Houston Personal Injury Blog

On May 7, 2013, the surviving family of five-year-old Jaclyn Santos-Sacramento settled its lawsuit against teenage driver, Carly Rousso. The young driver who turned 19 last week was accused of losing control of her vehicle and striking the Santos-Sacramento family after inhaling, or "huffing", the fumes of a computer cleaning product. According to authorities, Rousso's vehicle swerved across several lanes of downtown Chicago traffic before it jumped onto a busy sidewalk and ran over a woman and her three children. A canister of the cleaning product was found inside Rousso's vehicle upon being searched at the scene.

Inhaling the fumes of common cleaning products to get high, also known as "huffing", is disturbingly prevalent among young Americans, a class whose driving inexperience already places them at higher risk for auto-related injuries and deaths. According to the Alliance for Consumer Education, 2.6 million Americans between the ages of 12 to 17 use an inhalant to get high each year.

Following the collision, Jaclyn Santos-Sacramento was rushed to a nearby hospital where she was pronounced dead only a couple hours later. Jaclyn's mother and two brothers, then 2 and 4 years-old, were also treated for serious injuries sustained after being run over.

19 year-old Rousso has settled the lawsuit brought by the Santos-Sacramento family, which included allegations of wrongful death, negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. In the coming weeks, Rousso will face a criminal trial where she may be convicted and confined up to 26 years in prison.

This case is a tragic reminder of how abruptly drug and alcohol-related car accidents can destroy the lives of individuals and their surviving family members. Rousso's fate should also serve as a sobering lesson to young drivers who too often fail to respect the magnitude of risk they impose on themselves and others when they drive under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

If you or someone you know has been injured in an automobile collision, contact the attorneys at Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Friend by calling 713-222-7211 or 1-800-870-9584.

According to Reuters, Walgreen Co, the largest U.S. drugstore chain, has agreed to pay $80 million in civil penalties to resolve allegations that it violated federal rules governing the distribution of prescription painkillers. According to the DEA, the settlement is the largest in its history. The DEA accused Walgreen of committing an "unprecedented" number of record-keeping and dispensing violations of the Controlled Substances Act. As a result, the DEA said, Walgreen negligently allowed controlled substances such as the narcotic oxycodone and other prescription painkillers to be distributed to abusers and sold illegally on the black market.

Kermit Crawford, Walgreen president of pharmacy, health and wellness, in a statement said the company has taken and will take further steps to improve oversight and training "to ensure the appropriate dispensing of controlled substances and to improve collaboration across the industry." As part of the settlement, Walgreen admitted that it failed to uphold its obligations as a DEA registrant. Six Walgreen pharmacies in Florida and a distribution center in Jupiter, Florida were given a two-year ban from dispensing various controlled substances, the DEA said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the U.S. death rate from drug overdoses has more than tripled since 1990. It said prescription painkillers, also known as opioid or narcotic pain relievers, were involved in more than 15,500 overdose deaths in the United States in 2009. Walgreen said it previously set aside $80 million for a settlement, including $25 million in its fiscal third quarter, which ended May 31. It said it expects the accord to reduce that quarter's earnings by 4 to 6 cents per share.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced on Wednesday, June 12, 2013 that they will refuse to provide additional money to help rebuild West, Texas, where a deadly fertilizer plant explosion leveled numerous homes and a school, and killed 15 people-the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) will continue investigating the ammonium nitrate explosion at the West Fertilizer Plant in West, Texas. The agency is currently conducting witness interviews and collecting evidence related to the explosion. CSB has already documented blast damage and patterns in the community. In addition, the investigation team plans to test and analyze the chemical samples to determine the actual and potential causes of the blast, as well as the nature and magnitude of the explosion. CSB's investigation include the following:

• ammonium nitrate safe handling and storage standards in the U.S. and in other countries, such as the U.K. and Australia;
• land use planning and zoning practices for high-hazard facilities in relation to schools, public facilities, and residential areas;
• ammonium nitrate detonation mechanisms;
• the effectiveness of regulatory coverage, including OSHA, EPA, and state regulations; and
• whether there are inherently safer products or safer ways to store ammonium nitrate and mitigate the damage should a fire or explosion occur.

CSB Chairperson Moure-Eraso stated that, "[t]his accident produced far more offsite community damage and destruction than any we have investigated since [CSB] opened its doors in 1998." CSB plans to release a comprehensive root-cause report with recommendations once the investigation concludes.

If you or someone you know have been seriously injured as a result of the West fertilizer plant explosion, contact the attorneys at Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Friend by calling 713-222-7211 or 1-800-870-9584.

Many of us driving in vehicles often take for granted that they are well constructed. We just assume that because they are sold to us, especially at a high price, they must be reasonably safe and reliable. However, this is not always the case. On June 3, 2013 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) came down with a ruling which states that Chrysler's Jeep Grand Cherokee (1993-2004) is particularly prone to fires and fuel leakages when struck from behind. The NHTSA issued a demand to Chrysler seeking the recall of all Jeep Grand Cherokees from 1993-2004. This would be a big hit to Chrysler financially; however it is necessary to protect those who travel on the road in these vehicles.

A grim tale and one woman's quest highlights this terrible problem. Jenelle Embrey, a Virginia woman, witnessed the horrific death of Acoye Breckenridge, 18, when Janelle Embrey and her father came upon a crash which involved a Jeep Grand Cherokee. The car ignited, and although they were able to save two of the passengers, Breckenridge could not be saved. Having watched as a young life went up in flames before her, Jenelle Embrey launched a campaign to pressure Chrysler to recall these dangerous vehicles from the road. She is not wealthy; however she has spent $2,000 a month on three billboards in Virginia requesting people sign her petition for change.

The hazard of fires from rear impacts is due to the fact that in the Jeep Grand Cherokee, the fuel tank is located behind the rear axle. Most manufacturers place the fuel tank in a much safer position, usually in front of the rear axle or somewhere else that is not prone to being crushed upon impact. When crushed, fuel tanks leak which substantially increase the risk of fire. In the 70s, fuel tanks were frequently placed behind the rear axle. The impetus to change this was brought about by several terrible crashes in the 70s which resulted in fire related fatalities. After manufacturers became aware of this risk, they started to design cars with fuel tanks located in safer places. Chrysler is well aware of this trend and has in fact changed the design of the Jeep Grand Cherokee in 2005. Chrysler however insists that it is not related to the NHTSA investigation or concerns voiced that the fuel tanks in years prior were a safety hazard.

Chrysler so far has refused to comply with NHTSA's demand and plans to contest the investigation. They argue that Jeep Grand Cherokees are no more prone to igniting upon rear-impacts than any other vehicle in its class. The NHTSA's report and analysis of available data clearly dispute this. So far, there have been about 43 fire related fatalities in 1993-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokees. This is far too many and we need to change this terrible injustice.

If you or someone you know have been injured as a result of a defective vehicle, contact the attorneys at Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Friend by calling 713-222-7211 or 1-800-870-9584.

The parents of a disabled North Carolina girl won a victory over the state's subrogation interest, as the Supreme Court struck down a law allowing state officials to seize one-third of a medical malpractice settlement.

In a 6-3 ruling that affects numerous states, the court ruled that the federal Medicaid law pre-empts North Carolina's claim. Though states can take some medical malpractice money to reimburse themselves for Medicaid costs, the court said the one-third amount set in state law was unreasonable.

Emily, who turned 13 last month, was born with serious disabilities and requires between 12 and 18 hours of skilled nursing every day which comes with a large price tag. At birth, Emily was diagnosed with cerebral palsy following her birth by Caesarian section; she is blind, deaf, and mentally retarded. The Armstrongs sued the obstetrician, who had a history of drug abuse, as well as the medical center and others. They eventually settled which set in motion the legal proceedings that led to the court's decision.

The ruling means Emily's family can keep more of a $2.8 million medical malpractice settlement.

More broadly, the court's ruling means North Carolina, as well as states with similar laws, must revisit how they handle reimbursements from Medicaid recipients who have won a lawsuit or reached, as the Armstrong family did, a negotiated settlement.

"(This) is a huge victory for the 62 million Americans, one out of every five, who depend on Medicaid for access to health care," said Rochelle Bobroff of the Constitutional Accountability Center. "This ruling makes clear that the Medicaid statute . . . displaces state laws that conflict with the program."

Offering the opposing view, Texas and 10 other states filed their own briefs supporting North Carolina, and Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. agreed in his dissent that the court's decision was "both unnecessary and unwise."

The problem is that federal law prohibits states from attaching a lien on Medicaid beneficiaries, except to recover money paying for medical care. Money for pain and suffering is not covered by the ban on liens. The North Carolina state law declares that one-third of a Medicaid beneficiary's lawsuit recovery is attributable to medical expenses, and thus vulnerable to being taken with a lien. The court did not buy it.

If you or someone you know have been a victim of medical malpractice, contact the attorneys at Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Friend by calling 713-222-7211 or 1-800-870-9584.

The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that an owner of a pet who was negligently killed may not recover damages for the loss of the pet, other than the pet's economic value. The decision came in the case of Strickland v. Medlen, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2013).

In Strickland, a dog who had escaped his yard was picked up and taken to a municipal animal shelter. While looking for their pet, the owners found him at the shelter; however, they did not have sufficient cash on them at the time to pay the shelter's fee. Before they could return with the money necessary for the charges, a worker wrongly placed the dog on a list allowing him to be killed.

The Supreme Court ruled that "a bereaved dog owner [may not] recover emotion-based damages for the loss." The dog is "personal property, thus disallowing non-economic damages." "[M]ental-anguish damages are [not] recoverable for the negligent destruction of personal property.... [M]ental anguish is a form of personal-injury damage, unrecoverable in an ordinary property-damage case." Therefore, "recovery in pet-death cases is ... limited to loss of value, not loss of relationship." "Where a dog's market value is unascertainable, the correct damages measure is the dog's 'special or pecuniary value' (that is, its actual value)-the economic value derived from its 'usefulness and services,' not value drawn from companionship or other non-commercial considerations."

The law "label[s] [pets] as 'property' for purposes of tort-law recovery." The rule for damages of a dog has "two elements: (1) 'market value, if the dog has any,' or (2) 'some special or pecuniary value to the owner, that may be ascertained by reference to the usefulness and services of the dog.'" The "special or pecuniary value" refers not to the emotional bond, but to "the dog's usefulness and services."

The "actual value" of the pet "can include a range of other factors: purchase price, reasonable replacement costs (including investments such as immunizations, neutering, training), breeding potential (if any), special training, any particular economic utility, veterinary expenses related to the negligent injury, and so on."

"'Tort law . . . cannot remedy every wrong.'" So, the Supreme Court deferred, saying that the Legislature would have to provide any legal recourse. "[A]llowing loss-of-companionship suits raises wide-reaching public-policy implications that legislators are better suited to calibrate." "Amid competing policy interests, including the inherent subjectivity (and inflatability [sic]) of emotion-based damages, lawmakers are best positioned to decide if such a potentially costly expansion of tort law is in the State's best interest, and if so, to structure an appropriate remedy." "The judiciary, ... while well suited to adjudicate individual disputes, is an imperfect forum to examine the myriad policy trade-offs at stake here." This is "best left to our 181-member Legislature."

If you or someone you know have suffered lost or damaged property due to the intentional or negligent acts of another, contact the attorneys at Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Friend by calling 713-222-7211 or 1-800-870-9584.

The family of ten year old Luke Bresette is suing Stafford based Fish Construction, Inc., and eight other defendants after an airport sign in the Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport crushed the boy, killing him. The Kansas native died after the three hundred pound arrival/departure sign toppled over on top of him and his family. In addition to killing Luke Bresette, the sign also injured his mother and his two brothers when it fell.

The Bresette's suit alleges that Fish Construction, Brasfield & Gorrie General Contractors Inc., and BLOC Global Services and others were responsible for the design, construction, assembly and installation of the sign. According to the complaint, Fish Construction was responsible for the initial design of the Multiple User Flight Information Displays, or MUFID, as it is called. The design called for precise materials and assembly and was approved by the other defendants. The design was later modified to increase the thickness of the MUFIDs front panel, which is what the complaint alleges led to the sign's instability. According to the lawsuit Brasfield & Gorrie General Contractors Inc., and BLOC Global Services were responsible for re-installing the sign along with three others. While they took precautions to anchor the other three signs to the wall or floor, the same precautions were not taken with the fourth sign.

The suit was filed in the circuit court of Jefferson County, Alabama.

If you or someone you know has been injured on the real property of another, contact the attorneys at Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Friend by calling 713-222-7211 or 1-800-870-9584.

Two major bus crashes occurred within a four-day span in April, leaving two people dead and more than four dozen injured. One crash, near the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, occurred when the driver lost control of the vehicle and the bus struck a median, which caused it to overturn. The driver during this crash was also the driver in another incident in which a bus struck a person helping at an accident scene. The second major crash occurred when the driver lost control of the bus, which swerved off of a winding mountain road and hit a tree. Reports say that the tree was the only thing that kept the bus from tumbling down a ravine.

These two crashes come on the heels of two high-profile bus crashes that killed a total of 17 people, which prompted the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to become more aggressive in dealing with motor coach operators deemed to be "immediate hazards." FMCSA plans to dispatch more than 50 safety investigators throughout the country to inspect "high risk" carriers, most of them small charter operators.

According to federal safety records, there were 221 bus crashes resulting in 254 deaths in 2009, and 245 crashes killing 276 in 2010. Federal safety inspectors find that small charter bus companies account for most of the deadly crashes because they often operate on the fringe and evade thorough inspections.

Benny Agosto, Jr. is a partner at Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Friend in Houston, Texas. For over 60 years, Abraham Watkins has successfully represented injured people and families who fall victim to catastrophes. Our attorneys have the knowledge, experience and resources necessary to obtain just compensation their clients. For more information, please contact the office of Benny Agosto, Jr. at Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Friend, by letter at 800 Commerce Street, Houston, Texas 77002, or by phone at (713) 222-7211.