Tennessee Injury Lawyer Blog

A bus rolled over on an Arizona freeway last week, killing six and injuring sixteen others. The bus was traveling from Mexico to Los Angeles when it struck a pickup truck on Interstate 10, causing the bus to flip. After conducting an investigation into the cause of the crash, authorities are now saying that the bus had multiple problems, including problems with its brakes and drivers. The brakes were reportedly so bad that the bus should have been taken off of the road, and one of the drivers of the bus may have been unable to read English well enough to navigate the roadways. Both of the drivers also failed to keep adequate logs of their previous seven days of activity.

As this situation demonstrates, there are often several different causes of an accident. Tennessee recognizes this principle and allows a jury to allocate fault among all of the parties to a suit, including the plaintiff or someone who is a non-party, in order to ensure that the each responsible party bears the adequate level of responsibility for its negligence.

Continue reading "Bus Crash Kills Six, Injures Sixteen Others " »

According to the Associated Press, the Transportation Department released a statement on Thursday saying that its projections showed that highway deaths in the United States totaled fewer than 34,000 in the year 2009, down nine percent from the previous year and the lowest total since the 1950’s. The reduction in deaths is at least partly attributable to increased seat belt use, less frequent drunken driving, and more stringent enforcement of traffic laws. According to the article, highway deaths have steadily declined since 2005.

This statistic may surprise some readers of this blog, which frequently focuses on traffic accidents in Tennessee and their causes by looking at developing technology and its tendency to create unsafe driving conditions. The reality is that these unsafe conditions have been mitigated by the factors listed above as well as ever-increasing vehicle quality that helps to protect passengers, but that it still only takes one accident to cause serious injury or death on the roadways.

Continue reading "Highway Death Totals Lowest Since the 1950's" »

Tennessee imposes many duties on drivers within the state in order to make sure that they are driving in a reasonably safe manner. One such duty is the duty to keep a proper lookout. This duty extends not only to keeping a proper lookout for vehicles and other obstacles in the roadway, but also extends to keeping a lookout for pedestrians as well. Unfortunately many drivers fail to drive in a safe manner in areas where they know or should expect pedestrians to be present. Such places include school zones, college campuses, heavily populated areas, and crosswalks. Failure to keep a proper lookout in these areas can lead to serious injury or even death and is also likely to lead to a personal injury lawsuit in East Tennessee should the driver’s negligent behavior result in injury to the victim.

A memorial service is reportedly being planned for a sixty-four year-old college student at the University of Central Oklahoma who was killed on Tuesday in an automobile-pedestrian accident. The woman apparently took the bus to school on Tuesdays and Thursdays and was stepping out into the street to board the bus on Tuesday morning near her apartment complex when she was struck by a vehicle. Law enforcement officials say it looked like she may have walked into the side of a moving vehicle, and the manager of the apartment complex said she may have gotten her suitcase used to carry her books stuck on something and was trying to get it unstuck as she stepped out into the road. There is no indication in the article of who was at fault for the accident.

The unfortunate truth is that sometimes there is simply nothing a driver can do to avoid accidents, even if he or she is keeping a proper lookout. For this reason, drivers should drive much more slowly and with a much greater degree of caution in areas where they know pedestrians are present just in case something out of the ordinary might happen. Failure to take extra care may result in the driver being liable for the damages should a scenario take place like the one described above.

Source: http://newsok.com/memorial-service-planned-for-uco-student-killed-in-auto-pedestrian-accident/article/3443570

Authorities are now releasing details of a bus crash in Florida that was responsible for the deaths of two people on board the bus. They say an eighty-one year old woman who was driving her car failed to yield and struck the bus on its side. The bus was carrying senior citizens who were on a cultural tour, and there were reportedly thirty-two people on board at the time of the crash. The collision caused the bus to run off the road, roll over twice, and eject some of its passengers. It took the efforts of several emergency response crews to attempt to treat everyone who was at the scene. The driver was not as unfortunate as most of the bus passengers, as she sustained only minor injuries as a result of the crash.

This situation demonstrates how dangerous failure to yield can be on the roadways. Wherever a driver sees a “yield” sign on the road, he or she must wait until no oncoming traffic would be affected by that driver entering traffic before making the decision to enter the roadway. While it is common to see drivers treat a “yield” sign in a similar manner to a stop sign, that is not a correct interpretation of the rule of the road requiring drivers to yield. Yielding has nothing to do with stopping or even slowing down your vehicle, but rather implies that a driver defer to all oncoming traffic before deciding to entering the road.

As seen above, the failure to yield can cause serious accidents and may very well result in a significant amount of liability being placed on the offending driver, who will likely be responsible for any damages and injuries (including, in this case, wrongful death or some similar claim) sustained by any victims should the decision not to yield cause an auto accident. Drivers should always be wary of yield signs and make sure the way is clear before they decide to enter the roadway.

Source: http://news.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/02-23-2010/20100223052007_13.html

Authorities are still searching for the cause of an automobile accident that occurred in Las Vegas, Nevada earlier this week which involved a Pontiac Vibe crashing into the Edgewater Hotel & Casino, killing two people and injuring eight others. Witnesses reportedly saw the vehicle speed through a red light and down the casino’s driveway at speeds of over sixty miles per hour before running into the casino. The seventy year-old driver of the vehicle said that he fainted before the vehicle crashed into the casino, but investigators are not ruling out mechanical problems with the Vibe as being the cause of the accident. Although the Vibe is a joint venture between Toyota and GM, the potential problems with this vehicle are reportedly not linked to the recent Toyota recalls.

Although authorities have not been able to determine the cause of the accident, their eventual findings will be critical to the victims of the case. The party responsible for the accident will potentially be facing personal injury and product liability claims from ten different parties, which more than likely will consist of a couple of wrongful death suits and numerous claims for medical expenses and damages depending on the circumstances. If the automakers are found liable for a mechanical defect in the vehicle, the victims will have a greater chance of recovering the full amounts of the damages and medical expenses that would potentially be awarded since automakers generally have a greater capacity to compensate victims than does your average seventy year-old man.

Continue reading "Police Searching for Cause of Deadly Casino Crash" »

Negligent driving in a construction zone created a sticky situation near Nashville Friday, after a tractor-trailer crashed into a TDOT truck that was carrying adhesive used to lay down roadway reflectors. Apparently the driver of the tractor-trailer had noticed the signs indicating that he needed to get over to the left lane because he was going through a construction zone and had done so. However, he thought the construction zone had ended before it actually had and got back over to the right-hand lane, at which point he crashed into the TDOT truck, pushing it into the median. The driver of the TDOT truck was taken to the hospital with injuries, but is expected to recover. Crews worked feverishly to remove the adhesive from the road, a task which was made difficult by freezing temperatures and the fact that the substance is made specifically to adhere to the road.

This situation illustrates the need for drivers to be especially aware when driving through construction zones, not only of where such zones start and stop but also where construction workers and vehicles are located throughout the construction zone. When in doubt, it is simply safer to remain in the appointed lane until one is completely sure he or she is free and clear of the construction zone. The driver of the TDOT truck was injured, but he got somewhat lucky in that he was actually sitting in a vehicle and not on foot like many workers in construction zones frequently are.

Continue reading "TDOT Truck Rear-ended by Tractor-Trailer, Driver Injured" »

For the second year in a row, traffic fatalities have declined in Tennessee, according to WBIR.com. The site reports that in 2008, Tennessee saw 1,043 traffic fatalities, down 14% from the 1,211 such fatalities that occurred in the state in 2007. So far this year, Tennessee has seen 829 traffic-related deaths, which is down from 928 at this point last year.

The article cites seatbelts as the primary safety measure responsible for saving lives in traffic accidents, but seatbelts have another important purpose in the context of personal injury law: negligence avoidance. Implicit in the duty to drive in the manner that a reasonable person would is the duty to wear a seatbelt, because a reasonable person would do the two following things:

1. Follow the law, which now requires that seatbelts be worn while in a vehicle


2. Choose to use a potentially life-saving device regardless of the small amount of discomfort one might feel while wearing it.

Thus, drivers in Tennessee should make certain that everyone in the vehicle is wearing their seatbelt before putting the car into motion in order to avoid potential injury should an automobile accident occur and to avoid being sued for negligence for operating a vehicle while passengers were not safely restrained.

Continue reading "Traffic Fatalities Decline in Tennessee" »

It goes without saying that interstate driving can be dangerous with so many cars traveling near each other at high rates of speed. Interstate wrecks often involve multiple cars and result in serious accidents. One such accident occurred around 2 p.m. on Saturday at mile marker 335 on Interstate 40 in Cumberland County, Tennessee. Police say a sixty-three year old woman was traveling east on I-40 when she tried to cross a median, hitting a tractor-trailer head-on that was hauling furniture, causing the tractor-trailer to explode. These two vehicles were then hit by a semi that tried to swerve but was unable to avoid the auto accident in East Tennessee. The lady who tried to cross the median was killed, and the two people in the truck that was hauling furniture were taken to the hospital, as was the driver of the semi.

This is a perfect example of the kind of negligent driving that leads to serious accidents and personal injury lawsuits. Behaving like a reasonably prudent driver clearly does not entail trying to make a u-turn across the median on a busy interstate absent some sort of special emergency that necessitates such a maneuver. Cars are simply traveling too fast in too close a proximity to each other to allow someone to slow down in the far left lane, safely drive across the grass, enter the traffic coming from the opposite direction, and quickly get up to a safe driving speed for traveling with traffic. There are very few situations in which executing this maneuver would not be considered negligent.

Continue reading "Driver Causes Fatal Accident Trying to Cross Median on Interstate" »

A man from Clinton, Tennessee died this past Wednesday night after a car struck him while crossing the street in Lexington, Kentucky. Police are still searching for the driver, who fled the scene. This is a classic and tragic example of what is known as a hit-and-run. From both a criminal law and injury law standpoint, commission of a hit-and-run is one of the absolute worst decisions that someone can make while driving a vehicle. The criminal consequences are discussed in today’s criminal blog on www.tennesseecriminallawyerblog.com, while this article deals with the potential consequences should a hit-and-run lead to a personal injury lawsuit.

A driver who is responsible for a hit-and-run will potentially be liable for both compensatory and punitive damages, which can be based on several different theories of recovery. Compensatory damages are awarded to compensate the plaintiff (or the plaintiff’s estate or heirs) for damages actually suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s conduct. This can include medical expenses, loss of life, lost wages, etc. In a hit-and-run case involving a pedestrian, these damages are likely to be substantial.

Punitive damages are awarded to punish the defendant and deter similar conduct in the future. For punitive damages to be awarded in Tennessee as a result of an auto accident, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted intentionally, fraudulently, recklessly, or maliciously in causing the accident. Where a driver strikes a pedestrian, biker, or another vehicle with his car and then flees the scene, the jury is likely to find that such conduct was reckless or malicious, especially if the injuries to the plaintiff could have been mitigated, or death prevented, had the driver stopped at the scene and assisted the victim. Punitive damage awards are not limited to the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff, so the sums awarded for punitive damages can be enormous, especially considering that the juries who award such damages are unlikely to look favorably upon the party at fault in a hit-and-run.

Continue reading "Tennessee Man Dies After Hit-and-Run in Kentucky" »

Search “construction worker hit by car” or some derivation thereof on any search engine and you will literally find hundreds of articles discussing incidents where construction workers who were working on roadside jobs were struck by vehicles and suffered serious injury or death. The human body is an amazing organism, but it is no match for a moving vehicle, whether it is a semi or a Smart Car. Tennessee recognizes that proper road maintenance necessitates that people such as construction workers, utility company employees, and litter crews will have to work on or along the road. Accordingly, the duty to drive as a reasonable person would dictates that drivers react appropriately where they know workers will be working on or near the road.

Very rarely does any work take place along the road without it being made clear to drivers in the area that such work is taking place nearby. Construction zones are often delineated by orange and white barrels and signs that declare that men are working in the area. Utility crews are usually likewise noted by barrels or orange cones and signs warning the driver that utility work is being conducted. Litter crews generally do not use barrels, but may use cones, trucks with flashing lights, and, in the case of certain litter crews, fashionable vests that indicate why a particular individual is assisting the road maintenance effort on that particular day. Such efforts are often conspicuous, and rarely will a defendant in a Knoxville personal injury suit be able to claim that he or she was unaware of work being done in the area where the accident occurred.

Continue reading "Avoiding Negligence in Construction Zones" »

It is no secret that the University of Tennessee’s status as a dry campus does not completely preclude the consumption of alcohol by football fans before and during football games. As such, it seems inevitable that some fans unfortunately make the dangerous decision to drive home while under the influence of alcohol, especially when Neyland Stadium plays host to a late game, giving fans the opportunity to tailgate all day before attending the game that night. Those who attend the games or are driving near Neyland Stadium after the games should use extra caution and be on the alert for drivers around them who may be driving under the influence.

After the University of Tennessee’s most recent football game against Memphis, a driver who was apparently under the influence of alcohol was hospitalized after crashing his car into a parked car on Volunteer Boulevard. The crash caused the driver’s SUV to roll over and land on its top. The driver had to be pulled from the car, but does not have any life-threatening injuries. Police suspect that the driver was driving under the influence because alcohol was found in the wreckage.

A Knoxville police officer quoted after the crash stated that late games are especially problematic when it comes to driving under the influence, because people have a tendency to tailgate or drink throughout the day and then want to drive home at night. Such behavior, however, is both illegal and negligent under Tennessee law and could result in the driver at fault being held liable for damages. A driver is behaving negligently under Tennessee law any time he or she is driving in a manner other than that in which an ordinarily prudent person would drive. Thus, driving under the influence is clearly negligent under Tennessee law. Even worse for the aspiring drunk driver, if the driver who causes an accident is behaving in a reckless manner, he or she may be responsible for punitive damages as well. These are the large damage awards frequently publicized in lawsuits that are intended to deter similar conduct in the future.

Continue reading "Late Games Increase Risk of Auto Accidents" »

The family of an eighty year-old Connecticut woman who died after her chenille bathrobe caught on fire while she was making tea has sued the retailer on multiple grounds, including wrongful death. Chenille is perhaps most easily recognizable as the fabric used in the various patches and letters that are sewn onto letterman’s jackets. Apparently the woman was making tea in her home on February 12, 2005 when her bathrobe suddenly ignited, burning her severely. She died a couple of weeks later. A wrongful death suit is a “survival action,” meaning it can be brought by surviving dependents or relatives of the deceased since the deceased is not alive to bring suit. The lawsuit in this case is seeking thirty million dollars in damages (but keep in mind this is for all of the claims combined, not just wrongful death).

To prevail in a wrongful death lawsuit in Tennessee, a plaintiff must prove four things:

1. That the defendant’s conduct caused the death of the decedent;


2. That the defendant’s conduct was negligent;


3. That there are surviving dependents of the victim; and


4. That the dependents suffered some sort of loss (pecuniary or emotional) as a result of the death.

In the case referenced above, the family is also bringing a product liability claim against the manufacturer, so they are basically alleging that the bathrobe was defective, which caused it to ignite suddenly and kill the decedent. If the family is successful in proving wrongful death, they will have the right to recover three different types of damages.

Continue reading "Flammable Bathrobe Sparks Wrongful Death Lawsuit" »

Tennessee follows a comparative fault approach to negligence claims. What this means is that when a plaintiff brings suit against a defendant alleging that the defendant’s negligence has caused some sort of harm to plaintiff, the court will first determine the amount of damages, if any, that the plaintiff should be awarded. Once this is done, the court will figure out which parties are responsible for the damages (including the plaintiff and unnamed parties to the suit) and what percentage of the damages each party is responsible for in order to figure out what percentage of the total damages the defendant(s) in the suit should pay. For example, if A sues B and the court determines that each party is one-half responsible for the damages suffered by A, then B will be ordered to pay half of the total damages. However, if A sued B, but the court found that A, B, and C (a third party not named in the suit) were each one-third responsible, then B would only have to pay one-third of the damages even though C was not named in the suit. This is so because the comparative fault approach focuses on each party’s responsibility for the damages caused in order to fairly impose liability for damages.

A recent decision by the Tennessee Court of Appeals illustrates the workings of the comparative fault approach. A mother recently sued six different parties after her seven year-old son was struck and killed by a truck owned by a company named Misek while crossing the street. Prior to the hearing of her case against the City of Clinton, the mother had settled and dismissed her suit against Misek and several other defendants had either reached settlement with the mother or had their cases dismissed as well. At trial, the City of Clinton relied in part on the affirmative defense of comparative fault, maintaining that the mother and the other parties involved in the accident also had some liability for any damages suffered by the mother. Since there were only two parties to the suit, the trial court found that each party was 50% responsible for the damages and ordered the City of Clinton to pay half of the total damages sustained by the mother, with the mother herself being responsible for the other half.

On appeal, the City of Clinton maintained that the apportioning of fault by the trial court was erroneous because there was evidence on the record proving that Misek bore some level of responsibility for the death of the child. The Tennessee Court of Appeals agreed. The court held that Misek’s driver knew of the presence of children in the area and failed to keep a reasonable lookout for them, thus making the company responsible in part for the child’s death. The fact that Misek had already settled with the mother did nothing to affect Misek’s level of responsibility for the damages caused under the comparative fault approach. Misek had already settled its suit, so it would not have to pay any further damages for the truck accident in Tennessee, but it would still bear the same percentage of responsibility for the accident in question for purposes of determining fault in the suit currently being tried. The Court of Appeals thus reversed the judgment of the trial court with an order to determine the percentage of fault for all parties involved in the accident, not just those who were currently involved in litigation with the mother.

Continue reading "Dismissal of Suit Does Not Affect Comparative Fault" »

On Tuesday, September 29, Toyota along with the NHTSA issued a safety advisory applicable to approximately 3.8 million Toyota and Lexis vehicles. The advisory warns car owners of a potential unexpected acceleration of the vehicle caused by certain defects in the floor mat, which can result in a car crash, serious injury or death.

To date, NHTSA has received reports of 102 incidents in which the accelerator may have become stuck, causing the vehicle to accelerate. 13 crashes, 17 injuries and 5 fatalities have been reported. (These reports likely include accidents involving Toyota accessory “all-weather” floor mats that were subject to a recall from 2007 to 2008.)

The most notorious incident—and the one prompting the safety warning—involved a family that leased a vehicle from Toyota—a 2009 Lexus ES 350—near San Diego, California. Apparently, while operating the vehicle, the floor mat covered the accelerator pedal and caused it to accelerate out of control, strike an SUV, launch off an embankment and burst into flames. Four people were killed. The precise cause of the accident, however, is still under investigation.

On the NHTSA website, individuals can review incident reports/complaints by Toyota vehicle owners. One customer had this to say:

“I was first in line at a red light. The light turned green. I accelerated aggressively in order to change lanes as I pulled way. When I was across the intersection, I lifted my foot off the gas pedal and it continued to accelerate. Shocked, I depressed the brake, but had no effect on the acceleration. There was nothing in front of me so I pulled to the right side of the road and hit the power button and the car stopped.” She further reported that she took it to her Toyota dealer and they could find nothing wrong. No injuries or deaths were reported, but she says she hasn’t driven the car since.

Continue reading "Toyota and Lexus Warn Tennessee Car Owners of Floor Mat Hazard" »

In just one day, September 26, 2009, more rain fell on Knoxville than the entire month of September in 2008. Thirteen East Tennessee counties were under flash flood warnings as rain covered roads, knocked out power lines and forced campers in the Smoky Mountain National Park to evacuate.

As reported on KnoxNews.com, authorities called this latest downpour “part of the wettest fall season the region's seen in years.” In fact, according to the NPDES monitoring system, the average downfall in Knoxville from 2000 to 2004 was 4.62 inches of rain in September and only 1.82 inches of rain in October.

As a result of the heavy rains, there have been several Tennessee car wrecks due to standing water on local roads and highways. According to KnoxNews, standing water on Interstate 75 led to several cars and trucks hydroplaning in Anderson and Campbell counties. There was also a report of a fatal car accident on Friday along I-640 in which a woman lost control of her vehicle and hit a tree.

Heavy rains present greater risk to Tennessee drivers. Hydroplaning is a particular risk and occurs when a driver loses steering control because a layer of water on the road prevents the tire from making direct contact with the road surface. The loss of road contact causes the driver to lose braking and steering ability. Without control, the vehicle slides until it hits something else—namely a tree, pedestrian or another driver.

Continue reading "Heavy Rains Fall on East Tennessee" »

A voluntary recall for Oval Roll-up Blinds without release clips and all Woolrich Roman Shades, imported by Lewis Hyman, Inc. of Carson, California, has been announced by the CPSC due to the potential risk of strangulation to young children. About 4.2 million of the blinds and 600,000 of the Roman Shades have been sold nationwide. To see pictures of the blinds and shades, visit the CPSC website. (Specific web address posted below.)

The roll-up blinds were sold from January 1999 through December 2003 from between 6 and 20 dollars. They were sold at several retail stores nationwide. The Roman Shades were sold exclusively at Target stores from March 2006 to December 2009 at a cost between 25 and 43 dollars.

The oval roll-up blinds specifically create a risk of strangulation because the lifting loops can slide easily off the side of the blind, exposing a loose loop. The Roman Shade poses a similar risk in which strangulation can occur when a child places his/her neck between the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the backside of the blind. A child can also get entangled by pulling the cord out and wrapping it around his/her neck.

Continue reading "Blinds and Shades with Pull Cords, Exposed Inner Cords and Exposed Lifting Loops Risk Strangulation for Children in Tennessee" »

How often have you had to slam on your breaks, honk your horn, or veer into another lane because someone veered into your lane? Anyone who has spent much time on Tennessee roads—particularly on I-40, I-75, I-140 or I-640—will likely answer, “Too many.”

As East Tennessee motor vehicle accident attorneys, we see a lot of wrecks (or, more precisely, paperwork resulting from a wreck) and are asked to investigate potential claims for compensation. One of the first steps we make is to procure an accident report. All too often, these reports list “unlawful lane change” or language of similar import as a basis for a citation issued to one of the parties involved in the accident.

Liability for unlawful lane change proceeds based on two theories: negligence per se and simple negligence. Negligence per se is a legal doctrine imposing liability on violators of laws that contain within their language specific standards of care. Under a negligence per se theory, breaking the law is conclusive evidence of a breach of a duty of care. Liability therefore attaches upon proof of the violation and proof that the violation proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

A good example of negligence per se in the unlawful lane change context is a violation of TCA 55-8-143, “Signals for Turns.” The statute reads, “[e]very driver who intends to…turn or partly turn from a direct line, shall first see that the movement can be made in safety, and whenever the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by such movement, shall give a signal…plainly visible to the driver of the other vehicle of the intention to make such movement.” Based on this statute and applying the negligence per se doctrine, a driver may be automatically liable for injuries proximately caused by the driver’s lane change if the driver either:

1. Failed to ensure that the movement could be made safely


2. Failed to turn on his/her blinker.

Continue reading "Unlawful Lane Changes Leading to Accidents in Tennessee" »

A vehicle back-up or backover accident occurs when a driver backs up his/her vehicle and unintentionally hits a pedestrian located behind the vehicle, resulting in injury or death. Typically, these accidents involve children under the age of 14, since they are often too small to be seen in a driver’s rearview or side mirrors. Accidents occur most frequently in driveways and parking lots, and drivers are often neighbors or relatives.

The June 2009 issue of NHTSA’s “Crash*Stats” summarizes the scope of the problem. According to the report, there were approximately 262 fatalities and 115,000 injuries to children 14 and younger from non-traffic/non-crash motor vehicle accidents in 2007. Almost half of the fatalities resulted from a backover accident.

Tennessee backover accidents are almost entirely preventable, provided drivers abide by their duty to keep a proper lookout. A good rule of thumb for Tennessee drivers is to always assume children could be present and to check the street, driveway and area around the vehicle before backing up. Failure to adhere to this general rule may expose the careless driver to liability should an unfortunate accident result. In fact, Tennessee law requires drivers to exercise reasonable care while operating a motor vehicle, including maintaining a careful lookout for children while backing up.

The level of care owed varies based on circumstance. SUVs and other large vehicles, for instance, have larger blind spots than smaller vehicles, therefore, operators of these vehicles should take extra precautions to prevent a possible backover accident. These precautions may include rolling down windows to listen for children and backing the vehicle up extra slowly.

Continue reading "Vehicle Back-up and Backover Accidents" »

In addition to the General Assembly’s modification of the case re-opening statute, several other changes were introduced or enacted in the summer of 2009. This entry serves to provide some basic information on these changes and proposals. The following discussion is not exhaustive and does not discuss the implications of the new Tennessee workers' compensation laws.

The State Legislature passed the “Overstreet Bill”, which replaces provisions found in TCA 50-6-204(a). The goal of the bill is to increase the efficiency of resolving workers’ compensation claims by establishing procedures for “reasonable” access to a worker’s medical records.

As introduced, a bill has been introduced that will limit compensation for an injury or death that occurs during a voluntary recreational activity. While the law provides that workers’ compensation only covers work-related injuries, this new bill, as introduced, specifically limits compensation for injuries sustained during recreational activities to those activities where participation was expressly required or where the employer derived a “substantial benefit from the activity beyond the intangible value of improvement in employee health and morale.”

An amendment has also added a new provision to TCA 50-6-241 in which an illegal immigrant worker’s maximum permanent partial disability benefits is capped at 1.5 times his/her assigned medical impairment rating. The new law applies to injuries occurring after July 1, 2009, and only applies if the employer did not knowingly hire the employee at a time when the employee was not eligible or authorized to work pursuant to federal immigration laws.

Continue reading "Other Workers' Compensation Law Changes for 2009" »

Following up on the CPSC’s release of its top ten list of defective child products, this blog entry provides details on the remaining five.

• Polly Pocket Dolls with Magnets: Small magnets inside the dolls and accessories can come loose. These magnets present a choking hazard. Each small magnet can also attract to other swallowed magnets, causing intestinal perforation or blockage. There have been 3 serious injuries reported.


• Simplicity Drop Side Cribs: The sides of this crib can detach, creating space between the drop side and the crib mattress. Infants and toddlers can get into this space and become entrapped, leading to strangulation and other severe injuries. The CPSC has received 10 reports of infant wrongful death associated with this crib.


• Simplicity Bassinets: These Simplicity 3-in-1 and 4-in-1 convertible bassinets contain metal bars that are covered by an adjustable fabric flap, which is attached by velcro. If the velcro is not properly secured when the flap is adjusted, an infant can slip through the opening and become entrapped between the metal bars and suffocate. There have been at least 3 deaths associated with these bassinets.

Continue reading "CPSC Releases Top Ten List of Defective Children’s Products: Part II" »