Washington Personal Injury Blog | Law Offices of Robert Kornfeld

Complaints of bullying in our public and private schools are on the rise. School officials and administrators have failed to treat these reports seriously.

State of Washington laws and school policies against bullying are seldomly enforced.

Bullying is not just limited to children. Teachers, bus drivers, secretaries and office administrators can also be victims of vicious and insensitive treatment by others which rises to the level of actionable bullying.

Schools need to take these claims seriously. When schools do not take these reports seriously, lawsuits can result from students or employees being hurt or discriminated against by others.

Because schools have failed to listen to students and employees who have been subject to ongoing bullying, the Washington state legislature in 2002 enacted laws to prohibit bullying and harassment in the school setting:

RCW 28A.300.285 :

Harassment, intimidation, and bullying prevention policies and procedures — Model policy and procedure — Training materials — Posting on web site — Rules — Advisory committee.

(1) By August 1, 2011, each school district shall adopt or amend if necessary a policy and procedure that at a minimum incorporates the revised model policy and procedure provided under subsection (4) of this section that prohibits the harassment, intimidation, or bullying of any student. It is the responsibility of each school district to share this policy with parents or guardians, students, volunteers, and school employees in accordance with rules adopted by the superintendent of public instruction. Each school district shall designate one person in the district as the primary contact regarding the antiharassment, intimidation, or bullying policy. The primary contact shall receive copies of all formal and informal complaints, have responsibility for assuring the implementation of the policy and procedure, and serve as the primary contact on the policy and procedures between the school district, the office of the education ombudsman, and the office of the superintendent of public instruction.

(2) “Harassment, intimidation, or bullying” means any intentional electronic, written, verbal, or physical act, including but not limited to one shown to be motivated by any characteristic in RCW 9A.36.080(3), or other distinguishing characteristics, when the intentional electronic, written, verbal, or physical act:

(a) Physically harms a student or damages the student’s property; or

(b) Has the effect of substantially interfering with a student’s education; or

(c) Is so severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates an intimidating or threatening educational environment; or

(d) Has the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly operation of the school.

Nothing in this section requires the affected student to actually possess a characteristic that is a basis for the harassment, intimidation, or bullying.

(3) The policy and procedure should be adopted or amended through a process that includes representation of parents or guardians, school employees, volunteers, students, administrators, and community representatives. It is recommended that each such policy emphasize positive character traits and values, including the importance of civil and respectful speech and conduct, and the responsibility of students to comply with the district’s policy prohibiting harassment, intimidation, or bullying.

(4)(a) By August 1, 2010, the superintendent of public instruction, in consultation with representatives of parents, school personnel, the office of the education ombudsman, the Washington state school directors’ association, and other interested parties, shall provide to the education committees of the legislature a revised and updated model harassment, intimidation, and bullying prevention policy and procedure. The superintendent of public instruction shall publish on its web site, with a link to the safety center web page, the revised and updated model harassment, intimidation, and bullying prevention policy and procedure, along with training and instructional materials on the components that shall be included in any district policy and procedure. The superintendent shall adopt rules regarding school districts’ communication of the policy and procedure to parents, students, employees, and volunteers.

(b) The office of the superintendent of public instruction has the authority to update with new technologies access to this information in the safety center, to the extent resources are made available.

(c) Each school district shall by August 15, 2011, provide to the superintendent of public instruction a brief summary of its policies, procedures, programs, partnerships, vendors, and instructional and training materials to be posted on the school safety center web site, and shall also provide the superintendent with a link to the school district’s web site for further information. The district’s primary contact for bullying and harassment issues shall annually by August 15th verify posted information and links and notify the school safety center of any updates or changes.

(5) The Washington state school directors’ association, with the assistance of the office of the superintendent of public instruction, shall convene an advisory committee to develop a model policy prohibiting acts of harassment, intimidation, or bullying that are conducted via electronic means by a student while on school grounds and during the school day. The policy shall include a requirement that materials meant to educate parents and students about the seriousness of cyberbullying be disseminated to parents or made available on the school district’s web site. The school directors’ association and the advisory committee shall develop sample materials for school districts to disseminate, which shall also include information on responsible and safe internet use as well as what options are available if a student is being bullied via electronic means, including but not limited to, reporting threats to local police and when to involve school officials, the internet service provider, or phone service provider. The school directors’ association shall submit the model policy and sample materials, along with a recommendation for local adoption, to the governor and the legislature and shall post the model policy and sample materials on its web site by January 1, 2008. Each school district board of directors shall establish its own policy by August 1, 2008.

(6) As used in this section, “electronic” or “electronic means” means any communication where there is the transmission of information by wire, radio, optical cable, electromagnetic, or other similar means. [2010 c 239 § 2; 2007 c 407 § 1; 2002 c 207 § 2.]

Recently I represented two women school bus drivers who were bullied and harassed in the course of their work at a school district after their complaints of bullying, harassment and discrimination were ignored. The case settled for $425,000 shortly before trial.

For any further questions, CALL Rob Kornfeld for a FREE consulation (800) 282-4878 or email Rob   Rob@Kornfeldlaw.com. Visit us at our web site www.Kornfeldlaw.com . We are happy to talk to you with the utmost in confidentiality about your case or that of a friend or loved one.

A 67 year old woman was scheduled for a left lung resection to remove a lesion near the surface.

The treating surgeon failed to diagnose and treat a larger right lung lesion before addressing this smaller and less invasive left lung lesion.

The negligent general surgeon, who was not a board certified thoracic surgeon, failed to present the client’s case to a tumor board, first, before proceeding with any treatment. This was a violation of the standard of care. He should not have proceeded with his plan to simply do a left lung resection, first, without addressing the right lung and without first considering radiation or chemo as alternative forms of care of a surface lesion. The Plaintiff suggested that had the surgeon submitted this case to a tumor board, before proceeding under his own plan, the board would have recommended different treatment than that which he undertook and the outcome would have been better.

Plaintiff’s oncology and thoracic surgery experts opined that a tumor board likely would have recommended less invasive or nonsurgical treatment on the left lung, such as chemo and radiation. Secondly the board likely would have recommended to instead proceed with a surgical plan on the right lung because there were two deep lesions, versus the one surface lesion in the left lung. A histological study should have been performed to compare the lesions in each lung to determine if they were metastases or if they were different cancers. This was important for determining the proper treatment and longer term prognoses.

In the process of performing the left lung resection, the surgeon was careless and he stapled the pulmonary artery. This resulted in a condition which cut off the blood supply to the left lung and it became necrotic… that is, it died. The surgeon made a decision to take out the lung, without consulting with other specialists and without informed consent from the patient.

After the patient was discharged from the hospital and a rehab center and with only a right lung, after three months flew by during which time the surgeon failed to address or treat the right lung lesion(s), in this interim period of time the right lesion(s) grew and became cancerous. Unfortunately, the client was left with one lung, a cancerous right lung, to fight off this disease because of the pneumonectomy.

After some radiation and chemo, the right lung cancer was treated successfully and it has, for the present, the cancers have substantially been reduced in size.

Prognosis for the patient is uncertain. Before radiation and chemo, plaintiffs experts suggested she had 6-12 months to live due to the failure to timely diagnose and treatment the right lung lesions.

Client has been a smoker for most of her life. Based on this, the defendants were to argue that the patient’s condition was caused by her smoking and that she chose to smoke, all of which led to her cancer. This was not their fault. Further, even if they had timely diagnosed and treated the right sided cancer, the outcome would have been the same. In other words, from a causation point of view, the cancer would have developed regardless of the failure to timely have diagnosed and treated it. Her prognosis would have been no better.

The case settled for $985,000. Plaintiff’s survival was estimated to be 6-12 months post op and pre-radiation/chemo. But given the unexpected success with chemo and radiation, both of which have combined to shrink the tumor in the one remaining lung, prognosis was now uncertain.

A very emotional and troubling case in which clear medical negligence can be discounted because the defense will blame the patient for smoking. Defendant argued that the life expectancy issue would not have been any different even if the right sided lung cancer was promptly diagnosed and treated. Regardless all of these problems were caused by the patient’s life long smoking.

An ethical dilemma remains: In an outrageous cases of medical negligence -where the doctor is careless and staples the pulmonary artery causing the loss of the patient’s better lung- should the defense be allowed to escape fault or medical negligence simply because the cancer may have progressed anyway, even if it was diagnosed earlier?

Medical malpractice claims as this one assist hospitals and staff to target careless or poorly trained surgeons. Without this check and balance provided by the legal system, health care will not improve in the USA.

For any further questions, call Rob Kornfeld for a free consulation (800) 282-4878 or email Rob   Rob@Kornfeldlaw.com. Visit us at our web site www.Kornfeldlaw.com . We are happy to meet you at the office or visit you in your home, hospital or wherever if you are not ambulatory.

A 61 year old woman suffered a middle cerebral artery occlusion and stroked after leaving an Urgent Care Clinic the following day. An emergency doctor told her to follow up with her primary care doctor in three days. He told her that all she had was vertigo even though everyone else described it as dizziness and not true vertigo. The woman went home and stroked the following morning.

The client’s presenting symptoms were elevated blood pressure, unilateral arm weakness, dizziness and headaches. No one in the emergency department considered a stroke or TIA in the differential diagnosis.

Client survived and was cared for by her 72 year old husband of 40 + years and old daughters, one of whom she is moving in with out of state.

After a compelling deposition of the client, the defense asked to mediate. We were fortunate to have great medical experts on all salient issues: liability, causation and damages. An emergency physician, neurologist, neuroradiologist, interventional neuroradiologist, life care plan expert, economist and others.

For more information please contact Rob Kornfeld (800) 282-4878 or email Rob Rob@Kornfeldlaw.com and you are welcome to call Rob to schedule a free consultation about your case, either over the telephone, email or in person, at our office or another location, if you are not ambulatory. We are happy to come out to your home, the hospital or meet you at another location. Just call Rob (425) 893-8989. Visit us on our website www.Kornfeldlaw.com .

A 50 + year old lady, with a twenty (20) year history of working for Boeing, was seriously injured when her car was forced off the roadway and it road down an embankment pinning her in the vehicle. As it turned out, she fractured her ankle and was facing a three joint fusion in her ankle and other joints.

It was expected that she could not return to her job at Boeing for the rest of her life and a loss of earning capacity claim was asserted for the Boeing worker. Given that she was 53 and not be able to work until retirement, her economic loss claim was substantial, e.g. loss of earnings for at least another 10 years.

This case was settled one month prior to trial in Snohomish County, Washington.

Rob Kornfeld
Rob@Kornfeldlaw.com
www.Kornfeldlaw.com
(800) 282-4878 Call Rob for a free initial consultation on your case

An ex Seattle public school football star was injured in a head on collision when a middle age woman cross the center line striking this past client. The woman was killed and the client ( John Doe ) was seriously injured resulting in a partial knee replacement.

In May 2007 two young men, Steve and David, were operating a boom lift near power lines at the Wild Waves theme park in Federal Way, Wa. One was only 20 and the other 27, neither of whom knew about the dangers of utility pole distribution lines. At about high noon on this fateful day in May, Angie Kessler lost her husband and her children lost their father, David Kessler; and David’s apprenticed, Steve, is now physically and emotionally scarred for the rest of his life.

These two cable installers were told by their employer – Metzker Communications-to attach cable to a messenger line hanging between PSE utility poles. The messenger line is about 10 feet below the power lines. Metzker was told by the park owners and the employer’s upper tier contractor that 1) these young men had the permission to do the work 2) the park owned the messenger lines and 3) opening day was coming up in a few weeks, so “get the job done” beforehand.

PSE owns the poles on which the distribution lines are strung. PSE has exclusive authority and jurisdiction to control consent for anyone who wants to attach to its utility poles.

The park and its contractor InterTel Technology failed to contact PSE to obtain PSE’s consent before any cable was attached to PSE utility poles in the past years of at about the time of this injury and death. No one claims to have known about the protocol and procedure to obtain consent from PSE and the park. No one knew that the rules required the power to be shut down for unqualified workers, as these two young men, before they were allowed to work within 10 feet of these high voltage 3 phase distribution lines.

Plaintiffs contend that had the rules been followed and PSE consent obtained, the power would have been shut off and no one would have been injured or died.

The cable installation company, for whom Steve and David were employed, Metzker Communications, did not obtain a permit from PSE nor did the park owners at Wild Waves, nor did the upper tier contractor which hired Metzker Communications, InterTel Technologies, an Arizona based company. No one followed the rules. Had the rules for obtaining PSE consent been followed, PSE would have required an on site inspection and would have likely discovered trees overgrowing the messenger line in the location of this injury and death and would have likely insisted the trees to be trimmed or topped before consent was granted to perform this work.

PSE likely would have reviewed the qualifications of the installers before granting consent to attach anything to its utility poles. Since these two workers were unqualified, consent was not likely.

Plaintiffs contended that had the park followed it’s safety manual, it should have de-energized the power because its safety manual required all lines to be turned off when unqualified workers were on the poles or within 10 feet of the power lines. The work performed by Plaintiffs was within 10 feet below the high voltage lines.

Plaintiffs contended that InterTel and Six Flags hid the three previous cable installations from PSE, all of which were without PSE’s consent. Had the owners and contractors which hired Metzker notified or obtained PSE consent for all past and the current installation of cable on PSE utility poles, this injury to Steve and death of Dave would not have happened. PSE would have required the trees to be maintained and trimmed so as not to grow within 1o feet of the high voltage line and not within the protected safety space before granting consent.

Plaintiffs argued that PSE would not have allowed the workers to be where they were on the date of this injury, because they were not qualified, without first turning the power off or without hiring a qualified journeyman lineman familiar and experienced around high voltage lines, or without making sure the trees were trimmed lower.

On the date of this incident at the location of this death and injury, trees had grown up and through the messenger line and the park failed to maintain and trim the vegetation. Dave and Steve during the operation of their boom lift had already successfully and safely installed 3000 feet of cable without an incident because trees were not an issue. At the location of where this tragedy occurred, the trees had overgrown the messenger line and were overgrown into the safety space. The safety space is two (2) feet of space above the messenger line. This space is designed to be kept clear for workers to work, including for Plaintiffs, free of obstructions from trees.

Steve and Dave were moving the cherry picker arm over and around the trees and were not able to see the power lines against the sky, and the lift or one of them touched the power line causing it to ground into David causing his death at the scene.

The Defendants argued that this power line was there to be seen, clear and obvious and that the Plaintiffs were totally at fault for driving the lift into the high voltage line.

Plaintiffs claimed that they did not know any better and were simply unqualified workers just there to do their job and that they did not know the power was suppose to be turned off, under the PSE rules and regulations, and did not know that a PSE permit process was necessary. They assumed that they were authorized to do the work because they were told by the park owner and InterTel to start work.

Plaintiffs’ employer rented a steel boom lift, not a fiberglass lift.

The case settled the first day of trial for $2,225,000. This was a very difficult, costly and an emotional case with high risks of a defense verdict based upon several focus groups.

Rob Kornfeld (425) 893-8989 Rob@Kornfeldlaw.com

I was in the Denver airport a few weeks ago lamenting some changes in my life and picked up a book about “grief” written by two PhD’s in the Phoenix Scottsdale area. Their thesis in a nutshell was: Bad things happen to good people….once you are born into this world, the same can and will happen to you, your love ones, friends and family.

So what do you do about it when life’s challenges overwhelm you? Here’s the answer.

1) Never give up and succumb to despair
2) Get tougher and fight harder
3) Strengthen your resolve to get through it
4) Determination- never give up and do not look back but keep sailing with the wind, accept change in winds patterns and adjust accordingly
5) Trite as it may seem, keep your cup half full and hold your head up high. Remember no one can save or protect you, only you can take care of yourself.

I learned this lesson many years ago. Many of you may ask ” why me”. I have been there. Let me tell you why.

1) In 1973 tragedy struck my family and several immediate family members and kids were killed by an arsonist in a fire in Copenhagen;
2) In 1985 a second hardship happened when I woke up in the hospital after a series of collisions which caused me to lose consciousness and to undergo 12 surgeries over many years
3) In 2007 I lost two parents and, lastly,
4) In 2007 lost my partner to mental health issues.

What I have learned is that life is not fair and that you have to be strong, not to succumb to despair, tragedy and hardship. Learn to grieve a loss, an injury, a death, divorce but do not give up on life. It has a lot to still offer. It’s good to grieve and cry and let it out. Do not hold back.

As a personal injury lawyer and as an injured person, I learned that grief is part of life. We all must learn to grieve. It’s all part of the healing process. And boy have I shed many a tear.

Handling wrongful death and serious personal injury claims is part of this evolution. It’s not fair that you were hurt or that you have lost a loved one. No amount of money in a personal injury or wrongful death settlement will be fair or large enough to compensate you, or to make it worth while. It’s the roller coaster of life.

I am here to help you and share with you that I too have faced many an adversity and continue to face life’s curve balls, joys and uncertainties, all with open arms, knowing that we all have it in us to meet these challenges with determination and resolve. So off to take on this roller coaster ride called “life”!

Rob Kornfeld (425) 893-8989 Rob@Kornfeldlaw.com