Mr. Brusca how pressure ulcers are developed, as well as what needs to be done to prevent them, as they can be lethal if left untreated.

Mr. Brusca explains, "Pressure ulcers are evidence of neglect.  In fact, Medicare will not may for pressure wounds a patient develops in the hospital if the wound goes past Stage III- Medicare believes these should never happen absent neglect."  One of the issues many care facilities face is minimum staffing levels.  "Unfortunately, in these scenerios there is insufficient staff to make sure residents are appropriately repositioned and kept clean and dry.  The terrible outcome is pressure ulcers."

To read the full article, click here.

Mr. Brusca explains that ALFs have become profitable for investors, which creates natural tension “especially when profit may be increased by decreasing staff levels and competence.”  There is a lack of a uniform and specific regulatory structure amongst ALFs, which could potentially lead to a significant variation in levels of care and service. 

Mr. Brucsa states, “ALF litigation is on the rise, and there is no inclination that this trend is likely to reverse.  However, understanding how to properly handle these complex claims is important to protecting your client’s rights.”

To read the full article, Click Here.

The seminar will discuss the must-do approaches and the pitfalls to be avoided when questioning a witness in a mock direct and cross-examination.  Attendees will learn how to capture the attention of everyone in the courtroom and discover how to enhance the impact of a witness’s testimony and get the desired effect on the court and/or jury.  Topics that will be covered include the beneficial questioning of witnesses, overcoming evidentiary issue hurdles, keeping the rapt attention of your audience, preparing your witness to present their “story”, and organizing and structuring your performance in the courtroom.

For more information, including details about tuition, click here.

• U.S. Department of Transportation Orders Shutdown of Michigan-based Highway Star, Inc. Trucking Company and Driver Involved in Fatal Crash
• FMCSA Orders Shutdown of Oklahoma Bus Company for Violating Consent Agreement
• Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Declares Georgia-based General Trucking, Inc., to be an Imminent Hazard to Public Safety

To read the full article, click here.

Over 100 volunteers, families and children attended an event on December 8th, which helped spread the word about the fundraising challenge. Since then, over $50,000 has been raised, helped largely by a $25,000 matched donation by Byers’ Choice Ltd.

Mr. Tomlinson said, “It is heartwarming to see the community come together to revitalize such a magical place for our children.” He went on to explain, “Because of the efforts of the community, and the generosity of Byers’ Choice, we only need to raise an additional $100,000 by March 31 in order to fully renovate and restore the iconic castle with new play features.”

Donations for Save Kids Castle will be accepted through the website www.SaveKidsCastle.org.

To read the full article, click here.

The award, which honors and recognizes an individual for unselfish contributions to both the legal profession and community, was created in 1995 in memory of Michael J. Nizolek who served as a past-president of the Mercer County Bar Association.

The article states that Mr. Stark “has pioneered the use of video and demonstrative evidence in the courtroom, and his victories have led to safer cars, bicycles, recreational vehicles, industrial equipment and roads. He has received awards recognizing his expertise, advocating for people with brain, spinal cord and burn injuries.” 

You can read the full article here.

Mr. Kravitz states, “What we’re seeing now are requests to rifle through records going back 10 or 20 years that often have no relevance to the claim. The second major privacy issue with workers’ compensation is the increasing use of social networks to investigate claimants. In some cases, insurers are even asking for the passwords to their claimants’ private Facebook accounts.”

You can read the full article online here.

On Sunday April 15th Kristyn and her team will participate in the 17th Annual Dash for Organ & Tissue Donation Awareness in Philadelphia, PA. We'd like to help Kristyn and her teammates raise money, and awareness, for this great cause.

Visit Stark & Stark's Facebook page from March 15 - April 15 2012 and "like" us. For each "like" we receive, Stark & Stark will donate $1 to Kristyn's Team: Got Kidney?

For more information on the Donor Dash, and the Gift of Life Organization, please visit their website online here.

Carlia Brady is a member of Stark & Stark’s Lawrenceville, New Jersey office, specializing in Accident & Personal Injury Law. For more information, please contact Ms. Brady.

1. Death
2. Dismemberment
3. significant disfigurement or scarring
4. a displaced fracture
5. loss of a fetus
6. a permanent injury

Thus, even if you suffer a significant permanent soft-tissue injury to your spine or joints, your case may still get dismissed. One way to overcome the threshold is to show, through expert testimony, extensive and consistent treatment through the day of trial.

When you choose the “Verbal Threshold” you have not only limited your right to sue, but you have also limited the right of your spouse and/or children to maintain a lawsuit as well. Fortunately, your election to limit your right to sue will not apply to your parents and/or grandchildren who live with you. Nor will your election apply to listed drivers who are not immediate family members.

Rather than limit your rights and those of your resident family members, elect the “no limitation on lawsuit” or “zero” threshold on your auto insurance coverage.  The “zero” threshold permits you to sue for non-economic damages without limitation.

Carlia Brady is a member of Stark & Stark’s Lawrenceville, New Jersey office, specializing in Accident & Personal Injury Law. For more information, please contact Ms. Brady.

Carlia Brady is a member of Stark & Stark’s Lawrenceville, New Jersey office, specializing in Accident & Personal Injury Law. For more information, please contact Ms. Brady.

An article in today’s Trentonian states, “After the jury found in favor of the plaintiff on Monday, Martin’s lawyer, Denise Mariani of the Lawrenceville-based law firm of Stark and Stark, issued a statement calling the verdict ‘fair in light of the serious injury’ Martin suffered. Mariani said the defense ‘tried to call (Martin) a liar, but the jury determined it was really the defense that was loose with the truth.’ The jury awarded Martin $200,000 for pain and suffering, $35,000 for medical expenses, and $15,000 for lost wages, said attorney J. Robert Bratman.”

October is breast cancer awareness month. Stark & Stark would like to aid Susan G. Komen for the Cure® in their mission to save lives, empower people, ensure quality care for all and energize science to find cures. Visit Stark & Stark's Facebook page during the month of October and "like" us. For each "like" we receive in October, Stark & Stark will donate $1 to Susan G. Komen for the Cure®.
Together, we can save lives.

In addition, the following may also constitute evidence of a dog's dangerous behavior: the dog is being confined away from other animals and people; the dog is undergoing rehabilitation with a trainer who is experience and skilled in handling aggressive dogs; and the dog exhibits fearful behavior. In the appropriate case, a canine behavior expert may be retained to investigate the evidence and assess the dog's behavior. The canine expert may testify whether a god is aggressive, as well as whether "fearful" dogs can turn aggressive towards strangers. This expert testimony may also constitute additional and compelling evidence of the dog's dangerous behavior.

In conclusion, even though a dog has never bitten anyone before, a viable claim may still be lodged against a person who does not own the dog but merely keeps it on it's property if there exists other evidence of the dog's aggressive behavior.

If you, or someone you know, has been injured due to a dog bite, feel free to contact me here in my firm’s Lawrenceville, New Jersey office for a free consultation to see if you are entitled to monetary compensation for your injures.

In Malone, our Appellate Division ruled that N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.3 does not limit the use of a hands-free telephone to listening because a motorist using a hands-free wireless telephone is also permitted to hold the wireless telephone in one hand while activating, deactivating or initiating a function of the telephone. The Appellate Court concluded that initiating a function of the hands-free wireless telephone includes driving; and it may be necessary to press more than one button to “activate, deactivate, or initiate a function of the telephone.”

The Appellate Court emphasized, other than in an emergency, a motorist may only engage in a conversation on a cell phone if the telephone is equipped with a hands-free device. The motorist may not hold the telephone in one hand while talking to, or listening to, the person on the other end of the phone. A motorist is also prohibited from holding the telephone to send a text message or electronic mail. The only circumstance in which a motorist is permitted to hold a wireless cell phone in one hand, with the other hand on the steering wheel, is when the motorist is activating, deactivating or initiating a function of the telephone, which includes answering the phone, ending the phone call or dialing a phone number.

Our Appellate Court pointed out that seven other states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes that impose limits on the holding of a cell phone while driving. See Cal. Veh. Code Section 23123 (2011); Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 14-296aa (2011); Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, Section 4176c (2011); D.C. Code Section 50-1731.04; Md. Code Ann., Transp. Section 21-1124.2 (2011); N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.3; N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law, Section 1225c (McKinney 2011); Or. Rev. Stat. Section 811.507 (2011); Wash. Rev. Code Section 46.61.667 (2010).

I believe in the near future additional states will enact laws to impose limits on the holding of a cell phone while driving. It shouldn’t take more accidents caused by distracted drivers holding cell phones to get legislators around the country to pay attention to this serious traffic safety issue.