Robert Kornfeld,  of Kornfeld, Trudell, Bowen and Lingenbrink, PLLC,  was the attorney representing both women plaintiffs in the underlying action filed in King County Superior Court.

Mr. Kornfeld was able to show convincingly to the District and its insurer they had certain liability exposure to a  plaintiff’s verdict, in favor of two women bus drivers, who claimed they had been discriminated against because of their gender.  There was ample evidence to show a  school district mechanic in the transportation department had harassed, bullied and picked on only women, or predominantly women, bus drivers over the course of 10 + years.

Unfortunately, the school district did not take timely and effective remedial action to correct the problem in the workplace of the Transportation Department for these women bus drivers. Plaintiffs contended that no prompt and effective corrective action was taken because they were women. No one took their complaints seriously.

The evidence showed that the District failed to eliminate the harassment and bullying by this  mechanic. The conditions were so intolerable to work under that one of the women bus drivers could not return to work. She contended that she was constructively discharged, meaning, that she was effectively fired, because no reasonable person could have worked under the conditions she was forced to work. She contended that the District’s school board and the administration turned a blind eye to what was going on in the Transportation Department because it was a male dominated, managed and run organization.

Further the plaintiffs contended that, although there were two women in the administration, their positions as women in the administration were merely symbolic as figured heads only, with no real power, & they had no disciplinary authority over this mechanic. Plaintiffs were able to convince the District that the evidence painted it as an administration which was like an “old boy’s club”  favoring men over women.

In addition, the plaintiffs were able to show the District that its employee mechanic, the alleged harasser,  bullied and treated women unfairly, not men. For some reason the District protected and favored this man, over that of many helpless and hard working women bus drivers, including both plaintiffs. Here is how that was done.

You see, there were about 42 bus drivers in the Transportation Department,  24  of them were women and 18 were men. There were complaints from 10 women about this same mechanic harasser. The complaints were in writing and spanned a 10 year period. There were no written complaints from any man bus driver  regarding this same male mechanic. Clearly this harasser targeted women, not men, and he was protected by the male dominated administration of the school district and the male director of the Transportation Department under which the male mechanic worked. The administrations ignored the complaints and did not take them seriously.

After nearly four years of trying to bring this case to justice for the two women, who were regularly belittled, bullied and harassed, the case settled weeks prior to the scheduled jury trial date.

For more information, fee free to e-mail Rob Rob@Kornfeldlaw.com or call our toll free number for a FREE CONSULTATION about your case or to learn more about this case. (800) 282-4878. www.Kornfeldlaw.com.

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

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

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

A 57 year old teacher, who taught English as a second language to in a local community college in eastern Washington, presented at a local hospital shortly before Christmas with complaints of headaches and nausea. A studies of her head by CT scan were ordered and read as normal by a general radiologist, not a head and neck radiologist.

The following week she returned and was admitted because she was not improving and felt like she must have had the flu. An MRI scan of her head which was equivocal but again read as normal by the radiologist’s partner, another general radiologist. After two more days of treatment and with her clinical symptoms unabated, principally, a third nerve palsy with ptosis, with her left eye almost completely shut, the attending neurologist ordered an MRA to “rule out” an aneurysm. Despite the clinical signs and symptoms of an aneurysm and classic signs of a third nerve palsy caused by an expanding aneurysm, after the MRA was read as negative by the first general radiologist who read the CT scan, the patient was discharged and told to follow up in two weeks with her general doctor.

On January 1, five days later following her discharge from the hospital, our client suffered a massive intracranial hemorrhage and nearly died. She was air lifted to a major hospital where she underwent surgery and clipping of a posterior communicating aneurysm by a neurosurgeon to stop her bleeding. This young teacher suffered a stroke, survived, but is now disabled.

Aneurysms

An aneurysm grows when there is a breakdown in the vascular wall of an artery in your brain. Like an bubble that forms on the side of a tube inside your bicycle tire, an aneurysm grows as the blood places pressure on the vascular wall of the artery. Typically an aneurysm does not grow over a ten day period but develops over many months or years until they burst like the sidewall of your bicycle tire when under the right amount of pressure.

Investigation

When this case was referred by another lawyer and the history was given, things did not smell right. One cannot have a normal MRA of the brain one day and then suffer a massive hemorrhage from an aneurysm 5 days later. This made no sense to me. Aneurysms simply do not grow in such a short period of time and then explode. Something had to have been missed by the radiologist in reviewing one of the scans over the last 10 days. I agreed to take a look at the case.

Forensic consultation with physicians

I asked the sisters of my single 57 year old disabled client to provide me with her medical records, particularly the scans and admission and discharge summaries for both visits at the local hospital in eastern Washington. Fortunately the films and medical records were provided without starting a guardianship.

I sent the films to Dr. Arthur Ginsberg of North Seattle who read the films and reported that in fact, “Yes”, the MRA showed an aneurysm. He stated the patient should never have been discharged, but instead the patient should have had the aneurysm clipped or coiled at the hospital or should have been transferred to Spokane or Seattle to a neurosurgeon for clipping or interventional neuro-radiologist for coiling of her posterior communicating aneurysm. [1]

The next step was to consult with an interventional neuroradiologist who agreed to review the films “off the record”. He confirmed the opinion of Dr. Ginsberg and emphasized that there was plenty of time to clip or coil her within 5 days of the date of her discharge from the hospital before the fatal day of her bleed. Both reported that her treatment would have been on a non-emergency basis with this 5 day window before she suffered from her intracranial bleed. In fact they all suggested that, more probably than not, she would have had no adverse cognitive effects from the aneurysm had it been timely treated. [2] She would have been back at work teaching and living independently.

Fortunately, I was able to retain a local neurosurgeon Dr. Peter Balousek who was outraged by this treatment and negligent reading of the scans. He provided a declaration as did Dr. Ginsberg and three radiologists, two of whom were neuro-radiologists, and one of whom was a general radiologist. All provided declarations regarding standard of care and causation, plus the standard certificate of merit declaration prior to the recent case which suggested that one is no longer required. One of the radiologists was Dr. Ken Maravella.[3]

All parties eventually agreed that the attending radiologist on staff at the eastern Washington hospital should have seen and made the diagnosis, particularly in light of the neurologist’s instructions to rule out an aneurysm and in light of the patient’s clinical presentation suggesting third nerve palsy upon admission.

Unfortunately the radiologist, who was a general radiologist and not an imaging specialist, offered and tendered policy limits of $1,000,000. Plaintiff could not accept the tender because release of the radiologist an agent of the principal, the hospital, releases the principal-hospital. In this case there was a strong agency relationship. The radiology group,  in which the negligent radiologist was an employee, was the only group of radiologists retained by the hospital to scan hospital patients and provide all radiology services for the it at its hospital, while using hospital equipment, billing and tech support. We could not release the offending radiologist because this would be a release of the principal, that is, the hospital. A claim was made against the hospital to recover compensation for the client over and above the one million dollar policy limit. This offer was on the table for well over a year before mediation.

Mediation

Our client is now disabled 24-7 and can partially live independently for a few hours at a time but she needs assisted living, planning, prompting and care for the rest of her life due to her brain damage caused by the stroke.

As in most aneurysm cases, a life care plan and evaluation of the patient’s home and support was necessary, particularly since she was not married and had no responsible family members to care for her.

My firm hired a life care planner John Fontaine of OSC in Bothell to evaluate the cost of her future life care plan and an economist Bob Moss to evaluate her wage loss and future economic expenses of her life care plan, medical and support.

The patient had incurred over $800,000 in medical expenses. The insurer of the patient paid out about $462,000 and was asserting a subrogation and reimbursement claim for those monies at the start of the case.  The client’s wage loss and future care totaled about $700,000. In Washington based on the June 2006 modifications to the health care statute, at trial the alleged negligent health care providers are able to present evidence and show the actual cost paid for medical care by all subrogated carriers and not just the amount billed, all of which was designed  to sidestep collateral source case law. In negotiating any medical malpractice case, we all need to be prepared to provide the actual subrogation claims and amounts paid, not the amount billed.

Despite a disabling injury, the difficulty with the case was that the client had a remarkable recovery, perhaps the best I have ever seen from a subarachnoid hemorrhage. She looked normal. She walked, talked and appeared just fine for a 5-10 minute conversation before she would begin to lose track of what the discussion involved. Our client had difficulty remembering her own telephone number and could not make a call on her cell phone even if you provided her with the number. She could not figure out how to dial a number unless it was programmed into her phone. Further, she would not admit anything was wrong with her and denied she was disabled or injured. Nonetheless, her doctors refused to allow her to drive because she was cognitively impaired and suffered from a visual field deficit in one quadrant. This visual field deficit was arguably caused by the pressure on the third nerve and not by the bleeding and stroke she suffered after her bleed. The hemorrhage caused her cognitive impairment. However, the visual field deficit was caused by the natural progression of the growing aneurysm before it should have been timely diagnosed. Hence a causation issue in the case.[4]

The case settled at mediation for $1,900,000 new money and a waiver of the $462,000 medical lien plus payment of all SGAL and special needs trust fees, costs and expenses by all defendants. Naturally due to a confidentiality agreement, discussion of the parties is not possible.  It is anticipated that with a special needs trust and a structured settlement through an annuity held through this special needs trust plus additional cash, the client will be able to continue to receive her DSHA benefits from Washington since there will be no constructive receipt of the settlement funds.  This approach to handling settlements of catastrophically injured patients is a vehicle which is to be considered for all who are seriously injured in a medical negligence case by the fault of a health care provider.

Rob Kornfeld of Kornfeld, Trudell, Bowen and Lingenbrink of Kirkland, Wa. represented the patient. Feel free to email questions to Rob@Kornfeldlaw.com

[1] Coiling is a procedure where the interventional neuroradiologist electronically passes a platinum coil through the femoral artery and guides it up to the brain and into the correct location of the bleeding aneurysm. By sending an electronic charge, the coil is unwound into the aneurysm and the blood occludes around the coil causing the hemorrhage to stop. Coiling is a noninvasive procedure in contrast to clipping where a neurosurgeon opens the brain to “clip” the aneurysm.

[2] Actress Sharon Stone and ex-Seattle Mariner John Olerud both have had aneurysms timely treated without disability. In fact, because of the aneurysm, John Olerud starting to wear a helmet out in the field when playing first base and not just at bat.

[3] To show the strength of the Plaintiff’s case, we had a third radiologist, noted defense examiner and expert Dr. Peters even agree that this was a case of real negligence and medical causation. This seemed to get their attention.

[4] Dr. Steve Hamilton a local Seattle neurophthalmologist would have testified that even if the aneurysm was timely treated, she might well have been left with a partially drooping eye lid caused by the third nerve palsy as the aneurysm expanded before its massive bleed.

Imagine a panel of 35 jurors responding to the question: How many of you believe that pain and suffering should “not” be compensable damages in a personal injury case?

Imagine that over one half of the prospective jurors raise their hands.

Imagine you are successful in striking a few for cause. But there are 6 remaining in the box, all of whom do not honestly answer questions in voire dire. Besides these remaining jurors, there are four more waiting in the queue who do not believe in pain and suffering.

What do you do?

After trying one of the best cases I have in years, this bias cannot be overcome. No matter how great a case your try, the jurors will find a reason to reduce your general damages in the verdict.

What is the problem?

Some suggest it’s the economy. Others suggest that it’s a conservative venue.

What is the solution?

The solution is try your case, do your best and be sincere, forthright and candid using typical life experiences that jurors may have had themselves to find a common grown for them to relate to your client.

Staring down the barrel of more than one half dozen potential jurors who do not believe in pain and suffering is down-right scary!

Hang in there. Civil Justice for some but not for all.

Your client is driving a school bus and is injured by another driver. Your client is injured but the negligent driver’s insurance company will not pay fair compensation. Suit is filed and your prepare for trial. Allstate offers a measly $6,000 and your medical specials are $16,000 and there is $1,200 in wage loss. Your client has chronic neck and shoulder pain and the insurer is offering no real money.

What do you do?

You try the case. No matter what the outcome, justice for your client is your beacon.

In Boomgaarden v. Arroyo, I elected to try a case in front of a Snohomish County Jury after Allstate only offered $6,000.

Despite the belief one would have a jury of your peers, the only jury I saw was one which played on my worst fears.

The conservative panel only awarded $5,000+ in general damages plus most of the claimed past special damages.

Judgment was entered for over $25,000.

Although my client recovered over four (4) times the offer, the verdict should have been more. “But for “this fallacy of a jury of your peers”, the outcome would have been better.

Never stray from the fight. Seek justice for your clients. But remember, there is no such things as a “jury of your peers”.

Robert Kornfeld was named one of Seattle’s top Personal Injury Lawyers in the July 2010 edition of the Seattle Met magazine.

Representing burn victims opens a door to understand the traumatic nature of the injury, not just physically, but also emotionally. Many burn patients will tell you that after recovery from the repeated cleansing of their burn sites or after multiple skin grafts, these treatments- although truly painful- are the least of it. Despite the horrific pain of debridement of their wounds over and over again and despite multiple skin grafts from donor sites on other parts of their bodies, once their recovery is complete, patients are left with daily reminders about the traumatic events which caused their horror story. Whether it’s difficulty dressing, skin issues or other sensitivities, the most glaring reminder is from “Joe Public”.

A burn victim with visible scars on their arms, face or legs are often asked by strangers “oh what happened to you”? Patients with visible scarring will often avoid contact with the public. Sometimes in the summer months, burn patients will cover their legs or arms with long pants or long sleeves in the to avoid the embarrassment and humiliation by strangers asking simple questions which only reminds them of his or her tragedy. Going to the beach is out of the question. Walking down the street causes stares.

Burn injuries are not just about the physical pain and scarring, but the emotional side of the injury. This is often overlooked. In addition to the ongoing physical discomfort of recovery from the physical injury, burn patients may be left with emotional issues of post traumatic stress, bad dreams, embarrassment, ongoing discomfort, skin sensitivity, skin tightness, risk of sun burn and simply humiliation from horrific scarring in open areas of the body which cannot be covered. Some patients are so embarrassed about their appearances that reclusiveness and antisocial behavior can occur. For this reason, we often recommend follow-up with a mental health counselor to be at the top of the list as part of ongoing treatment pan and therapy from day one.

Rob Kornfeld of Kornfeld, Trudell, Bowen and Lingenbrink, PLLC represents burn patients who have been victims of the negligence of another resulting in traumatic burn injuries caused by electric shock, chemicals, fire or the like. Call or e-mail Rob Kornfeld at (800) 282-4878 rob@kornfeldlaw.com discuss your injury, or that of a friend or loved one.