New York, NY (JusticeNewsFlash.com)–Home Depot, the nation’s number one home improvement store, announced the closure of 34 EXPO Design Center stores. The closure of this division of Home Depot, over the next two months, will leave 7,000 employees without a job.

As reported in CNN Money, the company claims EXPO has been under performing. EXPO Design Center’s targeted customers needing custom design, high-end home upgrades and big ticket decor projects. According to company executives, 5,000 workers for the high-end retail side of Home Depot and up to 2,000 support staff employees, will lose their jobs. The number one home improvement retailer also stated EXPO hadn’t done very well during the recent housing boom. With the current faltering housing market, the massive economic slump in consumer spending, and lack of home remodeling sales retailers, like Home Depot, Lowe’s and other home improvement stores, may continue to suffer.

Home Depot also announced on Monday a salary freeze for all officers and is expecting to report an 8% sales drop for the year by the end of this month. News Source: http://www.justicenewsflash.com - Press Release Distribution

Ringwood, NJ (JusticeNewsFlash.com)–Ford Motor Company has been sued by local residents of Ringwood, New Jersey under accusations of contaminating the soil and groundwater by dumping toxic sludge. The shocking news was reported today by ABC News http://abcnews.go.com/ Cynthia McFadden and Ted Gerstein. Robert Kennedy, Jr., is one of the lawyers, on the legal team, representing the 650 residents filing the lawsuit against Ford Motor Company.

The locals refer to their own Ringwood town, as “Sludge Hill”. Residents claim in court documents they are now sick from growing up on a toxic waste dump. Ford is accused of repeatedly dumping car parts, paint, battery acid and chemicals for several decades. Rusted chemical tubs, whole body parts and visible auto paint remain present on the hill today. The once liquid sludge, now solid, remains laden with benzene, lead and arsenic, which are all heavy metals. These heavy metals are well known carcinogens and listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as hazardous and cancer causing to humans.

The EPA has re-listed Ringwood located in Passaic County, New Jersey, on their Superfund list. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/ Ford was directed to clean up the mess decades ago. Environmental experts are still baffled. Many residents of “Sludge Hill” now have cancer. They are claiming cancer, asthma, various skin disorders and other illnesses are a direct result of living on a toxic waste dump. Executives at Ford are not denying they dumped the waste, which is still there. They are claiming it wasn’t illegal back in the 1960’s. No one can seem to account for how Ford has gotten away with not cleaning up their 40 year old mess. Environmental experts, lawyers, and medical experts, along with the citizens of Ringwood, are still questioning how anyone believed Ford, in 1994, when they claimed the area was cleaned.

Since Ford began to legitimately clean-up Ringwood, in 2006, water tests have come back safe. Attorneys for the injured victims of Sludge Hill claim too little too late; the damage has been done.

JusticeNewsFlash.com top news for serious personal injury lawyers New Jersey News Source: http://www.justicenewsflash.com - Press Release Distribution

Employee Free Choice Act

Employee Free Choice Act

For many years it was conventional medical wisdom that a patient having a Cesarean delivery could only give birth through c-section in the future. This belief was grounded in the fear of “uterine rupture,” a catastrophic event in any delivery and one believed more likely to occur in c-section patients delivering naturally. Incisions or surgical cuts are made to the uterus in Cesarean deliveries.  These incisions leave bands of scar tissue, a development that may make the uterus vulnerable to tearing or rupture under the stresses of natural delivery.

In the late 1970s, it was determined that, in carefully chosen cases, a subsequent vaginal delivery could be attempted in a c-section patient if there were no unreasonable risks posed by the delivery.  This remains true today.

In addition, good and accepted standards of medical care require that the mother be advised of the risks, alternatives and benefits of the choice to be made, a process known as obtaining “informed consent.”

Obtaining informed consent for a natural delivery includes not only advising of the risks of uterine rupture, but disclosing fully what the consequences of the rupture would entail. For mother and baby, the consequences of uterine rupture when it does occur, regardless of the magnitude of that risk, cannot be understated.

With a rupture, the baby is in danger of losing all oxygen. Oxygen deprivation or hypoxia can result in fetal death or permanent neurological consequences.

A uterine rupture may also result in massive blood loss, a potentially fatal complication for the mother.  The injuries resulting from a ruptured uterus may be too complicated to repair with sutures.  In such cases, a hysterectomy - removal of the uterus - will be performed, rendering the mother incapable of bearing children.

Of course, the emergency surgical responses taken to address uterine rupture can result in injury to the adjacent organs, including the bladder.

For all of these reasons, vaginal delivery, following previous Cesarean deliveries, should not be attempted outside of the hospital setting.  Hospitals provide continuous monitoring, immediate access to blood, anesthesia, operating facilities and surgeons.

If you had one or more previous Cesarean deliveries, and sustained injuries during a later vaginal delivery, you should consult with a medical malpractice attorney.  An experienced New York attorney will answer questions about potential legal actions available to you, and explain the basis for medical malpractice claims.  In advance of commencing a lawsuit, qualified medical malpractice attorneys will work closely with experts in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology, and conduct a careful investigation of the care and treatment you received. News Source: http://www.justicenewsflash.com - Press Release Distribution

In New York, the settlement of a lawsuit may require the repayment of all or a portion of workers compensation benefits previously received from the workers compensation carrier.

Workers Compensation Lien

Workers Compensation Law §29 permits an injured worker to collect workers compensation benefits while pursuing a tort action against a third-party, which, generally speaking, is a party other than the plaintiff’s employer or co-employee.

Workers Compensation Law §29(1) creates a statutory lien and an offset for future benefits in favor of the workers compensation carrier. The purpose of the lien to avoid double recovery by the plaintiff while, at the same time, shifting the burden for wage replacement and medical costs to the negligent party.

The workers compensation lien attaches to any funds received by the claimant from the tortfeasor, regardless of source, even if they are described as recovery for pain and suffering.  Parmalee v. International Paper Company, 157 AD2d 878, 550 NYS2d 150 (3^rd Dept, 1989) and 404 NYS2d 319.

But, the workers compensation lien only attached to injuries caused by the tortfeasor responsible for the accident.  The Court of Appeals held in Shutter v Philips Display Components Company, 90 N.Y.2d 703, 665 N.Y.S.2d 379 (1997) that the workers compensation carrier could not offset claimant’s future compensation payments by the amount she obtained pursuant to the uninsured motorist endorsement of her policy because those benefits were not recovered from the third-party tortfeasor. Similarly, claims for loss of consortium are not subject to the lien because those damages are not recovered by the claimant, but rather by the claimant’s spouse.

Not only does the workers compensation carrier have a lien for what was paid in the past, it also has an offset and may take a credit for any future payments of medical, indemnity or miscellaneous expenses and will only be liable for deficiency compensation. This means that the workers compensation carrier will only have to pay bills in the future after the plaintiff has exhausted the proceeds of the third-party settlement and a deficiency exists with respect to payments of compensation and/or medical expenses.  The carrier must reserve the right to offset at the time of the third party settlement or it is waived.

The plaintiff has the responsibility at the time of settlement of securing the workers compensation carrier’s consent to the settlement, or getting judicial approval, if the settlement is for less than what the claimant would have received in future compensation benefits. As the court noted in McComber v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., 28 A.D.2d 402, 818 N.Y.S.2d 1, (1^st Dept. 2006), where the client’s share of the settlement is greater than the benefits to be paid, Workers Compensation Law §29(5) is not defeated by a settlement (without consent) as the statutory provision requires a carrier’s consent to or judicial approval of a settlement only if the settlement is for less than the statutory amount of compensation benefits, and the recovery in the case far exceeded what claimant would have received in future compensation benefits. Thus, nothing in the settlement jeopardized the carrier’s lien. 

Workers Compensation arising from Motor Vehicle Accident

Consider the situation where an employee has both workers compensation and no-fault available to cover expenses for an injury. In such instances, the workers compensation carrier is primary to no-fault, and should pay first, although workers apply for both types of coverage since the available benefits are not necessarily identical.  Available no-fault first party benefits are reduced by any like benefits recoverable from workers compensation. Thus, in cases involving automobile accidents, the workers compensation carrier pays the injured party’s medical bills that would otherwise have been paid by no-fault.

While in the non-automobile case the workers compensation carrier has a workers compensation lien on the proceeds of the third-party lawsuit brought against the tortfeasor, a workers compensation lien arising from a motor vehicle accident does not include payments made by workers compensation in lieu of no-fault’s basic economic loss. Workers Compensation Law §29(1)(a).  Thus, whatever benefits the workers compensation carrier pays that would otherwise have been paid by a no-fault carrier are not part of the workers compensation lien.  However, if, workers compensation benefits exceed no-fault’s basic economic loss, those benefits in excess of the basic economic loss are a lien.

Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C.
Manhattan Office
120 Broadway - 18th Floor
New York, NY 10271
Phone: 212-732-9000
Fax: 212-266-4141
Email: spbmc-ny@TrialLaw1.com News Source: http://www.justicenewsflash.com - Press Release Distribution

Bay Area consumer fraud lawyers say consumer fraud is a broad term used to describe unfair or deceptive business practices, perpetrated by companies with the intent to obtain financial advantage at the expense of innocent and unsuspecting consumers.

January 6, 2008, San Francisco, CA (JusticeNewsFlash.com)–Justice unfair business practices reporters and Bay Area consumer fraud lawyers have learned Count Me In Corp., online payment company, seems to have stolen millions from American Little Leagues. Count Me In Corp., a Washington based online payment company for hundreds of Little Leagues and sports organizations across the country, says it cannot pay the money it collected. Apparently, parents and members can go to Count Me In online and pay their childrens’ sports dues and membership fees with their credit cards. The company claims they charge a minimal $3 dollar fee for this service. The online payment company then pays the Little Leagues and youth organizations. Over 220 groups nationwide have not been receiving dues and other funds Count Me In has been collecting from parents and members. Over 600 school and sporting groups across the country use the firm’s software to process their online registration fees and other payments.

JNF fraud reporters and San Francisco credit card fraud attorneys report lawsuits have been filed in several states and the attorney general in Connecticut urged parents last week to stop making credit card payments through Count Me In’s website. County Me In company CEO and executives say the accounts had been combined with other company accounts. Funds owed to certain clients were used to pay company salaries and other amounts owed to third parties instead of going to the Little Leagues and sports organizations. Apparently company executives have been aware of the problem for over two years and continued with their unfair business practices.

Justice consumer fraud reporters and San Francisco consumer fraud attorneys reveal many Little Leagues and other youth clubs rely heavily on membership dues to cover operating costs. More than 90% of parents have paid for their childrens’ dues and fees with credit cards through Count Me In. Thousands of kids across the country may be unable to participate in sporting events and organizations because their youth groups can no longer to afford to operate. Justice Internet fraud reporters and consumer fraud legal experts are urging families to dispute the charges on their credit. If someone has stolen from you or failed to provide you with services bought with your credit card you may be entitled to compensation. News Source: http://www.justicenewsflash.com - Press Release Distribution

According to Wikipedia www.wikipedia.org, bisphenol-A (BPA) is an organic compound used in an important monomer in the production of polycarbonate. It has an annual production of 2-3 million tons, suspected of being hazardous to humans since the 1930s, and is found in the following common products: baby and water bottles, sports equipment, medical and dental devices, dental composite (white) fillings and sealants, lenses, and household electronics, all CDs and DVDs, and Epoxy resin coatings on the inside of almost all food and beverage cans. BPA is also a precursor to the flame retardant, tetrabromobisphenol A, and was formerly used as a fungicide.

West Palm Beach, FL (JusticeNewsFlash.com)–The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) www.fda.gov has finally decided to reconsider bisphenol-A (BPA) toxicity. The FDA has been accused by its own advisory board of failing to adequately consider research about the dangers of BPA. This toxic chemical is found in many plastic baby bottles, plastic food containers and metal can food linings. The National Toxicology Program, developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services www.hhs.gov, claims there are many reason to be concerned about BPA. This toxic chemical has a high possibility of causing serious harm to fetuses, infants and children.

The Journal of the American Medical Association published a study, in September 2009. The study stated adults, with high levels of BPA in their urine, were more prone to heart and liver disease and diabetes. More than 200 animal studies have linked ingesting minute amounts of the toxic substance to a long list of serious medical conditions:

-reproductive problems
-brain damage
-immune deficiencies
-metabolic abnormalities
-behavioral oddities (hyperactivity/learning deficits/reduced maternal willingness to nurse offspring)

The Environmental Working Group http://www.ewg.org/ asserts millions of babies are exposed to toxic BPA every day across the country. The failure, of the federal and state governments, to ban this toxic chemical continues to place our innocent infants and children at risk. Canada banned BPA from baby bottles and added the chemical to its list of toxic substances in 2008. If you have been injured by a toxic substance you may be entitled to compensation. Consulting a product liability lawyer who specializes in hazardous chemicals may help you and your family recover.

Injured victims voice  Justice News Flash- Voice of Product liability lawyers News Source: http://www.justicenewsflash.com - Press Release Distribution

Uterine rupture during vaginal birth after Cesarean Section (“VBAC”) is most closely associated with a failure of the scar from the prior delivery.  When the scar fails, its tissue separates or tears, injuring or rupturing the uterus in the process. There is an association with the location and type of scar in the uterus and the degree of risk of rupture.

A vertical uterine or T-shaped incision creates a scar most highly associated with the risk of a rupture.  Such a scar is a known contraindication to VBAC.  In contrast, a scar located lower on the uterus is less associated with the risk of rupture. There is also an association between the type of closure (suturing) of the prior uterine incision, regardless of the location, to the risk of rupture.  A two-layered closure is associated with a decreased risk as compared to that associated with a one-layer closure.

When considering VBAC as an option, it is very important for a physician to obtain and carefully review the prior operative report. Having delivered their babies, most patients do not secure and keep copies of previous Cesarean Section reports.  Women should consider doing this if they anticipate future pregnancies and the possibility of delivering at a different hospital.

Written reports enable doctors to ascertain the type of scar and its location.  These documents also provide information about the type of closure.  Equipped with this information, a physician may counsel a patient about the risks and benefits of VBAC. Many medical authorities question the safety of offering VBAC in the absence of a prior written operative report.  There are some institutions, however, that will allow VBAC without such information.  This policy is far from optimum.

In the absence of the written operative report and hospital chart, an informed decision as to VBAC can only be made if the patient provides a full medical history.  Of course, patients’ memories are not perfect, and an expectant mother may not have available all of the relevant details of her previous deliveries.  For non-English speaking patients, the use of a family member as an interpreter is fraught with the possibility of error or inaccurate translation.

Obtaining informed consent for VBAC requires a detailed discussion of the risks, alternatives and benefits of a planned repeat Cesarean Section.  Many institutions recognize the significance of this issue and have specific consent forms for VBAC.  Regardless of the form used, the written consent form must be written in simple words that can be understood by the patient as to the treatment and the risks involved.

As stated in earlier articles, the benefits of VBAC include the avoidance of surgery and the benefit of decreased blood loss, decreased post delivery complications associated with having surgery, and a shorter recuperative period.  The major risk of VBAC is a ruptured uterus and the sequelae of that event.  For a woman who had a prior low transverse uterine scar, the risk of uterine rupture is estimated as 1% or less.  As small as it sounds, a 1% risk of rupture is not insignificant.

The risk of rupture increases four times when the prior closure of the incision was a single layer of sutures, versus a double layer.   Although not an absolute contraindication to VBAC, single suture layering is a piece of information needed to assess the risk.

When the uterus does rupture, the risk of infant death and asphyxia is significant.  The risk is estimated to be as high as 44.5 % in the case of a complete rupture of the uterus, where the infant is literally expelled out of the uterus.

In one particular case of VBAC that led to a medical malpractice suit, the hospital failed to obtain a written operative report of an earlier c-section.  The patient did not speak English.  Her doctors did not appreciate that the type of scar resulting from her previous delivery made her particularly susceptible to uterine rupture. Instead, relying upon summary information obtained from the patient through an interpreter, a decision was made to authorize VBAC.  Uterine rupture took place during the delivery.

Although the infant survived, the young mother lost her uterus and all hope for future pregnancies.  As the case proceeded, it became clear that the patient never appreciated or began to understand all of the risks the VBAC presented.  She was not advised of the consequences of a uterine rupture.

Before considering VBAC, a patient is advised to have her physician review all records of her previous deliveries.  A patient must fully appreciate and understand the dangers and benefits of VBAC, generally, and in her delivery in particular.

If you had one or more previous Cesarean deliveries, and sustained injuries during a later vaginal delivery, you should consult with a medical malpractice attorney.  An experienced New York attorney will answer questions about potential legal actions available to you, and explain the basis for medical malpractice claims.

In advance of commencing a lawsuit, qualified medical malpractice attorneys will work closely with experts in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology, and conduct a careful investigation of the care and treatment you received.

By: Qualified  New York Medical malpractice Attorney Robert G. Sullivan, Esq News Source: http://www.justicenewsflash.com - Press Release Distribution

Orlando Florida (Justice News Flash) — Tragic consequences often result when a property owner negligently fails to observe safety standards and prevent hazardous conditions. The law demands that property owners maintain their property in a reasonably safe manner so that visitors are not injured or harmed while on the property when such property is accessible to the public or in cases which it is foreseeable that a member of the public may enter the land. Property owners can be held legally accountable when an individual sustains injuries as a result of the property owner having failed to adequately maintain the safety of their area.

Though the typical example of a premise liability case involves an individual slipping and falling on a wet floor while shopping, dangerous conditions can be caused by falling ceiling tiles and plaster, uneven flooring, holes in parking lots, malfunctioning escalators and fire alarms, locked fire exits, inadequate store or parking lot security, unsafe or crumbling stairs and/or a lack of usable hand railings, overstocked shelves, and exposed electrical wiring. Not to mention, Florida’s weather features frequently create the possibility of accident and injury. Specifically, thunderstorms, fog and rain are sometimes the cause of hazardous conditions in our state. Just as property owners have a responsibility to prevent dangerous man-made conditions, so too must land and business owners act when inclement weather features create adverse conditions on property.

Additionally, instances of attractive nuisances often put children and others at risk of harm and injury. An attractive nuisance case typically involves unreasonably dangerous conditions or items on property that by their very nature are likely to attract children. Common examples of attractive nuisances include unfenced swimming pools, unattended construction sites, and abandoned buildings and equipment. When a child sustains injuries on a piece of property that potentially qualifies as an attractive nuisance, the property owner may be held liable even if the child was trespassing at the time.

Though premise liability cases may appear simple, it is important that you contact an attorney at the earliest possible time because these cases often involve complex issues regarding liability and insurance coverage. The Orlando premises liability lawyers at Rue & Ziffra, P.A., can assist you if you are injured due to someone else’s negligence in failing to observe sufficient safety standards. Our attorneys look forward to sorting through the many issues that may arise in your premise liability case and pursuing compensation from the responsible parties on your behalf.

Orlando Injury Lawyer Rue & Ziffra, P.A., Law Firm  - 632 Dunlawton Ave, Pt. Orange, Florida 32127, Toll Free: 1-888-246-8613 News Source: http://www.justicenewsflash.com - Press Release Distribution

DallasTexas Trucking Accident Firm Seeks to Educate Public on Alarming Rates of Accident Occurrences and Provide Information for Choosing the Right Dallas Truck Accident Lawyer Among the Numerous Dallas Truck Accident Attorneys Available to Choose From.

Trucking accidents are some of the most catastrophic, often resulting in extensive vehicle damage and fatalities.

These also occur with more frequency than one would expect, especially in the present times when the economic hardships have motivated some to cut corners to save on truck maintenance and other costs. Texas trucking accident law firm, Eberstein & Witherite is seeking to educate the public on the most common reasons these kinds of accidents occur, and provide important information pertaining to the rights of accident victims and their families who may become harmed as a result of another’s negligence.

Statistics state that more than 400,000 accidents involving big rig vehicles occur every year, with more than 5,000 resulting in fatal injuries. In many of these cases, the actions of truck drivers or the companies they work for are to blame. Some are attributed to causes such as:
*     Driver fatigue
*     Drug or alcohol abuse
*     Improper training
*    Insufficient driver experience
*     Poor truck maintenance
*    Cargo overload
*    And several other reasons

Many times, those involved in trucking accidents within the DFW metroplex that may be attributed to the negligence of another party, require the assistance of a Dallas truck accident attorney to help get their lives back in order.

A qualified Dallas truck accident lawyer can assist accident victims with ensuring that responsible parties pay for their negligence or wrongdoing.

Eberstein & Witherite’s Dallas truck accident attorneys are regarded as skilled and experienced in helping accident victims receive the compensation they are entitled to under the law. Attorneys of the Texas trucking accident law firm are encouraging those who have or know someone who has incurred damages as a result of a trucking accident to visit them online today at http://www.dallastexaspersonalinjurylawyers.com for consultation regarding their case.

The firm’s website also contains informative data about their Dallas truck accident lawyer team, and what individuals should know about their legal rights.

For more information about Eberstein & Witherite, please visit http://www.dallastexaspersonalinjurylawyers.com

Watch Eberstein & Witherite, Dallas TX Truck Accident Attorneys video testimonial

If signed into law, the Act would require an employer to recognize a union if a majority of workers in a proposed bargaining unit signed forms indicating that they wanted representation. The Act would also provide that when a newly formed union and an employer are unable to agree on an initial contract within ninety days, either party could request mediation. If such mediation proved unsuccessful after thirty days, the parties would then be subject to binding arbitration.

Finally, the Act would strengthen penalties against companies that break laws during organizing campaigns and the negotiations of a first contract. It would impose civil fines of up to $20,000.00 per violation on employers who willfully or repeatedly violate workers’ rights. It would also require employers to pay triple back pay damages to workers who have been illegally fired or discriminated against during union campaigns.

To speak with an employment law attorney regarding labor issues, contact the employment law attorneys at Clouse Dunn Khoshbin LLP at info@cdklawyers.com.