Each person's case is unique, and the facts of the event might fall under different legal definitions of sexual abuse. Sexual assault is when someone forcibly engages in sexual activity with you against your will by threats or use of force. Molestation is when someone persists in unwanted sexual advances. Fondling is unwanted touching, and rape is sexual intercourse without consent.

Sexual assault, molestation, rape, and fondling are all intentional torts in North Carolina. Intentional torts are deliberate wrongful acts that cause personal injury or property damage. In an action against the perpetrator, a victim of sexual assault or unwanted touching must show that the person engaged in the behavior and the amount of damage that it caused. It is not necessary to show whether or not the perpetrator intended the consequences or extent of damage caused. Other parties may be held liable for negligence if the perpetrator's inappropriate behavior was foreseeable. For example, if an employee had a record of violent or inappropriate behavior, and the employer hired them anyway, then they may liable for negligence if the assault or unwanted touching occurred in the workplace.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a North Carolina cause of action that is available to those who have been assaulted. Victims must show that the perpetrator was engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct, that conduct was intended to cause severe emotional distress to the plaintiff, and that severe emotional distress resulted from the conduct. Severe emotional distress is much more than temporary fright or anxiety, and may involve medical records to show physical and/or psychological impact. A victim may also wish to pursue this cause of action against other parties, like managers or employers who purposefully aided or concealed the actions of the perpetrator.

Continue reading "Mistreated Victims of Sexual Assault at North Carolina College Raise Questions of Accountability and Liability" »

An in-home childcare provider was recently arrested for selling prescription medication to an undercover officer out of the same home she used to care for children. She is charged with trafficking in opium and selling a controlled substance at a childcare facility. This incident occurred soon after the North Carolina statute went into effect at the beginning of 2013 expanding the criminal background check requirement for daycare workers. A person working at a daycare must complete a criminal background check in order to work at a daycare, and will now be subject to a background check every three years to ensure that he or she has not obtained any new criminal charges that could make them unfit for child care. An in home child care provider must also have members of their household over 15 checked.

In North Carolina a person cannot run or work in a daycare if they have been convicted of any charge of neglect or abuse of children. They also cannot work there if they have been convicted of a sexually violent offense against a minor, also known as a reportable conviction. However, North Carolina's Department of Health and Human Services does not completely prohibit workers with a criminal background. An individual may be prevented from being a child care provider if the Department determines that the individual is a habitually excessive user of alcohol, illegally uses narcotic or other impairing drugs, or is mentally or emotionally impaired to an extent that may be injurious to children. It is particularly egregious if the employer lied on a background check or withheld information about themselves or a potential hire. The primary focus is whether that person's presence could affect the safety and health of the children in care.

A daycare center, regardless of whether it is a large facility or a home provider, is obligated to provide a safe environment for the child. They can be held liable in a civil action if there was gross negligence, wanton conduct, or intentional wrongdoing, but not for mere negligence if the employer or operator of a child care facility performed the statutorily required background checks. So if an employer or operator knew or should have known that their employee had a criminal background and was prone to behaviors that could endanger a child, and a child was injured because of that employee's behaviors, then they could be found criminally and civilly liable. For example, if the recently arrested lady was an employee who was hired by a daycare operator who knew of her drug habit and hired her anyway, the owner could potentially be held liable.

Continue reading "North Carolina In-Home Daycare Worker Arrested for Criminal Acts" »

The North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act requires non-exempt employers with three or more employees to carry insurance for their employees or employees' family in case they are injured or killed in the course of their duties. The North Carolina Industrial Commission is tasked with overseeing employers to make sure they are complying with the Act. Employers who do not comply can be subject to stiff financial penalties, charged with a misdemeanor, charged with a felony, and imprisoned. North Carolina's State Auditor recently published their findings assessing whether the Industrial Commission is effectively ensuring compliance with the Act.

The audit found the Commission does not have the adequate data to identify, locate, and punish employers who are not carrying workers' compensation insurance. Two main sources could aid the Commission in their search for non-compliant employers, but the Division of Employment Security (Employment Security) and the North Carolina Rate Bureau (Rate Bureau) have significant differences in their data. These differences prohibit the Commission's ability to reliably match data and identify non-compliant businesses. The Commission is also failing to use the data available to track and punish businesses who have allowed their workers' compensation insurance to lapse.

These findings are alarming because it leaves numerous North Carolina employees at risk in the event they are injured. Employees may file a notice to North Carolina's workers' compensation fraud department that their employer is non-compliant, but that does not help the employee or employee's family with large medical bills or funeral expenses in the interim. Employees are left extremely vulnerable after operating under the assumption that they would be covered under the state-mandated coverage.

Before May 2012, the Commission was not assessing penalties and fines UNTIL a worker was injured. It was only used as a bargaining tool, allowing an employer to decide between payment of the worker's medical expenses or payment of the fine, and not truly punished for allowing the circumstance to occur in the first place. After May 2012, the fines were assessed once the violation was discovered, but fines were not collected, which deprived the state of needed funds for the school system. So far, all have fallen short of pre-emptively deterring lapses in coverage that can deprive an injured worker or deceased worker's family from needed funds. In response, the Commission has agreed to the findings and recommendations that the audit produced in its report. They have pledged to make the corrections and work with the Office of the Attorney General to enforce and collect penalties.

Normally, when a worker is injured or killed while performing an employment duty, they are generally precluded from suing the company for personal injury since the company has already provided for their expenses through workers' compensation insurance. If an employer fails to provide coverage and an injury occurs during this period, then they may have lost their immunity to a personal injury action. With a personal injury action there is the potential for punitive damages under North Carolina law on top of compensation for lost wages, medical bills, and other expenses incurred as a result of the injury.

Continue reading "North Carolina Audit Shows Several Companies Do Not Have Mandatory Workers' Compensation Insurance For Their Employees" »

One worker died and another was injured on Tuesday morning, January 22, 2013, at the Resolute Forest Products plant in Catawba. Catawba is located in southeastern York County.

Although the accident was clearly work related, an initial investigation of the incident failed to reveal what exactly caused the death of the 39 year old worker from Monroe, North Carolina. According to Sabrina Gast, the York County Coroner, he died at approximately 1:30am while he was working inside a fume tank. There was no evacuation ordered for the plant that has 600 employees.

The men were hired to clean a large tank in the plant's power generation section. The 10 foot by 40 foot tank was up for scheduled maintenance, according to a spokesperson for Resolute Forest Products.

It was reported that there were no burns on his body and there was no explosion. One of the other contract employees had some minor irritation and was taken to Piedmont Medical Center in Rock Hill for further examination. The third man involved was examined on-site and released. All workers were wearing protective gear.

There was speculation that possibly some chemical may have leaked into the tank but there was no evidence of that happening. The tank that was being cleaned is used to collect odorless chemical fumes, which are later burned off in power boilers.

Investigators from the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration (OSHA) will examine the site and report their findings. Such an investigation usually takes six to eight weeks.

This is not the first time Resolute Forest Products has faced an OSHA investigation. In May 2012, four employees were sprayed with a chemical called "white liquor" when a suction valve malfunctioned. In June 2012, a contract employee was splashed in the face with white liquor. The worst accident at Resolute was in 2000, when an explosion caused the deaths of two contract workers who were welding a tank. It exploded, killing them and injuring several others.

OSHA issued the company four violations last year which were listed as "serious." Fines were set at $6,125 if these items were not corrected.

Workers at large plants like the Resolute Forest Products plant in Catawba face danger every day they go to work. When workers are injured on the job they are entitled to North Carolina workers' compensation benefits from their employer's insurance company. These benefits include weekly compensation benefits while they are off work and medical care. Once the worker attains maximum medical improvement following the injury, there can be a lump sum settlement negotiated depending on the extent and duration of their injury.

If a worker suffers an injury or death on the job and it is caused by the negligence of someone other than the worker's employer, there might be a separate claim or cause of action for third party negligence. Those situations are often very complex and require immediate investigation to determine what caused the accident and to preserve valuable evidence.

Continue reading "Resolute Forest Products Accident In Catawba Claims One Life" »

The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) has compiled a list of the four leading causes of fatal injuries to workers in the construction industry. The leading cause was falls, followed by electrocutions, struck by object and caught-in/between.

There were nearly 4,609 fatal work related injuries in the U.S. during 2011, according to the data just recently released by OSHA. Even though this is down slightly from the 4,690 fatalities recorded in 2010, the harsh reality is that approximately 90 workers are killed on the job every week. This means that there are roughly 13 deaths per day. The bottom line is that 13 workers will go to work on any given day and never come home.

The OSHA report revealed that the "Fatal Four" causes of worker fatalities were responsible for more than half of all worker deaths. Three out of five, or 57% of all construction worker deaths, resulted from falls (35%), struck by object (10%), electrocutions (9%) and caught-in/between (3%). The conclusion is that by eliminating the "Fatal Four," the lives of 410 workers could be saved each year.

According to the statistics gathered by OSHA, the age group most likely to suffer from a fatal on-the-job injury was for workers between the ages of 20 and 24 years of age. That age group had an increase of 18% over 2010, rising from 245 in 2010 to 288 in 2011. Interestingly, fatal female worker injuries went up slightly in 2011 and declined by two percent for male workers, 4,234 in 2011 from 4,322 in 2010. Older workers, age 55 or higher, work fatalities were down.

Amazingly, in 1970 there were 38 worker fatalities every single day. That is nearly three times as many as in 2011. The decrease in worker fatalities by more than 65%, when the employment numbers in the U.S. have nearly doubled, over four decades is nothing less than incredible.

Without a doubt, construction sites are dangerous places to work. There are usually many different trades on the job performing their specialties at the same time, including cranes and other heavy equipment, 18-wheelers, cement mixers and concrete pump trucks. The possibilities of being injured are endless and workers have to be aware of the danger that surrounds them.

Fall prevention measures such as cleaning up debris to prevent falls, using safety netting, guardrails and harnesses can save lives. Make certain all "hot" power lines are clearly marked so workers will avoid them and make sure all power tools are grounded to prevent electrocution. Wear protective hard hats and reflective vests to avoid being struck by falling objects or caught-in/between heavy equipment. And most of all do not allow anyone to tamper with or disengage the backup beepers on heavy equipment, no matter how annoying they are.

Continue reading "OSHA Cites "Fatal Four" Hazards Leading To Construction Fatalities" »

Recently, an article in The Huffington Post confirmed what our North Carolina personal injury attorneys had known for years. People either just do not "see" a motorcycle because they are looking for a car, truck or they misjudge its speed and distance.

Accidents involving a car, truck or any other vehicle usually results in serious injuries or death to the motorcyclist. They are vulnerable because they have little or no protection other than a helmet, if that, and impact with the pavement or another vehicle can cause irreparable damage. Sadly, even though motorcyclists have just as many rights and responsibilities as any other motorist, they are the ones that usually suffer the brunt of the impact.

A study conducted by Patricia DeLucia, a perception specialist at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas reveals that a fundamental perception problem might be causing these accidents. It is possible that the reason motorists routinely misjudge a motorcycle's speed and distance is its size.

Essentially, when motorists see an object in the distance their brains take into account two pieces of information. One is derived from an objective calculation based on size of the object and the rate of expansion as it gets closer. Another piece of information comes from depth clues as a mental shortcut. In processing this data, our brain concludes that the bigger an object is, the closer it is. Often, this is not always true.

Undoubtedly, when observing a motorcyclist approaching another motorist is more likely to inaccurately calculate its distance away than another car or truck. This causes accidents by pulling out in front of them, changing lanes into them and rear ending them.

Because of our beautiful scenery and winding roadways, North Carolina is a very attractive place for motorcyclists. Unfortunately, the number of fatalities has continued to rise. In 2010 there were 20% more motorcycle fatalities than in 2009. Another tragic statistic from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) shows that 80% of accidents involving motorcycles result in serious injury or fatalities. That compares to only 20% for accidents involving cars.

Riding a motorcycle can be lots of fun. Some riders simply love the independence it gives them. Some like the feel of the wind in their face and hair. Others love to feel the vibration and hear the sound of their bike. Many new friends are made while riding alone or in groups. You just need to beware of the fact that other motorists either don't "see" a motorcycle or they drastically misjudge distances, if they do.

Continue reading "Study: Motorists Misjudge Speed & Distance Of Motorcycles" »

Renezia Fisher, age 2, who was left at Above & Beyond Child Care Center in Henderson, North Carolina, was discovered to have suffered a broken collarbone while at the facility. Local authorities and the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) are investigating the circumstances.

Andrea Hawkins, the child's mother reported the incident to Henderson Police back on October 25th because her daughter told her that she had injured her arm at day care. When Hawkins confronted an employee at Above & Beyond Child Care Center, she was told that Renezia was knocked down by another child. They said that Renezia did not complain about the incident and continued to play. No incident report was completed and Hawkins had not been previously told of the incident. It was later confirmed that the little girl had broken her collarbone in the fall.

Vance County Department of Social Services conducted an investigation and issued a statement that the injury was determined to be accidental. Above & Beyond issued no comments about the incident.

Another day care story that we wrote about on November 1, 2012, the Jessica Tata case in Houston, Texas, has ended. She was accused of murder for the deaths of four children left in her care in February 2011. Testimony was that she left children unattended while she went to shop at Target. A fire ignited from a frying pan with oil in it, which was left on a burner. The case brought day care tragedies to the forefront of national news.

On November 20, 2012, jurors sentenced the 24 year old Tata to 80 years in prison for felony murder in the death of one child. Other felony murder charges are pending for the other three children who died. It is reported that she will have to serve 30 years in prison before she is eligible for parole. She was also ordered to pay a fine of $10,000.

Unfortunately, it is stories like these that make parents fear for the safety and well-being of their children when left in a child care facility. As a parent, it is important that you do your homework to choose a child care facility that is ranked highly by the North Carolina Division of Child Development and Early Education. Go to the facility and talk to the director to determine what their state ranking is, what training employees have had, are background checks performed on all employees and observe the staff with the children.

Continue reading "Henderson Day Care Facility Toddler Suffers Broken Collarbone" »

In October 2012, six North Carolina state lawmakers visited Texas in a continuing effort to understand the issues that we will face when fracking begins here. In the summer of 2012, the legislature narrowly voted to allow fracking in North Carolina. It is reported that there is a concentration of some 1.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in or around Lee, Moore and Chatham counties.

"Fracking" is an industry slang term meaning hydraulic fracturing. This is a method whereby natural gas is forced out from shale formations by using pressurized water and chemicals to fracture the rock. This allows for more gas or oil to be extracted from the site. Although fracking was first used in 1947, modern day fracking became prominent after the Barnett Shale find in Texas in 1998.

The lawmakers, four Republicans and two Democrats, came face to face with many complex issues that must be dealt with by the new North Carolina Mining & Energy Commission. Representative Rodney Moore, a Democrat from Mecklenburg County who is in favor of fracking, said that "we have a long way to go", somewhere around "a three to five year process."

The massive Eagle Ford Shale Region in Texas runs from the Mexico border to just south of San Antonio and is said to contain trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. Touring this region by the six lawmakers revealed the good and the bad. The economic boom in the area has been tremendous, since it first began in 2008. Jobs became plentiful. Construction is rampant to accommodate the housing needs of the influx of workers coming into the area. Businesses are thriving because of the spending habits of the workers and their families, including banks, restaurants and other local businesses.

With all of the economic blessings, sleepy South Texas towns are now seeing continuous traffic and congestion. The narrow country roads and highways are being torn up from the weight and continuous usage by 18-wheelers hauling oil field equipment and supplies. With this continuous traffic, torn up roadways and fatigued drivers, the Eagle Ford Shale area has become very dangerous. Traffic accidents and fatalities have risen dramatically over the years, from 2008 to 2012.

Continue reading "NC Lawmakers' Recent Texas Visit Highlights "Fracking" Issues" »

Our North Carolina personal injury lawyers have been watching the Jessica Tata case in Houston, Texas with much interest. It is yet another reminder of the tragedies that can result from day care injuries. Sadly, the case involves the deaths of four children who were left in her care while their parents went to work in February 2011.

The trial of Jessica Tata, 24, began with opening statements from attorneys at the Harris County Criminal Courthouse on October 24, 2012. She is accused of murder in the deaths of four deceased children who were in her care at her Houston day care center. Tata has been accused of leaving the children unattended while she went shopping at Target. While she was away, a fire allegedly started when a frying pan with oil in it was left on the stove and ignited. The blaze reportedly caused the deaths of four children and resulted in severe injuries to three others. The ages of the seven children at her daycare ranged from sixteen months to three years old.

Tata, who was born in the United States, reportedly fled to Nigeria after the blaze, where she has citizenship. After being returned to the states in March 2011, she has been in jail on bonds exceeding $1.1 million. She faces four felony murder counts, in addition to three counts of child abandonment and two counts of reckless injury to a child.

Following the incident, state lawmakers enacted changes in the oversight of day care facilities. However, Texas, like many other states, is lagging behind in training requirements, background checks and inspection standards for home day care operations.

According to the North Carolina Child Care Resource & Referral Council, North Carolina ranked 19th in child care center licensing and oversight and 14th in family child care home licensing and oversight, among all states. Child care centers are typically larger facilities, having more experienced employees and the capacity for more children. Family child care homes are smaller day care facilities operating out of someone's home, with fewer children.

Although child care center requirements are more stringent than those for family child care homes, both only "partially" satisfied the requirement to obtain state and federal background checks for prior criminal activity, child abuse or sex offender registries on all employees. Family child care homes were particularly delinquent in having:

• Insufficient educational requirements of employees
• Insufficient first aid and CPR training
• Insufficient initial and annual training
• Insufficient developmental toys and materials

No parent should ever have to ever have to face the decision Tiffany Dickerson did on February 24, 2011. She is the mother of two children who were left in the care of Jessica Tata that day. When she was notified of the tragedy, her choices were to go see her severely burned daughter in the hospital or going to the morgue to see her son.

Continue reading " Texas Case Brings National Attention To Day Care Operations" »

On Friday, September 28, 2012, Garrett Prince entered a guilty plea to felony death by motor vehicle and DWI. 16 years old at the time of the accident, Garrett was a student at Millbrook High School in Raleigh when he was reported to be driving while intoxicated, and was involved in an automobile accident which killed one of his classmates. Our North Carolina personal injury lawyers first wrote about this tragic accident on January 11, 2012, which resulted in the death of Elizabeth Molloy, 17.

According to a medical examiner's report, Prince had a blood alcohol content of .29 at the time of the accident. This is nearly four times the alcohol level at which drivers are considered to be drunk under North Carolina law, which is .08. Molloy was also allegedly legally intoxicated at the time of the accident.

The investigation revealed that the driver, Garrett Prince, was traveling 75 miles per hour or more through a residential area. After reportedly losing lost control of a 1999 Jeep SUV on Rainwater Road in Raleigh, he struck a tree. The accident happened on January 7, 2012 at approximately 2:00 a.m. According to news reports, neither the driver nor passenger were wearing seat belts at the time of impact and were ejected from the vehicle. Prince was injured but survived and Molloy was pronounced dead at the scene.

The North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Alcohol Law Enforcement Division charged Anthony Du Juan Geter, 21, with four counts of aid and abet after allegedly buying four minors spirituous liquor on the night of the accident, including Prince and Molloy. Another Raleigh teenager was charged with two counts of aid and abet for allegedly hosting an underage party that Prince and Molloy attended.

According to the Wake County District Attorney's office, Prince was immediately placed in jail to serve a six month term. Upon release, he will face five years of probation, during which time he will have to return to jail from December 26 to January 8 of every year.

Other provisions of his probation are that he cannot drive for the first four years and he must abstain from drinking any type of alcoholic beverage. Additionally, he has to serve 300 hours of community service, which includes speaking to high school groups and driver's education classes about the dangers of drinking and driving.

Sadly, neither individual involved was reportedly wearing a seat belt. Our North Carolina laws require all passengers of moving motor vehicles to be wearing seat belts and according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), there are over 13,000 lives saved by their use.

Continue reading "Teenager Pleads Guilty To Felony Death By Motor Vehicle and DWI" »

On September 19, at approximately 5:00 a.m., rescue workers were called to Duke Energy's Marshall Steam Station in Catawba County, northwest of Charlotte. When they arrived, they discovered that a worker operating a huge bulldozer had fallen some 20 feet into a hole. Our North Carolina workers' compensation attorneys know about the dangers lurking on the job where heavy machinery is involved and have seen the serious injuries and fatalities that have been caused by them.

According to Duke Energy, the worker was operating a Caterpillar D11 bulldozer moving coal from a pile onto a conveyer, when it fell into a 20 foot hole with the employee trapped inside. The Caterpillar D11 is one of the largest bulldozers made, weighing roughly 230,000 pounds or 115 tons. It was initially thought that the pile of coal had collapsed on top of the overturned dozer. Fortunately, this did not prove to be true.

While trapped inside the bulldozer, the employee was able to maintain radio communications with other co-workers, who were alerted to the accident and contacted the rescue teams. Duke Energy said that employees are trained to stay with their equipment and maintain constant radio communications in emergency situations. Emergency personnel were able to lower a ladder down into the hole so the worker could escape with only minor injuries.

Reportedly, Duke intends to conduct its own investigation to determine the cause of the accident and what needs to be done to prevent other accidents. Duke's Corporate Communications Manager, Erin Colbert, said "One of the things the incident brings to light, is that when utilities are generating electricity, some of those jobs carry with them an inherent level of risk. Employees receive substantial safety training to insure the safety of themselves and those around them."

The Marshall Steam Station is one of the largest coal facilities owned by Duke Energy, providing electricity to two million homes through its four-unit, coal-fired generating facility.

There is always a certain degree of risk involved when operating heavy equipment and accidents are bound to happen, even with the most skilled operators. The cause of this potentially tragic accident is still undetermined but this employee is entitled to his statutory workers' compensation benefits if he suffered injuries in the accident. As long as an employee is performing his duties on the job, he is entitled to benefits even if his own negligence caused the accident. Benefits include weekly compensation benefits while unable to work, medical care and possibly a lump sum settlement based upon the extent and duration of the injuries sustained.

Continue reading "Duke Energy Employee Escapes Tragedy" »