Welcome to HurstInjuryLaw.com, the personal blog of William W. Hurst, Attorney at Law in Indianapolis. This is where Bill will post his research notes, case studies, and legal news for public viewing. Feel free to browse the site and use any content you find for your own blogs so long as you properly cite our site. For information on Bill's legal practice, please visit his business website at BillHurst.com.

Category: Uncategorized


In August of 2008 in Greensburg, Indiana, a parent of a toddler dropped off their 2 year old daughter and two hours later a large console television fell on her daughter crushing her eye sockets, pallet, nose and cheekbone.  It will be many years before she’ll recover because of her age and how things grow.  Unfortunately this kind of an event is not uncommon.   http://www.wthr.com/story/9412088/parents-push-for-day-care-licensing-after-toddlers-accident

 

Indy Channel 6, RTV6, ABC, RTV6 recently did an investigation reviewing a year’s worth of complaints validated by the State’s Family and Social Service Administration Bureau of Childcare and found daycare centers cited for various violations such as having too many children per staffer, staffers using alcohol and cigarettes around children, inappropriate discipline (such as biting and spanking), and even child abuse and neglect.  The Bureau of Childcare gets approximately 1,200 complaints a year and they follow up on all of them.  They have indicated that about 20% of the complaints are validated by State inspectors.  This information may be found online at www.theindychannel.com\news\ 27866630\detail.html and can be seen at the Family and Social Services Administration website. For Indiana daycare inspection reports see www.ehow.com/how_832560_daycare_inspection_report_Indiana.html

 

Indiana law has designated the Indiana Family & Social Services Administration, a division of Family Resources, to regulate childcare in the State of Indiana.  Indiana has a number of rules and regulations which are be applicable to daycare centers created by the Indiana State Department of Health and the State Fire Marshall.  These rules/regulations may be found at http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title12/ar17.2/ch4.html. In Indiana, the Bureau of Child Care conducts annual investigations regarding child abuse and negligence of employees and volunteers at daycare centers who have contact on a regular basis with children.  The Bureau of Child Care often involves Child Protective Services for checking sexual abuse claims in licensed daycare centers and licensed child care homes.  The Bureau of Child Care does not issue licenses or enter into any kind of informal agreement with a licensed home childcare provider when an incident of sexual abuse against a child has occurred.  The rights and licenses of a business where this occurs will be refused or revoked in case of such a finding.  www.daycare.com/Indiana and www.in.gov/fssa/2552.htm and www.daycare-centersite.com/IN.html

 

The National Center for Education and Statistics indicate that 6 out of 10, that is nearly 13,000,000, infants, toddlers and preschool children are enrolled in childcare.  It is known that many children are treated in hospital emergency rooms for injuries that occurred at childcare.  For example, in 1997 about 31,000 children four years old or younger were treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms for injuries that occurred in childcare settings.  www.safetypolicy.org\ pm\daycare.htm.  The most common injuries are cuts or lacerations (31%), bumps or bruises (15%), fractures (10%) and dental injuries (8%).  Most injuries, 51%, occur on the playground.  Many injuries (18%) and more than half of the fractures and concussions (53%) were due to falls from climbing equipment.  www.pediatrics.8appublications.org\content\93\34\364.

 

Sometimes children are too young to inform parents about the abuses or injuries they’ve suffered in a daycare.  It is therefore very important to obtain immediate medical attention if you suspect your child has been injured or harmed in any way in order to determine the extent of the injuries.  While daycare centers should put the safety and care of children as their first priority, too often a child is left in the care of an underpaid or poorly trained daycare worker.  Daycare workers need training and supervision which they often do not have.  In addition, playground equipment and toys are often not maintained placing children in danger.

 

Tips for parents who want to check on the child care facility include:

1.) “Googling” the name of the facility to look for complaints and inspection reports.

2.) Call the FSSA Bureau of Child Care and ask questions to understand the State’s inspection findings.

3.) You should drop into the child’s daycare unexpectedly during the day from time to time and simply observe what’s going on!

4.) Always ask your daycare provider if they are on “probation” or if there are any issues regarding their license.

5.) Ask questions and understand the daycare’s discipline policy as corporal punishment is not illegal in the State of Indiana.

6.) Ask about the current child to staff ratio is important and accidents are more likely to happen when staffers are watching too many children www.ChildCareIndiana.org.

7.)  To see various daycare centers rating visit www.in.gov/activecalendar/EventList.aspx?…id

If you need more information about childcare facilities and inspection reports in the State of Indiana, contact a local resource and referral representative at 800-299-1627.

 

If your child gets hurt you should know that many daycare centers have insurance to provide medical benefits automatically without a claim for liability being made; and certainly before filing a lawsuit for your injured child, you will present a claim to the insurance carrier of the daycare facility.  When you do this you may want to have an attorney who specializes in personal injury law review your proposal to ensure you do not accidentally waive any of your child’s rights.  Certainly any claim that you make should protect your child, should include medical bills and compensation for any disability, pain and suffering.  Since a child is a minor it will be necessary to do a probate proceeding to appoint a guardian to sue (make claim) on behalf of the child.  Generally, the statute of limitations for a child is extended in most States.  However, the claim a parent may make is subject to the Statue of Limitations which in Indiana is 2 years from the date of the incident.

Our attorneys are constantly “shocked” by the negligence exhibited by some daycare workers who are entrusted with the safety of our children. Our law firm is dedicated to aggressively investigating and pursuing claims for injuries to children caused by careless daycare operators.  If your child has been injured due to the negligence of a daycare or its employees, contact the injury lawyers at the office of William W. Hurst today.  For a free consultation call 1-800-636-0808.

 

 

www.indianapolisabogado.com

 

 

A bus driver and a student were killed on March 12, 2012 in Indianapolis, Indiana and 10 other children were injured.  A school bus driver and a 5 year old student died this week in in a bus accident on the southeast side of Indianapolis.  Two other students were critically injured and several children were hurt.  The accident happened about 7:40 in the morning in the 900 block of S. Emerson near English Ave., two miles away from the Lighthouse Charter School where the bus was going.  The bus struck a railroad bridge abutment peeling back one side of the bus.

Speculation among the students and parent at the recent vigil on the cause of accident range from the bus driver being distracted by something to a sudden health problem such as Cardiac Arrest.  While the accident is currently under investigation, the cause is no known.

Indianapolis students that were injured in the bus collision were taken to Wishard Memorial Hospital and Riley Hospital for Children and all the children were released to their parents except for two critically injured who are still being treated at the hospital.  There were 50 children on the bus ranging in age from 5 to 16, and many of these students were trapped inside the bus after the accident for some period of time when in required extrication by the emergency rescue personnel.

Miller Transportation which owns the bus has hired experts including an accident reconstructionist to do an independent investigation.  There is a camera on the bus but apparently there were some problems in its operation.  Most of the kids all stated the the bus driver was very nice and well liked.

According to the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, bridges and tunnels such as the location involved in this accident are considered a hazard.  It has been recommended that School Districts and bus drivers take these hazards into account when planning bus routes.  The State Head of the Department of Education has indicated that a bridge like the one involved in Monday’s crash should be considered as dangerous.  It is clear that road hazards will be a hot topic at the State Transportation Conference this June, as well as this deadly bus crash.  www.theindychannel.com/news/30679918/detail.html.

In addition to the Indianapolis bus crash, there were at least two other bus accidents across the nation in a similar time frame, raising issues regarding bus safety.  Three hours after the Indianapolis bus crash, in Quincy Washington a school bus rolled over on its side with 38 students onboard.  The driver of this bus and three children were very seriously injured.  That same afternoon in rural Ohio a bus ran off the road and several students aboard suffered minor injuries that required medical attention.  All of these bus crashes in one day have many wondering if the seat belts should be required on buses.  Only six states currently require seat belts on school buses and it has been a long running debate in most state legislatures.  Some state officials, including Indiana, argue that equipping new buses and retrofitting older buses with seat belts would be too expensive; and that buses are generally safe anyway with the protection afforded by the “compartmentalization” of the seats seating and arrangements. http://www.whas11.com/news/Indy-bus-crash-2-other-across-nation-raise-questions-about-bus-safety-142497355.html

If you or your child is injured in a bus collision or other tragedy in a motor vehicle accident, you should consult with an experienced personal injury attorney immediately.  You may contact our office or call William “Bill” Hurst at (800-)636-0808 for a free consultation.  You can also browse our personal injury website for more information at www.billhurst.com.

On July 1, 2011 an Indianapolis Metropolitan police officer was hospitalized after she was involved in a crash on the “Far South side” while responding to another traffic accident.  The officer had lights and sirens activated when she drove through a red light at Southport and Bluff roads and was struck by a northbound Ford Explorer at about 4:30 p.m.   http://www.indystar.com/article/20110701/news02/107010373/indianapolis-police-officer-hurt-afternoon-crash

The following Wednesday, July 6, 2011 on the “Near Northside” of Indianapolis a Fishers woman was injured in a car crash with an Indianapolis Metropolitan police officer.  The Fishers woman, who has not been identified, had minor injuries and both were being treated at Methodist Hospital.  The officer was on a dispatched run and traveling south on Fall Creek Parkway when a 2006 Dodge Durango exited the parking lot of the BP gas station and pulled into the officer’s path of travel.  After impact both cars struck a tree on the west side of Fall Creek Parkway.  The officer was not using his lights and sirens at the time of the crash.  http://www.indystar.com/article/20110706/NEWS/110706018/IMPD-officer-injured-crash-Near-Northside

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department’s General Order #4.16 V. “Emergency Operations” states that:

Police Department vehicles must be operated 1. Under emergency conditions only when the officer is responding to a reported or confirmed emergency condition or when properly operating under pursuit conditions.  With regard to that, the officers must refer to a general order regarding vehicle pursuits for definition. 2. When operating a police vehicle under emergency conditions, the emergency lights and sirens must be utilized. 3. An officer may disregard an automatic traffic control or stop sign only when responding to an emergency situation under pursuit conditions.  Even then the officer must approach the intersection with caution and be prepared to stop.  The officer may proceed only when it is safe by clearing the intersection lane by lane.  The police vehicle must be prepared to take evasive action and brake if necessary.  In all cases the police vehicle operator must proceed with caution.

Under certain conditions police officers may make “silent runs”.  A silent run is the operation of a police vehicle under emergency conditions utilizing emergency lights but no sirens or other audible signal.  Silent runs are authorized for robberies, burglaries, burglaries in process or a situation in which the officer determines through his training experience requires silent run response to avoid alerting the criminal.  A police officer on a silent run still must stop at all stop signs and traffic signals and proceed safely.  In all instances he must operate his vehicle with caution and at a reasonable speed without endanger the life and property of others.  The violation of these rules may result in liability for the Police Department involved.

It is the policy of  the Indianapolis’ Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) to require all officers to operate the police vehicles with due regard for the safety of others.  This is required under General Order 4.16 whether it is a marked or unmarked police vehicle.  The police officer’s must exercise due caution at all times regardless of the nature of the run for the protection of the life and property for himself and for others.  Department personnel in both off-duty and on-duty status are prohibited from operating any city-owned vehicle after taking any “restricted” prescription medication, alcohol or intoxicant.  Indeed officers are prohibited from operating any city vehicle with any traceable amount of alcohol determined by chemical test.  The operation of a vehicle with a BAC above .08 and/or arrest for DWI for the first offense results in a ten day suspension, second violation; a thirty day suspension and on a third offense the officer will be dismissed.  Mandatory alcohol counseling is an additional requirement for any and all violations.

The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department recognizes that it is inevitable that police vehicles will be involved in accidents.  The IMPD requires that all vehicle traffic crashes to police vehicles will be investigated thoroughly and reported properly according to procedures established in General Order 7.4.  Under this general order, the police officer must contact the communication center immediately, who dispatches the necessary personnel and assistance to the location.  The vehicle must not be moved. When there are personal injuries, all injured parties will be sent to Wishard Hospital for treatment unless medical personnel  determine it necessary to transport to a hospital which is closer.

It is the responsibility of a designated IMPD crash investigator to investigate and report all details of an accident.  In Indianapolis, there is an Accident Review Board which was established under the direct authority under the Indianapolis Chief of Police as set forth in department’s rules and regulations.  The administrative body is responsible for review of all crashes, reports and investigations involving motor vehicles under the control of the police department.  Formal hearings and administrative reviews may be conducted in accordance with established procedures to determine compliance with the department’s orders, rules and policies.  While not a disciplinary board, the Accident Review Board will make specific recommendations for disciplinary action to the Disciplinary Board of Captains.  The Accident Review Board will make a judgment as to whether the accident was preventable or not preventable.

Despite all the rules and regulations “high speed” police chases create an extremely dangerous situation for pedestrians and motorists.  While it is the responsibility of local law enforcement to apprehend criminals to ensure the safety of the general public, when the pursuit of criminals puts innocent third parties in danger it is up to the officer making the “run” to make a decision that serves the greater good and the safety of the community.  Sometimes the “wise” decision is to ”break off” the “run” or ”chase”.  Often after these accidents there are many questions must be answered.  Why did police continue to pursue the vehicle; when the danger to the community was apparent? Did the police officer fail to comply with the polices, rules and regulation of his department?  Only an experienced personal injury lawyer can help you with obtaining this information and evaluating it.

If you are injured in a police chase crash or squad car accident, you should consult with an experienced personal injury attorney who has represented persons seriously injured in similar circumstances.  Whether the incident involves officers from Indianapolis Police Department, Marion County Sheriffs Deputies or police officers from other police agencies, our office can help.  Contact our office for a free consultation with an experienced accident lawyer at (800) 636-0808 and see our website at  www.BillHurst.com

www.indianapolisabogado.com

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company is Asia’s biggest drug maker and they face tens of thousands of lawsuits in the United States courts over allegations that the Actos diabetes drug causes bladder cancer.  This drug was marketed for Takeda in the United States by the Indianapolis based Eli Lilly & Company from July, 1999 until March, 2006 and in several other companies up until this year. This drug, coupled with diet and exercise, was used as therapy to improve glycemic control for Type II diabetics.

U.S. regulators found in June that an analysis of a company sponsored study showed that some users of Actos faced an increased risk for developing the potentially fatal disease.  There has been other evidence linking Actos to an increased risk of other serious side effects such as blindness and macular edema. Personal Injury Attorneys across the nation are indicating that they are getting calls every day and believe that it may result in as many as 10,000 lawsuits.

Takeda officials this year recalled Actos, its top-selling drug, off the market in Germany and France because of the linkage to increased cancer risk.  The medication had sales of 4.8 billion in the last fiscal year and was 27% of the Japan based company’s revenue.

Pioglitazone hydrochloride, (Actos) was developed by Takeda and was distributed in markets since 1999.  Actos oral tablets were marketed as a medication which would help the body use insulin more efficiently.  There were a lot of warnings and contraindications that accompanied the drug and users were cautioned to have regular blood tests to monitor potential damage to their liver.  However, this list did not include the increased risk of cancer.  According to a December 1, 2011 article by the Associated Press in the Indianapolis Star, Eli Lilly, one of the distributors, lobbying costs in the third quarter of 2010 approached 2.3 million focusing on patent reform, trade issues and hospital discounts.  Actos sales in this article in 2010 were shown to be approximately 3.35 billion dollars with the drug going generic in 2012.  It is noted that not withstanding Takeda’s patent for Actos actually expiring last January, 2011, Takeda, and possibly Lilly and Glaxos Smith Klein, may be battling the forthcoming tide of Actos lawsuits.  Despite that Takeda has already agreed to several generic drug makers on the future marketing of a generic form of Actos.

Both Germany and France have suspended sales of Actos.  The suspension was effective July 11, 2011.  The Food and Drug Administration recently released a safety alert and required a label change for Actos regarding the risk of bladder cancer for users taking the medication for more than one year or taking it in the highest dose.  According to the FDA announcement, Actos can lead to a 40% increased risk of bladder cancer based on a study of more than 200,000 patients with Type II diabetes.  Since 2007 the competing diabetes drug Avandia was shown to increase the risk of heart attack the Actos sales have escalated to approximately 4.3 billion in 2010 alone.

The France Medicine Agency has suspended the sales of Actos after reviewing a cohort study conducted by the French Health Insurance linking Actos to bladder cancer.  Drug regulators in Germany have also disallowed new prescriptions for Actos pending further investigation.  The European Medicine Agency began a review of Actos in March, 2011 which has not yet concluded but may ultimately yield similar findings.  Between January and October of 2010, 2.3 million patients filled prescriptions for Actos according to the FDA.  Based on the 40% increase of risk the number of people who may develop bladder cancer since the drug’s approval in 1999 could easily number in the thousands.

On December 29, 2011, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all Actos lawsuits pending in Federal Courts nationwide be consolidated and centralized in the nearest District Court for the Western District of Louisiana and assigned to the Honorable Rebecca Dougherty.  This is a consolidation of all Actos lawsuits filed by individuals alleging that the Type II diabetes medication caused them to develop bladder cancer.  When reaching the decision to consolidate the Actos lawsuits the Panel determined that there were common questions of fact to warrant the transfer of these actions into one Federal District Court for coordination, consolidation and pretrial proceedings thereby eliminating duplicative discovery and consistent pretrial rulings and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.  At that time there were only a few, perhaps less than 20, Actos lawsuits currently pending in Federal Courts nationwide.  All of these lawsuits were filed after the June, 2011 determination by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that Actos users are at increased risk for developing bladder cancer. 

 www.webmd.com/cancer/bladder-cancer/news/20110616/new-bladder-cancer-warning-for-diabetes-drug-Actos

 www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm259150.htm

http://www.ibj.com/takeda-lilly-may-face-thousands-of-suits-over-actos-cancer-claims/PARAMS/article/31087

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-31/takeda-suits-on-actos-diabetes-drug-combined-in-one-louisiana-court.html

The side effects of Actos at http://diabetes.emedtv.com/Actos/side-effects-of-actos.html 

For several previously known side effects of Actos, including problems such as headaches, sinus infection, and upper respiratory infections.  More serious side effects would include low blood sugar, rapid weight gain, vision changes, pain, tooth problems, sore throat, water gain, edema.  Actos was also promoted as increasing the good cholesterol and decreasing triglycerides.  www.Actos.com

If you or a loved one has experience bladder cancer as a result of taking Actos,  contact our office or call William “Bill” Hurst at (800) 636-0808 for a free consultation.  Our office has successfully represented thousands of clients in .

www.indianapolisabogado.com

Semi-truck, tractor- trailer and commercial vehicle accidents in the United States continue to rise.  The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety indicates that over 100,000 people sustain serious personal injuries, and over 5,000 people die in these crashes annually.  The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) compiles statistics and reports for truck-driving accidents in the United States and attempts to identify and correct hazards that face truck drivers.  Even insignificant driving errors can result in consequences where a small vehicle is in a collision with an eighteen wheeler (18-wheeler) which can result in catastrophic injuries.  Many drivers fail to understand that trucks have limited field of vision on their right side and that large trucks traveling at high speeds cause a draft which can pull a vehicle into the danger zone or cause an automobile to over correct and run into the truck or off the road.  www.todaystrucking.com and www.auto-accidentresource.com/statistics.html

In Indiana, investigation of truck accident statistics involving 18-wheelers, semi-tractor trucks or large trucks have been compiled by the Center of Criminal Justice Research www.criminaljustice.iupui.edu based upon National Highway Traffic Safety Administrative studies as well as the Indiana State Police Automated Report Information Exchange System.  In prior years, one in every six fatal traffic collisions involved large trucks.  This was based on traffic collision trends between 2004 and 2008.  The summer months show the highest number of total large truck collisions and the highest number of fatal collisions involving them.  Over 50% of the collisions occurred on interstates with the least likely roads for them to occur on Indiana County Roads.  32% of the fatal collisions reviewed occurred on State Roads and 30% on Interstates.  Between 2004 and 2008 there was a gradual increase in involving fatal collisions occurred.  The Indiana Officers Standard Crash Report requires investigating officers to indicate the primary contributing factor for the collision.  In fatal collisions involving large trucks that were reviewed by the Center, 27% of the large truck drivers contributed to the occurrence compared with 64% for other vehicular types.  Large trucks were 2.5 times more likely than drivers of other vehicles to be attributed to the occurrence of the collision in instances where distracted driving was listed as the primary factor.  In total collisions between 2004 and 2008, involving large trucks where speeding was a factor, the large truck involved was reportedly speeding about half of the time.  www.in.gov/It is sad, but in most large truck, semi-tractor trailer, 18-wheeler accidents involving an automobile, it is the car and it’s passengers that come out the loser.  There have been numerous examples of this in recent times in Indiana.  On March 1, 2011 a semi-truck that was driven by a 41year-Indiana operator was issued a citation for failure to control his vehicle after he rear-ended a pickup truck on I-77 South.  The driver of the pickup truck was transported to St. Joseph hospital and all of the passengers in the pickup truck from Waverly, Indiana were taken to Candem Park Memorial Hospital after the accident.  In this case, the injuries were not life threatening, however in a Jackson County, Indiana accident on February 25, 2011, a Michigan man was killed on I-65 in Jackson County.  The police described this as a horrific crash.  On that date, three people called to report a speeding driver, weaving along the road just south of Seymour.  This car collided around the 37-mile marker in Jackson County with a semi-truck.  The driver of the car was thrown from the vehicle and pronounced dead at the seen.  The driver of the semi-truck, who was not at fault, had no injury whatsoever.  In a recent Indianapolis collision between an automobile and a semi-tractor trailer, an Indianapolis Public School thirteen-year old girl was killed.  The child died at the seen of the accident.  This accident happened on the Southwest side of Indianapolis.

Clearly truck drivers are professional and generous and some of the best drivers on the road, but the areas behind and beside large trucks are hazardous areas where drivers should proceed with great caution.  It’s clear when semi trailers are involved in accidents with smaller vehicles, the forces generated by the collision are so tremendous that serious injuries and death often occur.

If you or a loved one has been involved in a semi-tractor trailer accident resulting in serious injury contact our office or call William “Bill” Hurst at (800) 636-0808 for a free consultation.  Our office has successfully represented thousands of clients injured by Big Rigs.

www.indianapolisabogado.com

According to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), there are about 270,000 knee replacement operations performed each year in the United States. Many people receiving such surgery are over the age of 65 although the number of knee replacements performed on young adults is growing every year. http://www.surgery.com/procedure/knee-replacement/demographics. There are hundreds of companies that provide joint replacement products and one such Indiana based company is Zimmer holdings.  www.zimmer.com.  Traditionally, knee implants are attached to the femur with cement. Adhesive can break down and may lead devices to fail. Zimmer manufactures an uncemented knee replacement device, the Zimmer NexGen CR-Flex product. The Zimmer NexGen CR-Flex is a synthetic femoral implant which caps the femur (thigh bone) where it connects to the tibia at the knee, without cement.

The FDA recently recalled Zimmer NexGen Knee replacement devices, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfres/res.cfm?id=86898, because they were malfunctioning in an unusually high rate of patients http://www3.aaos.org/education/anmeet/anmt2010/podium/podium.cfm?Pevent=434. A NY Times article points to Dr. Richard Berger out of Chicago, IL as the doctor who brought the defect to Zimmer’s attention. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/business/20knee.html. According to the article, Dr. Berger was a consultant for Zimmer and complained to them that one of the models was failing. Zimmer refused to comment on the issue. A number of other doctors have also had similar complaints with the Zimmer NexGen knee implant. If you or a loved one has questions about recent medical device recalls such as the Zimmer please visit the U.S. Food & Drug Administration website (http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/default.htm)  to research recalled devices. If you or a loved one has a Zimmer NexGen knee replacement that causes pain and requires knee revision surgery or replacement knee surgery, contact us today.

We are experience personal injury lawyers.  Our office is currently reviewing Zimmer Knee replacement cases.  Contact us to review your case at no cost, or call us at 1-800-636-0808.

www.indianapolisabogado.com

Copyright © 2011 William W. Hurst. All rights reserved.
Bill Hurst is a partner in Mitchell, Hurst, Dick & McNelis, LLC.
Use of the web site does not create an attorney-client relationship.