St. Louis, Missouri VA Hospital Alerts Patients of Potential Exposure to HIV
St. Louis, MO—More than 1,800 veterans who underwent dental work at a Missouri VA hospital recently received letters informing them that they have been infected with potentially lethal blood-borne diseases. The issue stemmed from several technicians’ failure to properly sanitize dental instruments, according to a Wednesday, June 30, 2010 New York Daily News report.
A routine inspection by a government medical team revealed dental tools may have been improperly sterilized. Technicians reportedly hand-washed the instruments in an attempt to prevent them from breaking or becoming damaged in the hospital’s special sterilization machine.
In doing so, potentially life-threatening diseases may have been passed on to veterans who received dental care at the St. Louis-based John Cochran VA Medical Center. Such deviations of the standard of care allegedly began in February 2009, continuing until March 2010.
Congressman Russ Carnahan referred to the violations as “absolutely unacceptable”. He also reportedly demanded the House of Veterans Affairs Subcommittee conduct a formal probe into the episodes.
John Cochran VA Medical Center sent letters to 1,812 possible victims, notifying them that they may have been wrongfully infected with diseases such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV.
“No veteran who has served and risked their life for this great nation should have to worry about their personal safety when receiving much needed health-care services from a Veterans Administration hospital…I can only imagine the horror and anger our veterans must be feeling after receiving this letter… They have every right to be angry,” Carnahan stated.
Share on Facebook
WILK v. LEWIS & LEWIS, P.C.
2010 NY Slip Op 05897
JAMES WILK AND LORIANN WILK, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
LEWIS & LEWIS, P.C. AND MICHAEL J. SKONEY, ESQ., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
CA 09-02316.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department.
Decided July 2, 2010.
ANSPACH MEEKS ELLENBERGER LLP, BUFFALO (MICHELLE M. PARKER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
THE MCGORRY LAW FIRM, LLP, BUFFALO, LIPPES MATHIAS WEXLER FRIEDMAN LLP (KENNETH R. KIRBY OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND PINE, JJ.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by granting the motion in part and dismissing the legal malpractice cause of action insofar as that cause of action is asserted with respect to the defendant Ford Motor Company in the underlying action, and by denying that part of the cross motion for partial summary judgment on liability on the legal malpractice cause of action insofar as that cause of action is asserted with respect to that defendant in the underlying action and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: James Wilk (plaintiff) was allegedly injured while repairing railroad cars, and he retained defendants to represent him, along with his wife, in seeking damages for those injuries. Defendants commenced a pre-action discovery proceeding against plaintiff’s employer to obtain information concerning the accident and, when defendants thereafter commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action on behalf of plaintiffs (hereafter, underlying action), they used the same index number that had been used in the pre-action discovery proceeding. Supreme Court granted the motions of the defendants in the underlying action (Labor Law defendants) to dismiss the complaint. Under the law at that time, the failure to purchase a new index number rendered the action a nullity because it was never properly commenced (see Chiacchia & Fleming v Guerra, 309 AD2d 1213, 1214, lv denied 2 NY3d 704). No appeal was taken by plaintiffs from that order, although plaintiffs retained other attorneys (plaintiffs’ successor counsel) shortly prior to the expiration of the time in which to take an appeal. Plaintiffs commenced a second Labor Law and common-law negligence action against the Labor Law defendants, who moved to dismiss the complaint as time-barred. We previously reversed an order denying those motions and instead granted the motions and dismissed the complaint (Wilk v Genesee & Wyoming R.R. Co., 45 AD3d 1274). We concluded that the second action did not relate back to the filing of the underlying action pursuant to CPLR 205 (a) because the failure to purchase a new index number rendered the underlying action a nullity (id. at 1275).
Plaintiffs commenced the instant legal malpractice action seeking damages arising from the dismissal of the underlying action. Defendants appeal from an order denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment “to the extent that malpractice is established against . . . defendants.” That was error only insofar as the malpractice cause of action is asserted with respect to the defendant Ford Motor Company (Ford) in the underlying action. We therefore modify the order accordingly.
“To establish a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal community, and that the attorney’s breach of [that] duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages’” (Velie v Ellis Law, P.C., 48 AD3d 674, 675, quoting Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442). The plaintiff must also establish that he or she “would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action but for’ the attorney’s negligence” (AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428, 434). “To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the defendant in a legal malpractice action must present evidence in admissible form establishing that the plaintiff is unable to prove at least one of [those] essential elements” (Velie, 48 AD3d at 675). Here, defendants submitted evidence in support of their motion establishing that Ford “is not an owner or contractor and that it lacked contractual or other actual authority to control the activity bringing about [plaintiff's] injury’ ” (Scally v Regional Indus. Partnership, 9 AD3d 865, 867-868). Thus, they met their initial burden of establishing that plaintiffs would not have succeeded in the underlying action against Ford “but for” their negligence (see AmBase Corp., 8 NY3d at 434), and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect thereto.
Contrary to the further contention of defendants, the court properly denied those parts of their motion seeking dismissal of the instant complaint with respect to their failure to commence the underlying action against the remaining Labor Law defendants in a timely manner. In their answer to the instant complaint, defendants admitted that they used the same index number to commence the underlying action that had been previously used to commence the pre-action discovery proceeding. The failure to commence the underlying action in a timely manner, absent factors not at issue here, is sufficient to establish that defendants “failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal community’ ” (Velie, 48 AD3d at 675, quoting Rudolf, 8 NY3d at 442).
Defendants also failed to establish that plaintiffs could not prove the remaining elements of a legal malpractice cause of action. Defendants contend that their negligence was not a proximate cause of plaintiffs’ injuries because plaintiffs’ successor counsel did not file a notice of appeal when the Court of Appeals issued its decision in Harris v Niagara Falls Bd. of Educ. (6 NY3d 155). We reject that contention. Defendants are correct that the Court of Appeals changed the law by holding in Harris that a defendant could waive a defect in connection with filing requirements such as the failure to purchase a new index number (see id. at 159). Even assuming, arguendo, however, that we agree with defendants that the time within which plaintiffs could file a notice of appeal expired 35 days after the final Labor Law defendant had served the order dismissing the first complaint against the Labor Law defendants (see Blank v Schafrann, 206 AD2d 771, 773; Williams v Forbes, 157 AD2d 837, 838-839; Dobess Realty Corp. v City of New York, 79 AD2d 348, 352, appeal dismissed 53 NY2d 1054, 54 NY2d 754), we note that the time in which to file a notice of appeal against that final Labor Law defendant expired approximately 30 hours after the Harris decision was issued. It cannot be said that the failure of plaintiffs’ successor counsel to learn of the Harris decision and file a notice of appeal within that narrow time period constituted an “intervening and superseding failure of plaintiff[s'] successor [counsel]” to file a timely notice of appeal (Pyne v Block & Assoc., 305 AD2d 213). Defendants thus failed to establish that “plaintiff[s'] successor counsel had sufficient time and opportunity to adequately protect plaintiff[s'] rights” (Somma v Dansker & Aspromonte Assoc., 44 AD3d 376, 377; cf. Ramcharan v Pariser, 20 AD3d 556, 557; Albin v Pearson, 289 AD2d 272).
Contrary to the further contention of defendants, the court did not abuse its discretion in considering the cross motion of plaintiffs for partial summary judgment on liability despite their failure to submit the cross motion in proper form. In any event, defendants moved for summary judgment, and it is well settled that, “[i]f it shall appear that any party other than the moving party is entitled to a summary judgment, the court may grant such judgment without the necessity of a [cross motion]” (CPLR 3212 [b]; see Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 429-430; JCS Controls, Inc. v Stacey, 57 AD3d 1372, 1373).
Finally, defendants’ remaining contention concerning the issues of contribution and indemnification is not properly before us. Neither the motion nor the cross motion sought relief with respect to those issues, and said issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal (see Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985).
Share on Facebook
Divorce Mediation A Relatively Speedy and Low Cost Alternative
Is it possible to have an easy divorce? A low cost divorce? Or do all divorce settlements necessarily end in hard feelings and financial ruin? The truth is that divorce can be low-cost and easy… or it can be a long ordeal that can drag on for months. No matter how emotional things get, just remember that you always have a choice and that your willingness to negotiate through mediation can help speed up the whole process, thereby minimizing the pain inflicted on your family.
Mediation is a legal process in which a trained, impartial third-party will offer divorce help and support by assisting both parties to reach an agreement. A couple preparing to divorce should not rely solely on a mediator. Rather, the husband and wife should consult their respective attorneys about their specific procedures and legal consequences of the mediation process.
If mediation is not successful, then the case must go to trial. In most cases, it is best to avoid a trial as attorney’s fees, alone, can pile up if delaying tactics are used. Furthermore, studies show that people feel more satisfied with mediated Separation Agreements than with those that are ordered by the court. Finally, since the process is more civil and less emotionally grueling, mediation minimizes any trauma to the children.
Life after divorce can be a fresh new start. Mediation can not only save time and money, but can also reduce emotional and psychological baggage for everyone.
Share on Facebook
Criminal Defense Help: What It Can Do
Sometimes we make mistakes. It is not that we deliberately break the law, sometimes it is just unavoidable. Sometimes we do not even know it unless charges are pressed against us. So what’s a poor citizen to do?
Well, that citizen can fight it out in court. But just as any person doesn’t go to battle without armor, you can’t go to the judge unprepared. That is just plain suicide. No, you need a good army of lawyers behind you to help you get out of your mess. You need a good, hardworking criminal defense attorney. You need to know your stand, and you need to stand your ground. You need to get your facts straight, and the place where you can have that is the website criminaldefensehelp.com.
Being pressed with charges can turn your life upside down, that is why it is important to act quickly and acquire damage control before it’s too late and people close to you are also affected. What is worse is when you are being accused of a crime that you did not commit. A criminal defense lawyer has the responsibility of providing legal representation to the accused. The lawyer does not have the responsibility of proving innocence or helping the guilty to be set free. He has your best interests in mind and it is his job to protect you. The criminal defense lawyer focuses on getting your case dismissed.
A criminal defense attorney can prevent you from ever being taken into custody. A criminal defense attorney also has the ability to assist you against further incrimination by instructing you what to say in interrogations. A criminal defense attorney is also able to speak on your behalf and defend against the prosecution’s case by questioning witnesses in the defense’s case and cross-examining the prosecution’s witnesses.
The criminal defense attorney in california deals with cases such as white collar crimes, drug crimes, sex crimes and more. They have been pioneers in developing all forms of alternative sentencing such as house arrest and diversionary programs. They have established relationships with Judges and District Attorneys in Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento and Ventura Counties. Choosing the legal counsel of a California criminal defense lawyer can save you from being found guilty in a criminal case. A California criminal defense lawyer often has the reputation of being staunch legal counsel by virtue of having passed the California Bar exam alone. This exam is known to be one of the toughest nationwide.
San Diego Criminal Defense Attorneys excell in DUI Defense, Drug Defense and defense of other misdemeanor and felony charges requiring the assistance of a professional attorney in San Diego and Southern California. A San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer defends each case specifically and according to the unique facts, and the law, as it is written related to the case. Attorneys argue relentlessly on behalf of their clients in the courtroom, as trial lawyers, and winning the confidence of the jury is their specialty.
Illinois attorneys are also known for their white collar criminal defense. This is their specialty.
So the next time you have been charged with a criminal offense from out of nowhere, there is no need to panic. After all, you’re innocent until proven guilty. All you have to do is employ the help and services of attorneys in criminal defense. Criminaldefensehelp.com provides you with the necessary information.
Share on Facebook
Highway Safety Attorney Calls for Distracted Driving Semi-Truck Accident Law
Highway Safety Attorney (http://www.hornlaw.com), Douglas R. Horn, calls for comprehensive distracted driving semi-truck accident law that includes prohibiting use of portable electronic devices.
Kansas City, MO, — Highway Safety Attorney (http://www.hornlaw.com), Douglas R. Horn calls for comprehensive distracted driving semi-truck accident law that includes prohibiting use of portable electronic devices. The long haul can be boring and drivers may want to pass the time texting or browsing the web on their laptops but driving a big truck at highway speeds.
A new study by Virginia Tech Transportation Institute compiled research by videoing semi-truck drivers behavior when they were driving and found that a driver texting has a 23 times higher collision risk than a drive not texting. This far exceeds previously estimated risk based on laboratory research.
An earlier study by Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released in April 2006 found that almost 80% of crashes and 65% of near-crashes involved some form of driver inattention within three seconds of the event, according to the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study.
“”When a truck driver takes their eyes off the road to text or perform any other activity not essential to driving the truck, it creates a new universe of risk. This is especially true when the truck is an 80,000 pound vehicle that will cause disaster when a driver loses control of their rig. As traffic volumes on major highways and interstates increase, safe operation of trucks is of premium importance to protect all motorists,” says Douglas R. Horn, Highway Safety Attorney and principal partner at the Horn Law Firm P.C. (http://www.hornlaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1483344.html).
“A comprehensive distracted driver law is a vital highway safety measure because it will help reduce the most deadly of all roadway collisions. You can be sure that trucking firms will act quickly to comply with new laws by establishing driver regulations that prohibit all forms of distracted driving in the cabs of their trucks. Without a comprehensive distracted driver law that covers all forms of driver multi-tasking, truck companies will lack a strong incentive to invest in necessary safety reforms brought on by these new technologies.” concludes Horn.
Confirming the need for comprehensive distracted driving laws, the federal government and many stats are putting regulations in place to prohibit government employees from using hand-help devices while driving in government business.
Highway Safety Attorney (http://www.hornlaw.com), Douglas R. Horn is the principal partner of Horn Law, a personal injury law firm that has an exceptional track record in maximizing client recovery in a wide variety of motor vehicle accident claims in Missouri and throughout the Midwest. Mr. Horn is a public safety advocate devoting a significant part of his practice to highway safety issues. His firm is based in Kansas City, Mo with consultation offices throughout Missouri.
###
Share on Facebook
Attorney Frank M. Petosa Joins Morgan & Morgan, PA as Partner in South Florida Office
Davie, FL — Morgan & Morgan, PA is pleased to announce that Frank M. Petosa has joined the firm as a partner in the Davie, Florida office. In addition to leading the firm’s South Florida personal injury practice, Mr. Petosa will also work with the National Consumer Class Action and Mass Tort Department.
Mr. Petosa is dedicated to helping Florida’s families when a loved one suffers a serious injury or dies due to wrongful conduct. When corporations, insurance companies, hospitals, health care providers and nursing homes put profits over safety and wrongfully injure another, Mr. Petosa fights for justice on behalf of Florida’s families. He focuses his practice on medical malpractice, nursing home neglect and abuse, personal injury, and wrongful death cases and also handles mass tort and class action litigation. In 2009, in recognition of his outstanding work on behalf of his clients, Mr. Petosa was named a Florida Super Lawyer, an honor which is limited to the top 5% of attorneys in his field.
He has held numerous leadership positions with the Florida Justice Association, serving as a past president of the organization and as the past chair of the Florida Justice PAC as well as the Nursing Home and Auto Insurance Committees. Mr. Petosa previously served as the Fundraising Chair and as a member of the Medical Liability and Arbitration Committees for the Florida Justice Association. Currently, he is a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation and a member of the American Bar Association, American Association for Justice, and the Southern Trial Lawyers Association.
Mr. Petosa has frequently lectured at Florida Justice Association and American Association for Justice seminars throughout the country on a variety of topics relating to medical malpractice, nursing home and personal injury litigation. He has also testified extensively before Florida Senate and House committees on a wide range of tort reform issues. Mr. Petosa is also involved with the Florida Bar Association, the Palm Beach County Bar Association, and the Palm Beach County Justice Association.
Mr. Petosa received his J.D. from the University of Florida in 1992, graduating with honors. In addition to his many legal memberships, he is also involved with the National Citizen’s Coalition for Nursing Home Reform, the Broward County Coalition on Aging, and Florida’s Voice for Mental Retardation. Mr. Petosa is admitted to practice in Florida, including the U.S. District Court, Southern and Middle Districts of Florida.
About Morgan & Morgan
Morgan & Morgan is one of the largest Personal Injury law firms in the country with offices nationwide. The firm handles product liability cases, personal injury cases, and medical malpractice cases, as well as claims against drug and medical device manufacturers. Visit ForThePeople.com for a free case evaluation and information about your legal rights.
Share on Facebook
President Getnick Urges Senators Schumer and Gillibrand to Reject Proposals That Discriminate Against Medical Malpractice Victims and That Jeopardize Public Safety by New York State Bar Association
ALBANY, NY — New York State Bar Association President Michael E. Getnick (Getnick Livingston Atkinson & Priore, LLP and of counsel to Getnick & Getnick of New York City), in a letter today, called on the U.S. Senate to reject any proposals that would discriminate against medical malpractice victims while also jeopardizing public safety by capping the amount of compensation that victims could receive for pain and suffering. Such proposals have been raised in the debate over national health care reform legislation.
In his letter to U.S. Senators Charles Schumer and Kristin Gillibrand, President Getnick restated the State Bar’s long-held position that the authority to change medical liability laws should rest with the states and not the federal government.
“As Senate activity on this topic continues, I want to reiterate our long standing objections to those tort and medical malpractice reform proposals that have resurfaced as part of the current debate,” wrote Getnick. “We object to legislation to cap pain and suffering compensation for victims of medical malpractice. Such caps would unjustly discriminate against classes of accident victims who suffer devastating physical and psychological losses.
“For over 200 years the authority to promulgate medical liability laws has rested with the states, which are the repository of experience and expertise in these matters,” Getnick noted in the letter. “I am pleased that the House, in passing Bill 3962, The Affordable Health Care for America Act, refrained from including provisions advocated by some members that would have resulted in federal tort laws encroaching upon the authority of the states.”
Getnick noted that legislation recently passed by the House of Representatives would provide for incentive payments to states that adopt alternative medical liability laws without imposing caps on damages and other unacceptable measures. According to Getnick, providing such incentive payments to states is an appropriate alternative to proposals that would impair the ability of victims to seek remedy in the justice system.
“In assessing the current tort system, it is at least as important to consider the victims of malpractice in comparison to those who cause them personal injury,” he said. “We have seen in the past that the attack of tort reformers is a movement that favors cost savings over quality and that emphasizes the corporate bottom line over safety of the public.
“As the health care debate progresses with you and your colleagues in the Senate we strongly urge Congress to focus on health care problems and to ensure that the individual victims of medical malpractice are not placed in a secondary position as compared to those who have created the very victims from which they seek protection in the name of tort reform,” Getnick concluded.
To view a full copy of President Getnick’s letter to Senators Schumer and Gillibrand, please visit http://www.nysba.org/LtrMedMalUSSen.
Founded in 1876, the 76,000-member New York State Bar Association is the official statewide organization of lawyers in New York and the largest voluntary state bar association in the nation. The State Bar’s programs and activities have continuously served the public and improved the justice system for more than 130 years.
###
Share on Facebook
New York Personal Injury Attorney Urges A Ban On Asbestos To Protect Public
Joseph Belluck says a ban is needed to break the cycle of asbestos-related disease.
New York, NY — New research shows a ban on the manufacture and use of all asbestos is the only certain way to break the deadly cycle of asbestos-related disease, New York attorney Joseph W. Belluck (http://www.belluckfox.com/joseph-belluck.html) said.
Belluck, who focuses his practice on helping victims of asbestos-related disease, said the scientific evidence is clear that all forms of asbestos cause cancer and serious respiratory disease.
“There are no safe forms of asbestos,” Belluck said. “International health organizations recognize that all asbestos causes cancer. As a nation, we should err on the side of protecting health and workers to end all asbestos-related disease.”
Researchers writing in the current issue of the American Journal of Industrial Medicine said a ban on the use and production of asbestos is a significant public health priority – and should be the focus of any public health efforts related to asbestos.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency currently treats all types of asbestos fibers as equally potent for causing lung cancer and mesothelioma (http://www.belluckfox.com/mesothelioma.html), a cancer of the lining of the lungs and abdomen.
The World Health Organization has urged a worldwide ban, and 43 countries have approved bans. Belluck said the U.S. should follow suit. “Congress should pass an asbestos ban now – no further delay is warranted,” said Belluck.
“The latency period for asbestos disease is 20 to 40 years, so we’ll continue to see more deaths from asbestos for years to come,” Belluck said. “But banning asbestos would prevent continued exposure for millions of workers.”
About Belluck & Fox, LLP
Belluck & Fox, LLP (http://www.belluckfox.com/)is a nationally recognized law firm that represents individuals with asbestos and mesothelioma claims, as well as victims of crime, medical malpractice, motorcycle crashes, lead paint and other serious injuries. Belluck & Fox has won more than $200 million in compensation for its clients and their families.
Partner Jordan Fox is a well-known asbestos and mesothelioma attorney who has been named to the Best Lawyers in America, New York Magazine’s “Best Lawyers in the New York Area” and to Super Lawyers. On two occasions, his verdicts were featured as the National Law Journal’s Largest Verdict of the Year.
Joseph W. Belluck is AV-rated by Martindale-Hubbell and is listed in New York Magazine’s “Best Lawyers in the New York Area” and in Super Lawyers. Mr. Belluck has won numerous cases involving injuries from asbestos, defective medical products, tobacco and lead paint, including a recent asbestos case that settled for more than $12 million.
For more information, contact the firm at 877-695-2909 or through the online contact form (http://www.belluckfox.com/contact_us.html).
###
Contact Information
Joseph W. Belluck
Belluck & Fox, LLP
http://www.belluckfox.com/
212-681-1575
Share on Facebook
McKool Smith’s Hugh Ray III Featured as Panelist During National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges
Las Vegas, NV — Noted bankruptcy attorney Hugh Ray III, a principal in the Houston office of McKool Smith, recently served among a select group of attorneys and academicians as a featured panelist during the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges in Las Vegas.
This marks the 83rd year for the annual conference where the country’s leading bankruptcy attorneys and scholars gather with esteemed bankruptcy judges from across the United States to discuss important developments in bankruptcy law and policy.
During his presentation, Mr. Ray III examined the recent legal and ethical issues covering the solicitation of counsel for official creditor committees in bankruptcy proceedings, including how counsel can ethically contact clients, the statutes and rules that apply, and mechanisms for regulation and enforcement.
In the program titled “Committee Solicitation Issues – The Problems, the Rules and the Enforcers,” Mr. Ray III and other panelists from the American Bar Association Working Group on Committee Solicitation called for ethics reform among bankruptcy practitioners. The panel noted that the lack of effective regulation hurts clients and the public. Mr. Ray also authored a paper for the conference that focused on the judicial power to penalize unethical behavior.
“It is an honor to be asked to speak at the Judges’ Conference, especially being included among such a distinguished panel of bankruptcy practitioners,” says Mr. Ray III. “The National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges stands alone as the most prestigious conference for the Chapter 11 practitioner, and represents one of the most effective forums for helping bankruptcy attorneys stay at the top of their game.”
At McKool Smith, Mr. Ray III represents publicly traded companies in bankruptcy reorganization matters as well as major creditors in their collection from complex bankruptcies. He also serves as a trial attorney in adversary proceedings before bankruptcy courts on behalf of clients in a variety of industries.
McKool Smith is recognized as one of the premier trial law firms in the United States based on significant courtroom victories and substantial settlements for domestic and international clients. With more than 100 attorneys in Dallas, Austin, Houston, Marshall, New York, and Washington DC, McKool Smith handles commercial, intellectual property and white collar litigation for companies and individuals, including major airlines, telecommunications companies, medical device manufacturers, oil & gas concerns, and many others. McKool Smith is recognized in The National Law Journal for winning more of the Top 100 Verdicts of 2008 than any other law firm in the country.
For more information, please contact Bruce Vincent at 800-559-4534 or bruce@androvett.com.
Share on Facebook
Michigan Breast Cancer Victims Free Bankruptcy Services
Local attorney addresses the growing financial crisis those touched by breast cancer face by awarding pro bono bankruptcy filing services to a local family in need.
FARMINGTON HILLS, Mich.–Attorney Barton W. Morris, Jr., founder of Bankruptcy Rescue, announced today his team of bankruptcy lawyers will select one local family touched by breast cancer and facing financial crisis, to receive free Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing services from essays submitted online at www.mybankruptcyrescue.com/breastcancer before November 30, 2009.
The growing rate of bankruptcies caused by medical bills prompted Morris to participate in the American Bar Association (ABA) Pro Bono Celebration Week, October 24-31. The ABA designated the event to encourage lawyers across the country to honor those in the legal profession who provide free legal help to improve the lives of the needy. By awarding full bankruptcy filing services to a person in need during October, also national Breast Cancer Awareness Month, Morris hopes to raise awareness of the stress financial problems brought upon breast cancer sufferers and inform people about the benefits of contracting an attorney for filing bankruptcy. Selection of recipient will be announced on December 10, 2009.
President Obama`s stirring healthcare speech highlighted one woman`s battle with breast cancer and the loss of her medical insurance. His statements clearly link the national health insurance debate and the personal finance crisis driving more Americans and Michigan residents to declare bankruptcy due to soaring medical bills.
“Americans are one injury or illness away from bankruptcy,” Obama stated. “The crushing cost of healthcare causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds,” he added. In fact cancer is reported to be the leading cause of all bankruptcy filings.
Every three minutes someone new in this country is diagnosed with breast cancer… 7,100 Michigan residents hear that grim news each year. 41,110 people in Southeast Michigan filed for personal bankruptcy in 2008. Many of these faces are the same as those who struggle with breast cancer. The effects of cancer treatment coupled with the emotional strife from mounting medical bills create fear, unhealthy stress and a sense of deep hopelessness.
“Studies have shown that high stress levels can hinder a patient`s healing and no one should endure the additional fear, uncertainty and doubt of mounting financial problems while battling this ugly disease. There is nothing more satisfying for me than feeling the appreciation for guiding people through their problems,” said Morris.
Located in Farmington Hills, Bankruptcy Rescue`s mission is to rid struggling people and families of the stress and uncertainty of bankruptcy and inform them of their options through caring consultation. The team is available at all times to answer questions and allow clients to sleep better at night.
For more information call 888-55 RESCUE (557-3728) or visit www.mybankruptcyrescue.com
For Bankruptcy Rescue
MEDIA CONTACT:
Lisa Lamont
248-229-1993
Lisa@MetroMoxie.com
Share on Facebook
