Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer Blawg

Broward County Florida Transit Bus Accidents Fall Under the Sovereign Immunity Statute

Mon, 13 May 2013 10:48:34 -0500

The Associated Press and the local television station "WSN" have reported that an accident occurred last weekend involving a Fort Lauderdale, Broward County transit bus, and a private car, near Southwest 17th Street and 31st Avenue. The bus driver is alleged to have collided with a passenger vehicle and then continued on until coming to rest against a pole. Several passengers were reported to have suffered injuries.

Several legal issues come into play when analyzing this fact pattern. Firstly, when considering who may be liable for the injuries which may have occurred, Bus owned and/or operated by Broward County Transit, will likely enjoy Florida's Sovereign Immunity - from Chapter 768 of the Florida Statutes. Essentially, governmental entities in the state of Florida have benefited from a statutory immunity from third party tort claims for many decades; and when a claim is allowed to be brought they are severely restricted and limited.

Essentially, pursuant to F.S. Section 768.28, regardless of whether the Broward County agency carries liability insurance, the most that any one single claimant can recover is currently $200,000.00. This cap on damages has recently been doubled from $100,000.00 which was the cap since the 1960's in Florida.

So if either the passengers in the vehicle or the occupants in the other vehicle in which the bus collided are entitled to bring a claim for damages for their bodily injuries, they will be restricted by the Sovereign Immunity Statute. Regardless of how much damage they've personally suffered the most they can collect against the Fort Lauderdale Municipal Agency is $200,000.00 per claimant - unless a claims bill is passed by the Florida legislature awarding extra.

Another interesting issue, although much less of concern than a victim's bodily injuries, will be the property damage claims. In this case, property damage claims could arise not only regarding the vehicles involved but also the pole that was allegedly struck as well as any other real property that may have been damaged.

And lastly, in the legislature's apparent attempt to further curtail sovereign immunity's claims, attorney's fees are reduced from a standard contingency fee amount of 40% of the first $1,000,000.00, once a law suit is filed and an answer is provided thereto, to only 25% of any gross recovery.

In Dispute of a Florida Medical Malpractice "Crisis"

Tue, 07 May 2013 11:41:23 -0500

Recently, Diederich HealthCare has revealed detailed data with regards to medical malpractice lawsuits and the amounts of dollars that have been paid out throughout the year 2012, both nationally and in the State of Florida. This information was gathered through the National Practitioner Data Bank, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Evidently, the information was gathered for the benefit of the healthcare profession, physicians and their medical support. The data reveals that nationally, approximately 3.6 billion dollars were paid for malpractice claims, covering just slightly over 12,000 claims (averaging approximately $290,000.00 per claim). The research indicates that between 1998 until 2001, malpractice claims increased by 46% but that there has been an almost consistent decline since 2003; and that last year demonstrated a 3.4% decrease in payments made than in 2011.

It seems that most of the claims were equally split between in-patient and out-patient occurrences. That interestingly, five states comprised almost 50% of all the national pay-outs in medical malpractice claims - ranging from over 763,000 million dollars in the state of New York then dropping to 316 million dollars in Pennsylvania, California representing approximately 223 million dollars; New Jersey claims consisting of approximately 207 million dollars and then lastly Florida coming in at approximately 204 million dollar payouts.

The other noteworthy statistical finding was that only 5% of all the payments were from judgments and that over 90% of all monies paid were as the result of settlements. 31% were as a result of a wrongful death claim. More than 88% of all claims ranging from significant permanent injury or death (including brain damage and life-long care claims), less than 1% came for an insignificant injury and 1% was recorded as being from "emotion injury only".

This information is in sharp contrast to the insurance and health care industries representations and propaganda that they disseminate to either support a raise in their own income, looking for unwarranted tort reform to curtail more essential victim's rights or otherwise alter the justice system.

Legal Malpractice Lawsuit Filed By the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Against Two Florida Attorneys

Wed, 01 May 2013 18:14:18 -0500

Florida attorneys have been sued by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation claiming that they should have been aware that they were involved in making eighty two ($82,000,000.00) million dollars in illegal loans back in 2009. The lawsuit names Nason, Yeager, Gerson, White and Lioce as defendants. The suit claims that these defendants knew that the transaction was illegal because some of the assets were being used to purchase stock in Orion Bank. The suit is looking to recover thirty one ($31,000,000.00) million dollars from these defendants, which represents the amount of lost loans by the bank.

There was a separate issue of whether the loans exceeded banking limits. The Florida firm of Cole Scott and Kissane is defending the defendants in this action. Interestingly enough Cole Scott & Kissane is more known for its general lines liability defense but occasionally provide legal malpractice defense to attorneys.

Update on Florida PIP's Statute

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:35:54 -0500

Back on March 21, 2013 and 22, 2013 we had blogged that the 2nd Judicial Circuit of Florida entered an order granting a temporary injunction with regards to the 2012 PIP Act, Florida's Chapter 2012-197. In review of the discussion, Florida's Legislature had made substantial changes to Florida's PIP Act which could both limited the amount of benefits; as well as prevent any benefits to be forthcoming if a claimant failed to seek any medical attention within two (2) weeks of an automobile accident. As we discussed, the Florida court ordered a temporary injunction at the request of the plaintiffs in that case, to-wit: Robin A. Myers, DC, et al.

Thereafter, the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation had filed a notice of appeal to lift the temporary injunction. A stay of the injunction was then entered. Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis has now lifted the stay of the injunction. It is interesting to note that the driving forces behind Act and the litigation to lift the temporary injunction was through the efforts of Kevin McCarty, Florida State Insurance Commissioner, as well as Governor Rick Scott.

Accordingly, this ruling now allows massage therapists and acupuncturists to receive personal injury benefits and alleviates the recent requirement that a claimant suffer an emergency medical condition prior to entitlement to receiving PIP. But the ruling may have much broader implications and positively affect a much broader class of potential claimants.

Judge Lewis' ruling was based upon his interpretation that it was the citizen's constitutional rights to seek address and regress to the courts if they were injured in an automobile accident and therefore he was looking to prevent potential harm to Floridians.

As a side note it is also interesting to note that Berkshire Hathaway is the largest writer of PIP benefits in Florida followed by State Farm, Progressive, Allstate and Farmers.

Furthermore, there are bills pending before the Florida Legislature to repeal PIP entirely.

Barrier Safety Improvements Are Claimed To Have Reduced Fatalities on South Florida Highways

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:44:22 -0500

Statistics are now confirming that the road construction project over the area of Interstate I-75, commonly referred to as Alligator Alley, as well as the Florida Turnpike system is producing anticipated safety results. Apparently some one hundred million dollars has been invested over South Florida roadways installing barrier protection designed to prevent vehicular travelers who veer off the roadway from ending up in the adjacent canals.

The statistic between the years of 1995 to just before the new millennium reported that at least 14 people died in almost sixty crashes on I-75, along the stretch between Naples and Weston, Florida - involving submerged vehicles into the canals. The good news is that during the last five years there have only been two such crashes - resulting in only one fatality (of course, respectfully to the victims and their loved ones, even one is too many). Similar results have been reported for the areas along Florida's Turnpike, where the barriers have been installed, reducing the number to only four vehicle having entered the canals, after the system has been installed, from ninety-five vehicles during a five year period before construction.

The report by the Sun Sentinel still confirms that unfortunately these cable barriers (as well as no known system) are perfect. There was a report of a vehicle flipping into the canal on the turnpike after a tire allegedly blew, causing the vehicle to flip over the barrier into the canal. So while the system is not full proof it is credited with greatly reducing the number of vehicular crash-canal fatalities in Florida over the last decade.

Part of the system employs lights which strobe at certain spaced intervals from each other. These lights are activated once a vehicle strikes the barrier and a message is sent to a traffic center that monitors this incident.

The source also reports that due to the installation of other barriers head-on collisions have dropped significantly after the protection has been installed.

Florida Finally Addressing Texting While Driving

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:14:03 -0500

As incredible as it may seem, Florida has yet to address the issue of texting while operating a motor vehicle "a dangerous instrumentality" until this week. Many news sources are eager to report that this week a bill has already passed the Florida Senate that could make texting while driving illegal in Florida.

I would submit that this so much more newsworthy because of how long it has taken Florida's legislature to finally address this very serious omission in their motor vehicle laws. And we're not just referring to local and state wide news reporting agencies; the Senate's move to unanimously pass a bill, (I repeat, long overdue), has been picked up nationwide; for instance by: The Chicago Tribune, The Seattle Post Intelligencer, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Houston Chronicle, Patch.com, The Miami Herald, UPI.com, The Global Dispatch, among many others.

Frankly, the fact that a law addressing the dangerously distracting activity of texting while driving is probably not as news worthy as why it has taken this long for Florida to finally address it. I have blogged about this topic in the past and as best as I could discern Florida's legislature has dismissed the need for a specific bill addressing "texting while driving" as unnecessary, in light of several motor vehicle statutes that address careless or reckless driving habits. Frankly, that explanation and excuse is just not satisfactory and this is long overdue legislation.

Unfortunately, Florida has a reputation for being late on many consumer protection issues over the years. So it is with much appreciation that this very serious ill behavior has finally been addressed, and hopefully will be passed by the House as well.

Concerns For Lag in Automobile Recalls in Weston, Florida

Thu, 04 Apr 2013 12:43:08 -0500

The New York Times recently published an article concerning the apparent delay that millions and millions of American car owners are experiencing because the national Highway Traffic Safety Administration's investigations concerning vehicle defects are lagging longer than anticipated.

As a result there may be very large numbers of drivers (including those is Weston and throughout Florida and the United States) who are operating vehicles that are susceptible of failure or causing great harm and they may not have been timely notified. For instance, there are concerns that millions of Ford Explorers and Mercury Mountaineers, as well as General Motors' SUV's owners are driving potentially dangerous vehicles without proper notice.

Amazingly, investigations into these vehicles have taken close to four years to come forth; contrary to the N.H.T.S.A.'s stated goals of completing their investigations within twelve months. The N.H.T.S.A. claims that money is part of the problem, lacking the funds to retain sufficient investigators. Mind you, the issues at stake can be so insignificant as an interior fitting, to the concern for exterior body parts (such as sun roofs) that can come loose and become airborne on roadways around your locale, including Weston, Florida, striking other vehicles and their occupants. Evidentially, there were some 19 recalls concerning sun roofs in 2012.

Congress has funded approximately 800 million dollars for the N.H.T.S.A., of which about 10 million dollars goes toward defect investigations. And while inflation has affected most of the Agencies operations and needs, its defect investigations haven't received the increases to continue their investigations as may be needed.

Another example of an ongoing investigation is concerning Chevy pickups, as well as its Suburban SUV. Apparently the brake lines are susceptible to rupture, impeding the vehicle's ability to properly stop, at the least. An investigation was started concerning these brake lines in 2011 and is still not completed.

This all falls under the concern for what does it take to ensure our highway safety; and the untold conversation of what role does the civil litigation process play in supplementing the role of government in keeping our highways and streets safe. Frankly, in this writer's opinion, there are many untold benefits provided to our society as a whole, by the accountability that is decided by our Tort System through the prosecution of products liability claims on behalf of unfortunate victims.

Florida Office of Insurance Regulations Files an Appeal on The Court's Temporary Injunction for the New PIP Act

Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:50:42 -0500

As anticipated by some, the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation filed a notice that an appeal would be taken in the case of Myers, et.al. vs. The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, concerning the temporary injunction that was issued by the Court on March 15, 2013. Unfortunately, the notice of filing appeal has the effect of automatically staying Judge Lewis' order of temporary injunction for the implementation of the 2012 PIP Act until the appeal is decided. Sources close to this matter are anticipating that the plaintiffs will be seeking their own relief from the stay that is automatically granted with the notice of appeal that has been filed.

The Florida Justice Association, on behalf of the citizens of the state of Florida and The Schulman Law Group, have particular interests in this statute being held unconstitutional. Both the Association and The Schulman Law Group are committed to protecting the rights of the citizens of the state of Florida, and in particularly seeking justice on behalf of the injured and the fair application of justice. It is this Firm's position that the new PIP Act not only severely limits and distorts a victim's common law right to seek the recovery of damages, but, was designed for the purpose of only benefiting the business interests of the insurance industry that target the Florida Automobile PIP Insurance market and quite possibly that portion of the market that is considered to be substandard.

One could further argue that the Court's Order did not have far enough reach, in that it did not address the new Act's requirements that an injured policy holder must obtain a determination of the need for emergency medical care. It is presumed that the Court did not address that issue in as much as the Plaintiffs in the case at bar lacked standing since they were not medical doctors.

The Constitutionality of The 2012 PIP Act

Thu, 21 Mar 2013 17:56:42 -0500

An Order granting a temporary injunction against Florida's Chapter 2012-197, Laws of Florida (2012 PIP Act or "the Act") was issued on March 15, 2013 in the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial Circuit of Florida. The Plaintiffs were comprised of (only and possibly prematurely) chiropractic physicians, massage therapists and acupuncturists, challenging the constitutionality of the recent change to Florida's PIP Laws. The court found that the new Act violated Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution (access to courts)

The Plaintiffs in that law suit argued before the Court that the new Act as revised severely limits future payments. The Plaintiffs argued that the Act was damaging to the Plaintiff's ability to contract and earn a living; and was not rationally related to a legitimate public policy; violated the separation of powers; and violated the people's right to access the courts. In fact, the Court went on to comment that the No-Fault Law which was passed in 1971 was an example of an experiment with socialism and that it severely limited a claimant's ability to seek compensation for damages caused by a wrong doer and in essence granting the wrongdoer an immunity from certain civil liability -- in exchange for purchasing insurance to cover medical expenses and loss of income. The court reasoned that under the then circumstances, the Florida legislature was providing a reasonable alternative to common tort recovery. Those in favor of the prior PIP statute argued its' value because it would provide a quick source of payments for medical care and loss of income despite the question of fault. It was theorized that this would in turn lighten the court's burdens and reduce the cost of insurance to consumers.

The question presented in the case at bar apparently tested the "outer limits of constitutional tolerance". Circuit Court Judge Terry T. Lewis concluded that it does. The court considered that the new Act severely limits what can be recovered under the policy for an injured party who does not receive initial services or care within 14 days, or you did not have an emergency medical condition. Therefore the Court determined that as to the sections requiring a finding of an emergency medical condition, as a condition precedent for the payment of PIP or that prohibit payment for the services of acupuncturists, chiropractors and massage therapists -- the temporary injunction was granted.

Please see the case of Robin A. Meyers, DC, et. al., Plaintiffs vs. Kevin M. McCarty, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, Defendant, Case No. 2013CA 73 in the Circuit court of the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida.

New Florida Law Evens The Playing Field for Speeding Motorists

Fri, 04 Jan 2013 12:37:39 -0500

As of January 1st it is no longer illegal in the state of Florida to warn other drivers of speeding traps by flickering your high beams. Over the past seven years, approximately 10,000 Floridians have been cited for warning other drivers of upcoming speeding traps. As a result, these drivers would typically receive a fine of up to $175. However, this law has been abandoned by the state, essentially evening the playing field for drivers.

The Fort Lauderdale and Weston areas often have many speed traps set up along side roads and local highways. Police officers often set up their cars behind signs or underneath overpasses in an attempt to catch those speeding on the roadway.

While this technique is useful in assisting police catching negligent, speeding motor vehicle operators, many believe it is unfair to set up traps. As a result, motorists will often warn others of upcoming speed traps by flickering their high beams in an attempt to warn other drivers of the police car they are approaching. As a result of this new Florida law, drivers must no longer fear penalty as a result of participating in this practice.

Florida Implements New Law for Bicyclists

Fri, 28 Dec 2012 12:08:54 -0500

Florida is a state filled with warm weather and beautiful beaches. A new law going into effect on January 1st will limit bicyclist's ability to enjoy the Florida coastlines. The new law requires a bicyclist to stay in the bicycle lane when traveling on a roadway less than the normal speed of traffic. Essentially, this law will force all bicyclists to remain in the bicycle lane at all times because it is uncommon for someone traveling on a bicycle to travel at rates of speed over 25 miles per hour. Some roadways with traveling speeds of 5 or 10 miles per hour may be continue to be exploited by bicyclists because of their ability to maintain a speed equal to the moving traffic. In addition, the law goes on to state that if there is no bicycle lane, a bicyclist must stay as close to the right hand curb as possible.

Many of Florida's coastlines are lined with roadways consisting of traveling speeds of 25 to 45 miles per hour. Furthermore, many of these roads do not have bicycle lanes creating a potential problem for those who enjoy riding near the beach.

The purpose of implementing this new law is to limit bike accidents that result from bicycle and automobile collisions. By preventing bicyclists from traveling on roads that have speeds in excess of which the bike can travel will theoretically result in less hazardous conditions for both the bicyclists and those traveling in motor vehicles.

New Florida PIP Law to Reduce Coverage for Floridians

Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:46:57 -0500

Florida's new PIP (personal injury protection) law will go into effect as of January 1, 2013. This new law will greatly reduce Floridians ability to recover damages from insurance companies. Although the enactment of the law will make it more difficult for Floridians to receive just compensation for their injuries, it will in no way decrease the cost of automobile insurance in the state. The new law does provide for a ten percent reduction in the cost of insurance to civilians, however the insurance companies are able to circumvent this reduced price by giving a detailed explanation of why the price cut is not feasible.

Currently, in the state of Florida, every driver is required to purchase Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Insurance. The original theory behind enacting the law was to provide medical coverage for all parties injured as a result of a car accident, regardless of fault. The current PIP protection pays for eighty percent of medical bills, sixty percent of lost wages, up to $10,000, and provides for a benefit in the event a death occurs.

Under the new PIP Insurance, an injured party is required to see a medical provider within fourteen days of their injury in order to be eligible for the PIP benefits. The medical provider who conducts the evaluation must either be a licensed physician or a hospital. In addition, the new PIP law makes the following requirements in order to obtain coverage for follow-up treatment: (1) initial medical treatment was obtained within fourteen days of the injury (2) the follow-up treatment is based on a referral from one of the above healthcare providers, (3) the follow-up treatment is parallel to the underlying condition diagnosed at the initial visit, and (4) the follow-up treatment must be administered by a medical doctor, chiropractor physician, doctor of osteopath, a dentist, physician assistant or ARNP (advanced registered nurse practitioner). If all of these conditions are met, two levels of PIP coverage will be available to the injured party. The first level of coverage will provide for $10,000 of emergency medical treatment. The second level of coverage will provide for $2,500 of treatment for injuries not diagnosed at the initial visit.

Florida Supreme Court Makes Influential Decision on Rear-end Collisions

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:02:46 -0500

On November 21, the Supreme Court of Florida made an impactful decision regarding the interaction between Florida's comparative negligence tort recovery system and the rebuttable presumption imposed in rear-end motor vehicle collisions. The Supreme Court reversed Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeals ruling that the presumption of negligence attached to the rear-end driver of a rear-end collision cannot be rebutted by the production of evidence of negligence on the part of the front driver.

The accident leading to the claim in Cevallos v. Rideout involved an automobile collision occurring on the downhill slope of an overpass. The defendant in this case, Kerri Anne Rideout, was talking on her cell phone while driving her vehicle 45 miles per hour over a hill, in moderate to heavy traffic, when she was required to slam on her breaks in order to avoid a disabled vehicle. As a result of slamming on her breaks so abruptly, the Plaintiff, Maria Cevallos ran into the back of Ms. Rideout's car despite slowing her car down to a speed of only 35 miles per hour as she approached the hill. In addition, Ms. Cevallos remained four car lengths behind Ms. Rideout's car at all times up until the collision.

In Florida, there is a rebuttable presumption that the negligence of the rear driver in a rear-end collision is the sole proximate cause of the accident. However, the rear-end driver can overcome this presumption by showing the lead car driver stopped abruptly or arbitrarily.

Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, in reasoning their decision, held that evidence must show a rear-driver Plaintiff (as Ms. Cevallos was) cannot reasonably have been expected to anticipate the lead-driver's sudden stop. However, the court went on to say the rear-driver Plaintiff cannot rely on the mere fact the lead-driver Defendant ran into a preceding vehicle without "material evidence of negligence" on the part of the lead-driver Defendant in stopping. This holding essentially means a rear-driver Plaintiff must show the lead-driver Defendant's negligence was the reason for their abrupt stop. The court went on to find Ms. Rideout was not negligent in the operation of her vehicle and granted her motion for a directed verdict.

How Does A Presidential Election Fairly Impact Insurance Claims For Accident Victims In Weston Florida and Throughout America?

Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:13:31 -0500

Depending upon your prospective of how our society functions, one can interpret the political goings on to be a dance of sorts for which special interests will take a stronger hold of your government and your lives.

Strictly as an opinion, each political party is someone identified with its own leanings to special interests in American society. In this writers opinion there is an enormous undercurrent of power that is controlled by the insurance and finance industries. And it is this writer's opinion that all too often, those interests not only clash with, but can be in opposition to what is in the best interests of individuals' protections and safety.

As a committed victims rights advocate, I am extremely concerned that the wrong special interests are not only in contradiction to a voter's perceived party affiliation, but by choosing a political affiliation, they may be unintentionally aligning themselves with their ultimate enemy.

How often do we find people analyzing the net effect of their political choices based upon its overall impact on the true good of everyday society? Are the political parties fooling the voters into believing that they are truly looking after their own good?

Does the average voter truly buy into the stated story that the 2.6 billion dollars spent on advertising for this presidential campaign was so that one side or the other will be responsible for creating more jobs, lowering unemployment, the deficit; or is it so that the funded party will do the behind the scenes beckoning of the special interest lobbyists?

The following figures are based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Thursday, October 25, 2012.

Barack Obama
University of California $1,092,906
Microsoft Corp $761,343
Google Inc $737,055
US Government $627,628
Harvard University $602,992
Mitt Romney
Goldman Sachs $994,139
Bank of America $921,839
Morgan Stanley $827,255
JPMorgan Chase & Co $792,147
Credit Suisse Group $618,941
Sector Totals

Barack Obama (D)
Agribusiness $1,881,709
Communications/ Electronics $18,885,143
Construction $3,723,263
Defense $985,575
Energy & Natural Resources $2,172,790
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $18,718,167
Health $16,901,498
Lawyers & Lobbyists $25,531,710
Transportation $1,218,873
Misc Business $19,963,821
Labor $413,394
Ideological/ Single-Issue $12,087,160
Other $83,438,998

Mitt Romney (R)
Agribusiness $6,340,486
Communications/ Electronics $6,443,001
Construction $8,148,634
Defense $1,061,629
Energy & Natural Resources $8,621,846
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $52,108,339
Health $15,342,167
Lawyers & Lobbyists $13,638,350
Transportation $5,011,332
Misc Business $24,410,405
Labor $3,250
Ideological/ Single-Issue $6,915,310
Other $63,007,960
Top Industries

Barack Obama (D)
Retired $50,002,197
Lawyers/Law Firms $25,130,021
Education $19,528,183
Health Professionals $9,460,088
Business Services $7,821,996
Mitt Romney (R)
Retired $56,306,153
Securities & Investment $19,610,445
Real Estate $12,942,203
Lawyers/Law Firms $12,267,294
Health Professionals $10,198,075

Agribusiness $1,881,709
Communications/ Electronics $18,885,143
Construction $3,723,263
Defense $985,575
Energy & Natural Resources $2,172,790

Compare Mitt Romney's $52,108,339 contributions from the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate sectors with President Barack Obama's ($18,718,167) contribution figures; a three to one disparity. What should one read into this information?

Weston Florida Injury Attorney Discusses Ambulance Safety

Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:06:08 -0500

Recently this personal injury law firm represented the driver of an ambulance that was struck by another vehicle while driving in the far left lane on I-95 in Broward County, Florida. The other vehicle (underinsured) suffered a blown tire, causing that driver to lose control and strike the ambulance. The ambulance our client was operating then flipped over, several times, while skidding across the highway until it finally came to rest on the right shoulder of the highway.

Not only was the Patient seriously injured, but so was the ambulance attendant, as well as client the driver. While the patient was presumably secured to the gurney in the back and the gurney's wheels were locked, there where very little other safety features that were present in that or similar ambulances.

An article was recently published entitled, DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED CRASH TEST PROCEDURES FOR AMBULANCE VEHICLES. The article started off discussing the unusual interior environment of an ambulance vehicle, particularly with regards to occupant/patient protection issues and considering the occupants various orientations and all of the different equipment that's contained inside of the ambulance. According to this article, the United States is some 30 years behind current automotive safety technology when it comes to ambulance vehicle occupant protection.

While the article describes ambulances or EMS service vehicles as "Lifesavers" racing through the streets to provide emergency medical care, the concern is raised as to how safe these vehicles are and to what standards are they designed and tested.

Unfortunately the study highlighted the fact that there are no crashworthiness safety test procedures and guidelines that pertain to ambulance vehicles in the United States. Statistically automobile crashes are the most likely cause of a work-related fatality among EMS workers. And just as was unfortunately proved out in our ambulance case, the rear passenger compartment has been proven to be the most dangerous. The numbers of ambulance crashes in the United States a quite staggering. With over 4000 reportable crashes per year in United States and approximately one fatal crash for a week in United States the numbers of very staggering and do call for certain considerations to improve occupant safety. It is quite ironic that the same vehicles that come to rescue you from danger and in the same token be a source of considerable further danger.