Learning from the past: Should the Mayor use security detail at public events?

This week, Anthony J. Peters plead not guilty by reason of mental defect to charges that he beat Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. After the recent attack on Barrett outside of the Wisconsin State Fair, questions have been raised as to why the Mayor did not have a security detail with him. While this question fails to consider the fact that the Mayor's brave and heroic acts likely prevented a serious or even life-threatening injury to the assailant's one-year-old child and that child's grandmother, it does bring up the issue of whether public officials in a city as large as Milwaukee should be required to take a security detail with them to public events or any event where there could be potential security risks. In this case, we have all since learned that the City of Milwaukee's policy is to have security available to the Mayor but that he is not required to use that security detail at all times.

In a time where there are increased concerns about our nation’s own homeland security, the question has no good answer as we all try to strike balance in our lives between safety and personal freedom. In this case, the Mayor has obviously taken an oath to serve the residents of this community to the best of his abilities, and such service is compromised when there is a threat of serious or fatal injury. This particular case is unique in that it was not a targeted attack on the Mayor but instead a random act of violence by an individual with an ostensible host of issues. Can we ever completely protect our high-level civil servants from random acts of violence? Unfortunately, the answer is probably not but this doesn't get past the point that in this particular case, Milwaukee could have lost its Mayor. While his life is no more valuable than that of any other citizen, he holds a position that some believe deserves a certain level of security.

What are your thoughts? Should the Mayor of a city the size of Milwaukee be required to have a security detail for all public appearances?

Aspergillosis Dangers at Hospital Construction Sites

Aspergillosis is a mold caused by decaying leaves, wood and other natural sources. The mold is common in everyday air and usually does not cause problems in healthy human beings. Aspergillosis is often referred to as Aspergillus and a variety of other common mold species.

While usually harmless, Aspergillus is extremely dangerous to those with compromised immune systems, including the elderly, sick, children and those suffering from asthmatic conditions. Aspergillus is found in large quantities at construction sites where dust and debris are disturbed and toxics are released into the air. Construction sites near the aforementioned susceptible people become breeding grounds for illness and death.

The Warshafsky Firm is unaware of any current lawsuits involving injured Wisconsin persons suffering from Aspergillosis or Aspergillus related illnesses. However, with major construction on-going at Columbia St. Marys and several Aurora sites, the probability of Aspergillosis or Aspergillus related illnesses substantially increases. If you or anyone you know has suffered a respiratory illness while at any area Hospital undergoing construction, please contact the Warshafsky Law Firm to discuss your rights.

We Energies Coal Dust Explosion Liability

At first blush, the 6 workers injured at the We Energies Oak Creek facility would be limited to Workers Compensation to collect for their injuries. However, often times workplace injuries are a result of negligence by so-called 3rd parties, meaning not the injured or the employer, but a 3rd party responsible for the injuries.

The We Energies explosion involves Waukesha based ThyssenKrupp Safway, a subcontractor providing scaffolding services. It also involves United States Fire Protection, a New Berlin firm that provides fire protection services. Injured workers may have possible claims against both companies depending on the exact contractor-subcontractor arrangements.

Coal dust explosions are often the result of negligent 3rd parties that are unfamiliar with the inherent dangers of coal dust. Everybody surrounding the We Energies site must use reasonable care in handling coal dust, and must also use reasonable care to warn of the risk associated of working around coal dust. What is "reasonable care" depends on many different factors, including opinions held by workplace experts.

The Warshafsky Law Firm has represented several workers over the past 50 years injured by coal dust explosions, recovering large sums of money to compensate for their critical injuries.

Chicago Dogs Bite Bite and Bite

In the past week, three young children in the Chicagoland area have died from Rottweiler attacks. The Chicago Tribune provides details into the latest victim, 4 year old Alex Angulo of Chicago:

A sign that reads "Beware of the Dog" hangs on a fence outside a Southwest
Side house where 4-year-old Alex Angulo was mauled to death by a Rottweiler on
Sunday. A neighbor said the Rottweiler sometimes acted aggressively and was
"kind of scary."

Just last week, two sisters, ages 5 and 10, were mauled by a Rottweiler at their mother's Joliet home. Those girls survived. Rottweilers aren't the most dangerous breed (Pit Bulls earn that dubious crown), but they do come in second causing 63 deaths from 1982 to 2007. Fortunately, Wisconsin dog bite deaths are few and far between, but do happen. More frequently, dogs maul or injure Wisconsinites, usually small children, without causing death.

Wisconsin Statute 174.02 provides harsh penalties for dog owners whose dogs bite and injure. Specifically, dog owners are strictly liable for the injuries and bites caused by their dogs. Wisconsin courts have construed this statute heavily in favor of victims, expanding the strict liability to injuries caused by the fear instilled by dogs, as well as injuries caused by scratches and other bodily contact. The Statute also imposes double damages for those dogs who have a propensity for violence, or whose owners are otherwise on notice of the dog's propensity to injure.
Posted by: Eric Knobloch

UnitedHealth Group Ripping Off Insureds

"What in the world is this charge for?" or "Why am I being charged that amount instead of this amount?" or more importantly "Why isnt my health insurer paying for this procedure?" All frequently asked questions for insurance companies customer care representatives.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo may have your answer:

The New York attorney general’s office launched an investigation after
receiving hundreds of complaints about Oxford Insurance and its parent company,
UnitedHealth Group, which claims to rely on “independent research from across
the health care industry” to determine reimbursement rates. In actuality though,
it relies on Ingenix, a research firm owned by UnitedHealth Group.

UnitedHealth Group is the parent company to many smaller companies, including United Health Care and Ingenix, both of which have healthy market shares in Wisconsin. Disputing the "usual and customary, or reasonable charge" is par for the course with all insurance companies. But using an "in-house research firm" touted as "independant research from across the health care industry" to short change insureds is nothing short of astounding.

The $50 million dollar slap on United's wrist will be used to create a non-profit to determine reimbursement rates for its patients. (Which begs the question, shouldnt this have already been done with premiums rather than punitive awards for ripping off customers for years and years?) So, consumers are unlikely to see a dime of the award. Does UnitedHealth Group's duty of good faith to its insured warrant a reimbursement without any action by the insured????

Lawyers in Wisconsin are well aware of Insurer's using Ingenix and their most recent tactic of reducing the "reasonable value" of charges submitted by hospitals, doctors, clinics, etc. In its simpliest terms, reducing the "reasonable value" ultimately devalues the amount of medical bills an injured party may recover, which in turn lowers the amount the injured may receive from an at-fault party. Lawyers representing injured individuals should be leary of any numbers Ingenix comes up with and should inquire with the Ingenix representative as to its methods of calculations.

Auto Accident Deaths

A recent article in the Kenosha News provides harsh statistics about the number of Wisconsin auto accident deaths. Wisconsin had 735 auto accident deaths in 2007, while 2008 only recorded 587. More locally, Kenosha County had the 3rd most traffic deaths in the State, right behind Dane and Milwaukee Counties. Staggering is Kenosha's sudden rise in auto fatalities while the rest of the State sees moderate declines:

Kenosha County finished the year ranked third in the state for traffic
deaths behind Dane and Milwaukee counties. With 37 and 48 traffic deaths,
respectively, those counties are well below their totals for 2007, however.
Waukesha County was just behind Kenosha County with 27 traffic deaths.

Many factors may play a part in the sudden Kenosha County increase - increased traffic from Kenosha-Chicago commuters, harsh winters, heavy alcohol consumption, lack of seat-belt use, etc. Equally eye-opening is the number of teenagers and young adults falling victim to car accidents, perhaps suggesting inexperienced drivers or distractions within the car:

Broken down into age ranges, traffic crashes killed nine people between the ages
of 16 and 24, while claiming five people in their 30s. Also, more males (15)
died in traffic crashes this year than females (13).

When a loved one is injured or dies in an car accident, it is crucial for the family to obtain immediate representation to protect the injured party's interests. Witness statements need to be taken, the police department needs to be shadowed in order for a full investigation to be done, and private investigators need to take measurements of any tiremarks, scene photos and vehicle photos. All this should be done within the first 24 hours before the insurance company representatives begin their investigation. Injured parties that do not seek representation face an up-hill battle to receive compensation that 9 times out of 10 does not fully compensate them for their injuries.