Question: Where does Wall Street meet Madison Avenue?

Answer: At the U.S. Supreme Court!

Now I’m not a native New Yorker, but with a quick trip to GoogleMaps, even I can figure out that Wall Street never meets Madison Avenue. Madison Avenue, of course, is the legendary base of our nation’s largest advertising firms. Wall Street, well, you know who they are.

That all changed on January 21st when the U.S. Supreme Court rewrote the map of political campaign funding by paving the road for corporations (including those titans of Wall Street who were still busy counting their record bonuses when they got this extra bonus from the Court) to directly finance political advertisements.

This is nothing less than a new bailout for corporate America. Now they can advance their political (read self-serving) agenda with huge financial underwriting of ads favoring candidates who will support laws that will give them and unchecked ability to pursue profits at the expense of everything…including safety in vital industries like health care, trucking and hundreds of other businesses that will make your lives more dangerous.

Do you want quick confirmation of what kind of special corporate interests were backing this decision, take a look at the “friend of the court” (amicus) briefs filed by the likes of the NRA and the Chamber of Commerce.

Don’t just take my word for the impact of this decision. Here’s a link to President Obama’s comments about this decision.

This is a huge change in the political landscape that your legislators need to address immediately. I urge you to contact your legislator and return the voice of the electorate to the people and not to Wall Street. Tell them: “DON’T LET WALL STREET MEET MADISON AVENUE!”

I am thrilled to report the news that is beginning to filter out of Washington. Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, is expected to announce today that the DoT is going to ban all text messaging by commercial drivers. As one who has blogged about the dangers of distracted driving for years, I am thrilled to hear that this is going to happen.

To whom will this apply? To all “commercial drivers.” Based on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, this means anyone driving a truck with a gross vehicle weight over 10,001 pounds, anyone who drives a vehicle designed to transport more than 8 passengers for compensation, anyone driving a vehicle designed to carry more than 15 passengers (including the driver) that does not transport passengers for compensation, and anyone who transports hazardous materials.

Secretary LaHood has made this sort of driver safety a prioity since taking over as the Secretary of the Department of Transportation. The new regulations will impose substantial fines against violators – including civil and criminal penalties of up to $2,750.

This new regulation is necessary because research on behalf of the Federal Motor Carrier Sazfety Administration found that drivers who text message take their eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds out of every 6 seconds while texting.

From the state perspective, I have continued to consult with legislators and there is movement in Pennsylvania on a total text messaging while driving. Of course, I’d like to see a broader based ban on unsafe cell phone use, but since I recognize that positive safety legislation is a process, I’ll certainly take this for now.

This is a great example of your state and federal government taking affirmative steps to make the roads safer for you and your family. I applaud all of this progress.

Carbon County, Pennsylvania, has begun the process of selling Weatherwood, the county-owned nursing home in Weatherly, Pennsylvania.

I’m blogging to address comments made in the press by Carbon County Commissioner, William O’Gurek. According to Mr. O’Gurek, a state inspection last summer: “‘The deficiencies had an adverse effect from the perspective of image, finance and really the overall question of whether we should be in the nursing home care business.”

Let’s be clear about what a “deficiency” means in the world of nursing homes. It means that state inspectors came in, inspected the nursing home, reviewed patient charts, and concluded that the nursing home was not following the law in terms of providing the safest patient care. In short, the care rendered was “deficient.” In short, it means that the facility was unreasonably unsafe.

For a county official to say that these deficiencies simply created an image problem, or a finance problem, is a gross understatement that fails to comprehend the fact that patients health and well-being was clearly being jeopardized when the inspectors cited the facility.

Don’t just take my word for it, all of the “surveys” are a matter of public record and you can click here to see the Weatherwood surveys.

Those of you who’ve read this blog over the years know that one of my passions is to educate the public – especially teen drivers – about the incredible dangers of cell phone use while driving.

I’m happy to announce that there is a new advocacy group that is addressing these issues with the full support of the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, Ray LaHood. “Focusdriven” is a group that hopefully will help raise awareness of the dangers of dsitracted driving, just as MADD did for drunk driving.

Focusdriven has posted a series of videos on YouTube which all of us should watch. This is a lesson that needs to be repeated until the law leads us to safer roads. Click here to link to Focusdriven videos about the dangers of distracted driving. Please share these videos with your friends and family – especially young drivers!

In a highly significant reversal, the Veterans Administration has reversed prior pronouncements and acknowledged that doses of radiation administered to 114 veterans receiving treatment for prostate cancer between 2002-2008 were wrong.

The treatments, called “prostate brachytherapy”, is when radioactive “seeds” are actually implanted in the prostate to kill the cancer cells. VA records show that 114 veterans received these treatments between 2002 and 2008, the time frame during which the radiation errors were made.

Signs of complications from the wrong radiation include recurrences of the prostate cancer and other injuries to the prostate. If you received treatment for prostate cancer including radiation brachytherapy between 2002 and 2008, you should bring this new evidence to a docotr’s attention immediately.

Claims against the VA for those injured by the wrong radiation shoulde be evaluated promptly by an attorney familiar with handling medical negligence claims and one who is familiar with the process of pursuing a claim against the VA. If you or a family member have questions about your treatment for prostate cancer at the Philadelphia Veterans Administration Hospital, please send an e-mail to one of our skilled Philadelphia trial attorneys by clicking here.

As any reader of this blog has seen, I don’t always agree with the Editorial Board of the Philadelphia Inquirer – especially after the pro-Right/Big Business bias evident in the post-Tierney ownership era. But that won’t stop me from giving a strong vote of approval to the Inquirer’s New Years morning editorial: “Driving Rites.”  I would actually add some important information to the editorial. For example, every time I speak to parent groups about safe teen driving, I usually remind them that the number one cause of death among teens in the United States is motor vehicle accidents. Over 5,000 teens a year are killed in cars. Understand this simple fact – kids die in cars – more than any other cause of death.

Imagine just for a minute if we dedicated the sort of resources to saving teen lives in cars that we would dedicate to a medical cause of teen death.

I agree with the editorial that a good place to start is to limit the number of passengers permitted in any car driven by a youthful driver in Pennsylvania. While we’re talking about a wish list for the Pennsylvania legislators, how about taking real steps to limit cell phones and text messaging in cars? There was some really positive initiative for this last year but legislation introduced by Rep. Josh Shapiro was tanked for reasons that had more to do with petty politics than good lawmaking.

Maybe, just maybe, 2010 will be the year when Pennsylvania moves to the forefront of states promoting safe teen driving.

I’m sitting down to write this post at the end of the Thanksgiving weekend. It is fair to say that two very different impressions struck me during the last week.

First, there was a tragic accident in East Coventry Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. A Honda SUV carrying six high school students (five of them from Pottsgrove High School) crossed the road, flipped, and struck an oncoming car. Two of the kids in the SUV passed away in this tragic accident. Others remain hospitalized now – almost one week after the accident. As the facts have come out, we’ve learned that the driver had received his driver’s license just three weeks earlier.

The accident reconstruction hasn’t been released, but I’m sure we’ll see that driver inexperience combined with the distraction caused by multiple teens in the car to cause this accident.  I’ve been lecturing and writing on this issue for a few years. I teach new drivers and their parents that each additional teen multiplies the risk for the new, inexperienced driver. We need to carefully examine how many teens should be allowed in  the car with a new driver. Right now the only limit under Pennsylvania law is that you can’t have more passengers than there are seatbelts. Contrast this with New Jersey where a new driver can’ t have more than one peer in the car.

There is legislation pending in Harrisburg to address this safety issue. Don’t hold your breath waiting for this law to change. Remember, this is a state that can’t even pass meaningful cell phone and text messaging bans. Until our law changes to protect teen drivers, this is a matter of parental responsibility. Don’t let your kids out the door until you know who will be in the car so you can monitor your teen driver’s safety – and the safety of your child as a passenger.

So what’s the good news? The good news is a bit of corporate responsibility and good citizenship that I like to acknowledge in my blog. I saw an ad by Verizon Wireless that is designed to make people stop texting and driving.  I was really glad to see this PR campaign by one of our country’s biggest wireless providers. The focus of the TV ad is a billboard that shows the new message being installed: “Please don’t text and drive” with the Verizon Wireless logo. Here’s a link to the TV spot:  http://aboutus.vzw.com/wirelessissues/DTAD%20TV%20Ad.mov . Hopefully, we’ll continue to see progress on this important safety issue. Thanks Verizon, I hope your competitors join you in this fight soon.

I am often asked by friends and clients which judges they should support in the upcoming 2009 Pennsylvania Judicial Elections. My choices are bi-partisan (at least one of the candidates below is a Republican) and focuses on which judges will best protect the civil justice rights that are so important to my clients. Here is my 2009 Election letter to friends and clients:

Dear Friends,

We are just days away from one of the most important elections in the next ten years — a contest that will decide who will be our seventh state Supreme Court Justice. There are also four seats on the Superior Court, two seats on Commonwealth Court, as well as many county Court of Common Pleas openings.

Individually, we must do everything we can to support the candidates who will do the best job to promote a fair and effective justice system. That includes getting out the vote on Election Day:

• Talk to your family and friends and co-workers about what’s at stake.
• Make sure they will be voting.
• Make sure you vote!

Getting out the vote is crucial because the seventh Justice on the Supreme Court will likely impact redistricting, when state legislative and federal district are redrawn. Reapportionment affects incumbents and challengers alike, representation for minorities and women, what bills get voted, and the direction of public policy for the next decade.

I urge you to vote for the following candidates:

Pa. Supreme Court:                  Jack Panella

Pa. Superior Court:                   Ann Lazarus, Sallie Mundy, Teresa Sarmina, Robert Colville

Pa. Commonwealth Court:        Linda Judson

I have met each of these candidates and I believe that they are the best choices to keep our appellate courts fair and preserve access to justice for all who most need to rely on the courts to enforce their rights against entrenched interests.

Let me add a very personal note about why YOUR VOTE does matter. Three years ago, the legislative balance in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives came down to one race in Chester County where the winning candidate won by 28 votes out of more than 23,000 votes cast. An even percentage differential made a difference in the race for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota in 2008.

Please vote on Tuesday! Bring your loved ones. Ask your co-workers if they have voted. Together we can keep our civil justice system open and working for all of us.

Sincerely,

Rob Sachs

A note of explanation is needed to my friends in Philadelphia who might ask why the Inquirer didn’t endorse Judge Panella:

• First, I think they made a mistake;
• Second, keep in mind that this paper is owned by a group of businessmen led by Brian Tierney, who is the publisher;
• Third, recall that last year, the editorial Board of Tierney’s paper split its endorsement between Obama and McCain…in a city and state that voted overwhelmingly for Obama;
• Fourth, a quick Wiki check reveals that Tierney used to work for President Reagen’s administration in the 1980s and he worked on President George W. Bush’s campaign;
• Finally, under Tierney’s ownership, the Inquirer has begun publishing a column by John Yoo…who? You’ll remember that he’s the former Bush adminstration guy who wrote the memo saying torture is okay.

So I think we know how that paper leans on these political questions.

The bottom line is you should get out and vote. It really is the most fundamental expression of what it means to live in a free society.

I’ve been tracking the saga of Dr. Gregory Salko and Peggy Rogers, the assisted living facility resident from Wayne County, Pennsylvania who died as a result of abuse and neglect (undiagnosed breast cancer) in Salko’s assisted living facility since it was first discovered. I’ve blogged on this tragedy many times:

March 27, 2009: Pennsylvania Assisted Living Facility Administrator Sentenced- Update on Abuse and Neglect at the Hands of Dr. Salko at Birch Hills

August 6, 2007: Death in a Northeast Pennsylvania Assisted Living Facility

August 7, 2007:Death in a Northeast Pennsylvania Assisted Living Facility…There’s More!!

August 10, 2007:Pennsylvania DPW Tells Birch Hills Residence and Mallard Meadows NO NEW ADMISSIONS

August 19, 2007:Salko Saga at Birch Hills Continues to Shock

August 27, 2007:Birch Hills & Mallard Meadows Want Licenses Back: Not To Worry, the Fox is Guarding the Henhouse

September 23, 2007:Nursing Homes: Concerns Abound

October 16, 2007:Dr. Greg Salko/Birch Hills Update

The facts here were exactly the sort of “take your breath away” neglect that makes anyone with a heart wonder aloud how Congress could seriously be discussing limiting the legal rights of people injured a a result of medical neglect. I won’t even put my trial lawyer spin on the facts. This is taken right out of the U.S. Attorney’s press release of October 26, 2009:

Rogers was a 69-year-old resident of Birch Hill, an assisted living facility Salko owned in Carbondale. On August 20, 2006, Rogers was admitted to the Carbondale Hospital emergency room wearing soiled clothing and smelling of urine with thick, flaking scales of dead skin on her legs and feet. Worse, Rogers’ brassiere was encrusted with fluid draining from an open, four-centimeter-wide lesion on her right breast. Subsequent testing confirmed Rogers had advanced breast cancer and Rogers died less than three months later.

CARBONDALE PHYSICIAN SENTENCED ON FEDERAL HEALTH CARE FRAUD CHARGES (http://www.justice.gov/usao/pam/press_releases/Salko_10_26_09.htm ).

So here is the final – if unsatisfactory – chapter. Dr. Salko has been sentenced to two years of probation, 100 hours of community service, and a fine of $20,000.00. As far as I know, that’s all Dr. Salko will ever have to face. When all of this blew up, Peggy Rogers didn’t have any known relatives. As a practical matter, this means that no one will ever be able to pursue a civil lawsuit to make Dr. Salko answer in civil court…for shame. Like many trial lawyers, I’d love a chance to make this guy really squirm and have to finally face a trial in front of a jury of his peers.

A lot of people engaged in the health care debate ongoing in Washington are blaming trial lawyers, and their clients,  for a phenomenon improperly dubbed “defensive medicine.”

What exactly is defensive medicine? Organized medicine would have you believe that it is the ordering of unnecessary tests and studies just to protect a health care provider from a (patient’s) claim that the doctor missed something or wasn’t careful in his or her medical work-up. If all of these tests were cut out, the delivery of health care would be cheaper – or at least that’s how the argument goes. Call it what you will, they say doctors wouldn’t have to cover their backsides if they had what amounts to immunity from lawsuits.

As recently as the end of last week, the Congressional Budget Office (”CBO”) which had concluded for years that there was no evidence of “defensive medicine” is now reporting that there is “defensive medicine”, the cost of which can be eliminated with drastic elimination of civil justice rights for the very people injured by medical negligence. Think about this, if a doctor isn’t afraid of being sued, he or she won’t order all those tests. Then when cancer or some other condition that had originally taken the patient to the doctor is missed, the patient won’t be able to sue for it…and even if they do, “damage caps” will force them to accept a “one size fits all” damage award. As a result of these changes, health care costs will go down and we’ll all have cheaper health care. There’s a great analysis of CBO’s latest pronouncement on “defensive medicine” on the Center for Justice and Democracy blog and I commend you to it: “Center for Justice & Democracy Critiques CBO Analysis of Medical Malpractice Costs.”

Sounds good, doesn’t it? What if it’s your cancer or your parent’s hip fracture that isn’t diagnosed?

What we’re really talking about is who bears the cost of medical certainty? What is the benefit of so-called “defensive medicine?” For the patient, the extra test will tell you if you do or don’t have a serious condition. For the doctor, there’s medical certainty that you’ve properly diagnosed the patient…read: done no harm. Isn’t that what it’s supposed to be about? The Hippocratic oath is to “do no harm.” If you’ve found the best answer that modern science can offer, isn’t that really doing no harm?

This debate is all about how the issue is framed. The opponents of health care insurance reform are using this as a chance to limit lawsuits. Maybe instead of talking about “defensive medicine” the proper label for this cost in our health care system is the cost of medical certainty. We should re-focus our debate on how much we as a society are willing to pay for proper and timely diagnosis – using the technology available to us in the US – rather than trying to make those already hurt by medical negligence bear the further cost of not having an adequate remedy in court.