UPDATE - Malpractice Leads to Unusual Writ of Mandamus

The Warshafsky Law Firm recently filed a very unusual Writ of Mandamus to determine why the Medical Examining Board has not taken action against Dr. Cully White, a D.O based in Milwaukee. To recap, plaintiff Kenneth Plants alleged that Dr. White operated on the wrong side of his back, causing severe and permanent debilitating injuries. The case settled in the Summer of 2009 for 2.9 million. A Writ of Mandamus was filed to determine why, after being provided with ALL the medical records and pertinent testimony, the Medical Examining Board has failed to take any action against Dr. White.

Just this week, Milwaukee County Judge Thomas Cooper signed an Order to Show Cause, which requires Defendant Kelly Sankbiel to appear in court and provide testimony as to why the Medical Board should not provide the petitioner with a report regarding the Board's investigation of Dr. White, and to explain what steps the Board has taken in furtherance of said report, should it not exist.

Also Ordered to appear is Dr. Gene Musser, Chairman of the Wisconsin Medical Examining Board. He has been ordered to explain the details of the investigation by the Board, and what information the Board still needs to complete its investigation, should it request additional information.

The Order signed by Judge Cooper is a step further in the plaintiffs' ultimate goal - to figure out why, after receiving every piece of documentation if may need to discipline Dr. White, the Board has not yet taken action against Dr. White and failed to respond to the Warshafsky Law Firm's request for information. The testimony of Musser and Sankbiel will hopefully shed light on how doctors in Wisconsin are disciplined, and how long it takes determine appropriate discipline.

The show cause motion is set for August 13, beginning at 10:30 A.M. The hearing is open to the public.

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?

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.