Houston, Texas Personal Injury, Insurance Claims, Workplace Injuries Blog | The Callahan Law Firm

No Workers' Compensation Coverage - Texas Companies Opt Out

2012-04-09T11:02:22Z

"Texas is the only state in the country that allows employers of any size to decline to carry state-regulated workers' compensation coverage."

Instead of carrying workers' compensation insurance, many Texas businesses set up their own injury benefit programs thereby saving themselves a lot of money. In other words, they don't have to pay premiums to carry comp coverage. According to a 2010 survey conducted by the Texas Department of Insurance, 15% of Texas businesses with more than 500 employees do not carry workers' compensation insurance. Walmart and Target are examples of 2 large Texas employers that choose not to carry formal workers' compensation insurance. There is, however, a trade off for employers who decide to go "bare" as it is commonly known. In Texas, if an employer has workers' compensation coverage and an employee gets hurt on the job, the injured employee is limited to making a workers' compensation claim and receiving comp benefits which essentially consist of medical care and approximately 70% of lost wages for a period of time, and the injured employee cannot make a claim against his employer for negligence. If a Texas employer does not carry workers' compensation insurance and one of its employees gets hurt on the job in Texas, the employer can be sued for its negligence that caused or contributed to the employees' injury. In this instance, making a claim for negligence is the only way an injured employee can hold the negligent employer liable and force it to pay for the harm it caused. Damages in a non-subscriber negligence lawsuit include medical expenses, loss of earnings, physical impairment, pain, mental anguish and disfigurement, in the past and into the future.

The New York Times, Sunday, April 8, 2012.

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Symptoms, Causes and Remedies

2012-04-02T12:11:20Z

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) may have a complicated name, but its effect is simple: severe pain and other symptoms that can have a serious impact on a patient's quality of life.

Symptoms of CRPS

According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine's PubMed Health, CRPS typically involves chronic pain in an arm or a leg, but it can occur in any part of the body.

When CRPS arises after an injury to a specific part of the body, that area may begin to feel pain that is out of proportion to the original injury. The pain may spread through the affected limb or body part, or the corresponding limb on the other side of the body, and it may get worse with time.

Symptoms can develop in stages or all at once. They include joint pain, muscle spasms, changes in hair and nail growth, contracted tendons and muscles, and severe pain.

Causes of CRPS

CPRS often starts with an injury. A workplace injury, especially one to an arm or a leg, could begin a sequence of physiological events that lead to CRPS.

Although CRPS can occur at a younger age, it is most common between 40 and 60.

]]> Remedies for CRPS

Unfortunately, there is no cure for CRPS, but doctors have developed strategies for managing symptoms and slowing the syndrome's progress. Treatments include physical and occupational therapy, including exercise; pain medications, bone-loss medications, blood-pressure medications and steroids; invasive or surgical techniques; and therapy to help manage chronic pain.

With early diagnosis, the outcome of complex regional pain syndrome improves. This is why it is so important to consult a physician if you are experiencing the symptoms of CRPS, particularly if you have recently suffered a workplace injury.

NHTSA's campaign to end distracted driving showing results

2012-03-05T13:10:38Z

In response to recent studies indicating that roughly five percent of all drivers on our nation's roads at any given time are using their cell phones, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) spent a year testing a pilot program in Syracuse, New York, and Hartford, Connecticut, designed to cut down on distracted driving by stopping people from using their phones while driving. The campaign, with the slogan "Phone in One Hand, Ticket in the Other," included increased enforcement of car cell phone laws, as well as checkpoints for cell phone use. An education campaign was also a component of the program.

The program, modelled after NHTSA's "Click it or Ticket" seatbelt campaign, began in 2010 and included four waves of police crackdowns and education campaigns in April, July and October 2010 and March-April 2011. Impressed with the reduction in the number of drivers using cell phones in Syracuse and Hartford as a result of the campaign, NHTSA plans to test it statewide in an unnamed state.

]]> Drivers who are distracted by cell phones or any other electronic devices are a danger to other drivers and their passengers on the roads. According to the Transportation Secretary, approximately 500,000 people are injured in accidents that are attributed to distracted driving, and another 6,000 are killed each year. Those who talk on a cell phone while driving are four times more likely to get in a car wreck, with that percentage increases to 20 times more likely when texting is involved.

If you were injured in a crash with a distracted or negligent driver, you may have legal claims available for compensation for your current and future medical expenses, loss of wages, pain and suffering, and damage to your property.

NHTSA Study Highlights Dangers of Drugged Drivers

2012-02-06T13:48:02Z

Drunk driving has been the major focus of many highway safety campaigns; however, drug impaired driving is also a significant safety concern. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported in 2003 that about 18 percent of traffic deaths were linked to drugs other than alcohol. A more recent NHTSA study reveals that drug-related intoxication is more prevalent than previously thought.

In November 2010, the NHTSA published its statistical summary, "Drug Involvement of Fatally Injured Drivers." Reviewing Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data for the years 2005 to 2009, the federal safety watchdog found that for those drivers fatally injured 18 percent tested positive for drugs in 2009. In hard numbers, nearly 4,000 fatally injured drivers tested positive for drug involvement in 2009. This was a significant increase from the 13 percent reported for 2005.

While these findings were dependent on testing methods and frequency, the numbers could be higher. Some states and territories, including the District of Columbia and Hawaii, did not test fatally injured drivers. Most states tested between 10 to 70 percent of these drivers. Only sister states, Mississippi (98 percent) and Maine (100 percent) tested nearly all of their fatally injured drivers.

]]> As a result of the NHTSA study findings, the National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) office called for more action on the disturbingly high proportion of traffic fatalities involving drugged drivers. The National Institute on Drug Use (NIDU), a division of the National Institute of Health (NIH), report that driving under the influence of drugs impairs motor skills, reaction time, and judgment. This means that all people sharing our roadways are at risk from drugged drivers.

A majority of states and the District of Columbia have put into operation drug evaluation and classification programs to help law enforcement recognize behaviors associated with drug intoxication. Still other states have enacted "per se" laws that make it illegal to operate motor vehicles under the influence of drugs; however, drug impaired legislation does not have the specificity or consistent monitoring that drunk or alcohol impaired driving laws have.

Driving under the influence of drugs is a serious public safety issue that warrants priority attention. With the risk of drugged driving becoming more apparent, federal agencies, state legislatures, safety organizations, and law enforcement need to really focus on this growing issue.

Truck Accident at Rail Road Crossing Sparks Federal Investigation

2012-01-02T13:23:42Z

On June 24 of last year, a semi-truck in Nevada failed to stop in time at a railroad crossing and slammed into a double-decker Amtrak passenger car killing the truck driver, the train conductor, and four passengers. The cause is under investigation, but the National Safety Transportation Board says the railroad safety equipment was working at the time of the truck accident, noting that the intersection in question had "candolevers, lights, crossing gates, a cross bar, markings on the pavement 700 feet back, [and] a sign 900 feet back."

While the evidence shows the big-rig driver did apply the brakes, for some undetermined reason the truck did not stop in time to avoid hitting the train. The trucking company, John Davis Trucking of Battle Mountain, Nevada, has been cited 19 times in the past for various violations, including two wrecks and unsafe driving.

]]> Railroad crossings are fraught with potential dangers. In fact, in the U.S., nearly every 1.5 hours a vehicle and train collide. Trains move a lot faster than they appear to be moving, so vehicle drivers sometimes believe they can beat the train through the crossing. Trains also take a long time to stop, traveling as far as 1.5 miles before coming to a full stop. A little over half of all public crossings are controlled electronically, and some private railroad crossings are not even marked.

The Nevada railroad crossing had all of the safety features necessary to warn vehicles that a train was approaching, so it's possible that negligence of the truck driver may be the cause of the collision. In addition to the violations that the driver's trucking company had been cited for in the past, the driver of the truck had also received four tickets for speeding in the last three years, three of those for speeding while driving a school bus.

The authorities, waiting for an autopsy to determine if drugs or alcohol were involved, were also considering driver fatigue and inattention as possible causes.

Bill Proposed to Improve Pipeline Safety Sits in U.S. Senate

2011-12-05T13:49:16Z

Following high-profile oil pipeline accidents in the U.S., Democratic Senators Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Jay Rockefeller IV of West Virginia proposed legislation to improve the safety of the pipeline network that crosses the nation. Despite strong bipartisan and industry support, however, the bill has sat in the Senate since early this summer as legislators decide which process the bill should go through.

According to the Courier-Journal, the reauthorization bill contains many new safety provisions for pipelines, including:

Higher civil penalties for violation of pipeline safety regulations
New civil penalties for obstruction of government investigations
New safety regulations for digging near utilities and pipelines
New requirements for shut-off valves in new pipelines
Increased numbers of safety officials and pipeline inspectors

The safety regulations would continue being administered by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which carries responsibility for overseeing the 2.5 million miles of oil, gas and hazardous materials pipelines throughout the U.S.

]]> In May, the proposed legislation was unanimously approved by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and Senate Democrats would like to expedite passage of the bill. However, deviating from normal debate-and-vote procedures with the legislation would require unanimous approval again, and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has objected, stating that debate on the bill should occur.

The bill's new and enhanced regulations were created after major oil pipeline accidents shocked the nation, particularly the San Bruno, California, pipeline explosion in which eight people were killed just over a year ago. Because the consequences of an accident can be catastrophic, Sen. Lautenberg said, "this bill would help to ensure the safety and efficiency of our pipeline network."

Disciplinary Action After School Bus Crash Involving Drunk Police Officer

2011-11-07T13:55:33Z

Drunk driving accidents that cause serious injury or wrongful death can be particularly difficult for accident victims and family survivors to ever put behind them. Negligence that causes harm is intolerable no matter the circumstances, but drivers who get behind the wheel when they are intoxicated are rolling the dice regarding the safety of other drivers and passengers.

For that reason, Texas lawmakers have enacted tough penalties for drunk drivers, including a recent enhancement of consequences for those who have a high blood-alcohol content (BAC), as well as drivers who cause traumatic brain injuries in committing the felony of intoxication assault. But imagine the frustration if you were involved in an accident with an officer of the law whose colleagues decided to look the other way despite his obvious intoxication.

That was the situation faced by Houston school bus driver Teresa Argueta, who was involved in a crash with off-duty police sergeant Ruben Trejo last spring. Despite Argueta's observation that Trejo smelled of alcohol and had open beer and wine containers in his car, she was the one who was cited (for failure to yield) after the accident.

]]> The Houston Police Department initially announced that Sgt. Trejo was not under the influence. Only after a reporter from KTRK-TV started asking questions did the truth come out: Trejo reportedly had a BAC of .176, which would have met the threshold for an enhanced DWI under the new law that went into effect on September 1. Trejo was fired, and the officers behind the cover up were suspended or disciplined.

A dedicated and aggressive Houston DWI accident lawyer must sometimes take the same initiative as that reporter to shine a little daylight on the actual cause of an accident. Evidence of intoxication due to drinking, prescription medications or illegal drugs is not always readily apparent, but an attorney's job is to help plaintiff's explore every theory of negligence and identify every potential source for recovery of damages.

Vehicle Crashes - Eagle Ford Shale

2011-11-01T21:34:02Z

"Three oil-field workers were killed Monday morning in a head-on collision south of San Antonio, the third deadly crash within two weeks on a South Texas road officials said has become heavily traveled because of a boom in nearby drilling." The crash happened on Texas 72 near Tilden, Texas, approximately 75 miles south of San Antonio. It is believed that the crash may have been caused by fatigue. "All three fatal crashes - which have killed five people - involved drivers working in the oil and gas fields" according to Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper Clint Walker. "The increase in crashes is likely due to an increase in traffic, Walker said, most of which stems from a boom in drilling in the Eagle Ford Shale formation." It is believed that the three men killed in the crash were from the Rio Grande Valley and were on their way to work. "'We just have so much more traffic because of all the oil and gas activity,' Walker said. 'These guys are working a tremendous amount of hours and not getting enough rest. It's very, very dangerous.'" The rise in energy prices has led to an increase in exploration for oil and gas in the Eagle Ford Shale region in South Texas and other areas in Texas including the Barnett Shale region. Other regions seeing significant land based oil and gas exploration include the Bakken Shale in North Dakota and Montana, as well as the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and Ohio. Houston Chronicle, November 1, 2011.

Pipeline Industry Influence Over Safety Agency

2011-10-18T16:17:39Z

"Pipeline operators and their trade organizations shaped, managed and provided sizable funding for numerous safety studies conducted by the federal agency that regulates the industry" according to a Hearst Newspaper investigation. The agency is the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration which is involved in the development of national and state safety rules and inspection procedures for 2.3 million miles of pipelines that carry natural gas and hazardous liquids throughout the United States, many underneath neighborhoods. The investigation "revealed that two-thirds of the 174 safety studies of land-based pipelines that the federal agency has launched in the past decade were largely funded by pipeline operators or organizations they control." Requirements imposed in 2002 mandate that outside sources pay at least half the cost of the agency's research, which is unlike any other federal regulatory body. "As a result of that practice, the pipeline industry and its allies enjoy virtual veto power over the direction of the agency's research program." Last year, the pipeline safety agency abandoned a critical study because of lack of funding - no pipeline company or trade organization would co-finance the study. The subject of the study was a type of seam weld present in pre-1970 pipelines - a majority of the current inventory (of pipelines) - that is vulnerable to rupture. Houston Chronicle, June 19, 2011.

Pipelines in Texas

2011-10-17T18:46:37Z

Texas has more pipelines than any other state in the nation. The state has 47,000 miles of natural gas transmission pipelines (large), 103,000 miles of natural gas distribution pipelines (medium), and 51,000 miles of pipelines carrying hazardous liquids. Texas has 25,000 miles of pre-1970 natural gas transmission pipelines, many of which were built with inferior welding standards. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration; Texas Railroad Commission.

Natural Gas Pipeline Explosion - San Bruno, California

2011-10-17T15:50:07Z

The National Transportation Safety Board stated "the main cause of the natural gas pipeline rupture in San Bruno, California, that killed 8 people and burned 3 dozen houses last September was 54 years of bad management by the Pacific Gas & Electric Company, and state and federal regulators who did not notice the problem." The San Bruno pipeline burned for over an hour after the explosion in part because of difficulty in isolating the location of the rupture. It was determined that "the pipeline ruptured at a spot where utility workers installed bad pipe in1956, skipping half the welds and either not inspecting the finished product or grossly misinterpreting the results." The Safety Board is investigating 4 other pipeline failures. Proposed new pipeline safety rules include installation of valves at shorter intervals, requiring valves be capable of operation by remote control, and stricter rules on corrosion control. New York Times, August 31, 2011.

Cell Phone Ban Urged for Commercial Drivers

2011-10-14T17:04:11Z

"After a Kentucky truck crash that killed 11 people, top federal safety investigators vastly broadened their recommendations on cellphones....and said all commercial drivers should be forbidden to use them, whether hand-held or not, except in emergencies. The Department of Transportation is already considering a rule to ban the nation's 3.7 million commercial drivers from talking on cellphones; last year it banned them from texting. 'It's just too dangerous,' said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood."

]]> "Distracted driving is becoming increasingly prevalent, exacerbating the danger we encounter daily on our roadways," according to the chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board, Deborah A.P. Hersman. "It can be especially lethal when the distracted driver is at the wheel of a vehicle that weighs 40 tons (80,000 pounds) and travels at highway speeds."

Research on the safety impact of hand-held phones is contradictory; some studies say their use does not increase risk, but others find that drivers cannot fully focus on both the road and their conversations, even if they do not need their hands to talk."

The Kentucky crash happened at about 5:00 a.m. on March 26, 2010, when a truck driver traveling on Interstate 65 crossed a 65-foot median, went through a cable barrier and hit a passenger van, killing himself and 10 of the 12 people in the van. Investigators determined that in the 24 hours leading up to the crash, the truck driver had used his cellphone 69 times while driving, including 4 calls in the minutes before the crash, the last of them at the time his truck left the highway. New York Times, September 14, 2011.

Safety Efforts to Reduce the Dangers Posed by Large Trucks

2011-10-03T12:43:14Z

Although fatalities involving commercial trucks decreased significantly between 2004 and 2009, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is looking for ways to further reduce fatal truck accidents. They are concerned that the downward trend may be due more to the fact that less people drive when the economy is poor and that when the economy picks up again, so may the number of fatalities.

The Obama administration has made several recommendations regarding the improvement of truck and bus safety, including a proposal that would require equipment in trucks that would record the number of hours the driver has been driving. This could possibly cut down on crashes caused by driver fatigue, the reason attributed to nearly 40 percent of accidents involving commercial trucks.

Other proposed recommendations to improve safety include reducing the number of hours a truck driver is allowed to drive, requiring drivers to take breaks after a certain number of driving hours, and requiring drivers to take time off when they reach the maximum number of driving hours allowed per week.

]]> Additionally, the NTSB has made numerous safety recommendations that have not yet been codified, including requiring features such as electronic stability control to prevent rollovers, adaptive cruise control that automatically adjusts speed to traffic, warning systems that alert drivers when they're drifting into another lane, and warning systems that alert drivers to an impending collision.

Commercial trucks can be dangerous to other vehicles on the road because of the size and weight of the big rigs, which can cause extreme damage to other vehicles during a crash. In crashes between big trucks and other vehicles, any fatalities that occur are nearly always to those inside the other vehicles.

If you are involved in an accident with a commercial vehicle, you may have an action against the driver or the company the driver works for, who may be liable for the accident. You should contact an experienced attorney to protect your rights and determine if you are eligible for compensation.

Panel Discusses CA Blast: What about Pipeline Safety in Texas?

2011-09-19T12:32:35Z

For over a century, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has served the public by providing reliable and safe utility services and monitoring the infrastructure of the utilities. In pursuit of these mandates, the CPUC has had a history marked by tragedy forcing change. Last year's San Bruno gas pipeline accident is one of the best examples of this fact. In June 2011, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued findings on this tragic accident that place some of the blame on the Commission.

At 6:24 p.m. on September 9, 2010, an explosion rocked and a fireball erupted in the streets of a quiet community in San Bruno, California. Witnesses reported that the blast was so great that the heat was felt nearly one-half mile away. When it was all over, eight people had been killed, many more were injured and 38 homes were destroyed. Ultimately, a state of emergency was issued, and an investigation ensued of a gas pipeline owned by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E.)

Since the explosion, the NTSB has directed an independent panel to investigate the fatal explosion and the CPUC has initiated probes as well. The five-member panel studied the explosion as well as investigatory record. The panel also sought to make recommendations to the Commission.

]]> In its report, the independent panel found that there were several contributing factors to the San Bruno natural gas explosion. The panelists specifically stated that PG&E management and oversight issues were a primary issue. The panel also concluded that CPUC lacked adequate resources to monitor PG&E's pipeline safety work as well as failed to recognize safety concerns about the company's performance prior to the fatal accident. Moving forward, the panel has recommended major reform to solve the issues of oversight and safety with PG&E and the CPUC.

As a result of the San Bruno investigation, PG&E, which provides utility services in Texas, retained consultants to review the company's gas transmission system and distribution practices. The Lone Star State, through its Railroad Commission, has established a Pipeline Safety program, which includes pipeline damage prevention protocols. And, as of March 14, 2011, natural gas distribution companies are required to survey their pipelines for threats and make replacements.

The San Bruno explosion stands as a reminder of the importance of pipeline safety, not only for California, but for our nation. Only through reform can corporate accountability be monitored and public safety be assured.

Gel Fuel Investigated after Serious Burn Injuries

2011-09-09T12:16:03Z

On May 28, a Long Island teen was seriously injured when the FireGel fuel he and a cousin were pouring into a firepot burst into flames. Just days later, a Manhattan man and a friend were injured when their similar firepot caught blaze. As a result of 37 incidents, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a voluntary recall of two pourable gel fuels, NAPAfire and FireGel, on June 22, 2011. Prior to the recall, the protection agency issued a warning as to the use of gel fuels.

Gel fuels are a class of clean-burning fuel; generally the byproduct of water and propene. Considered a very efficient fuel, gel fuel does not produce smoke, soot or harmful chemical toxins. For backyard enthusiasts, the fuels were ideal for backyard firepots, tiki torches and other uses; however, as some consumers discovered, blazes associated with these fuels are not textbook fires.

In support of the CPSC warning and in response to additional reports of problems with firepot fires, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has cautioned the public about using these fuels. Basic fire safety steps may not work if lit gel fuel splatters and spills on a person. The fire safety group recommends extra precautions when dealing with gel fuel blazes in order to avoid risk of severe burn injury.

]]> While NAPA Home and Garden has voluntarily pulled nearly a half-million gel fuel products from store shelves, other companies - such as Real Flame - have not. Real Flame contends that not all gel fuels are alike and that blanket bans are not necessary, especially if a product has undergone extensive product testing and is made from different formulations. A number of states, including Illinois, New Jersey and Kansas, are seeking bans on these dangerous fuels.

News stories have revealed a range of injuries that included severe burns and life-threatening injuries. The Long Island teen and the Manhattan man both required life support services. For individuals injured by these dangerous fuels, certain remedies are available. For the Napa Home products, the first step includes contacting the company for firepot refits and for damage claims. Whether injured by Napa or non-recall-affected products, individuals should seek the advice of experienced legal counsel before proceeding.

Products that enter the consumer markets should be safe; however, when dangerous products injure consumers; options, legal and financial, are available.