Home » Blog

The Veteran’s Administration Paid Out over $100 Million Annually in claims since 2004

Posted on June 2, 2014 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

When our military men and women fight for our country, they are willing to sacrifice the most cherished aspect of their being, their life and all that it entails including their family, friends, dreams and desires. What do they get in return if they need health care? The subject of health care to our veterans has become public news, but it is really not a new problem. The ability of the VA to provide health care to our veterans has been a major challenge for decades. What is worse is the huge dollar amount paid out for approximately 3,000 medical malpractice claims. Hence, the level of care and treatment as evidenced by the VA paying out over $100 million each year in the last decade leaves much to be desired. And, that is only part of the equation. We are not talking about money, but actual individuals who gave 150% to fight for our freedom, but receive inadequate care and attention.

The above referenced lawsuits have occurred all over the country rather than concentrated in one region or at one, two or a small handful of particular VA hospitals. Moreover, these cases include all types of substandard care, including the failure to diagnose a medical condition or illness, prescribing the wrong medicine or drugs and simply bad surgeries.It is not a matter of finding someone to blame, it is the hard truth that lives are at stake;while the medical care should be provided at an optimum level, it is far too frequently deemed below the standard of care.

Certainly, the resignation of VA Secretary Eric Shinseki, offers little in the way of confidence that anyone else will fix the problems that are endemic to the VA as they mirror those found in most forms of government. This is not meant to be a political attack, and it is not about being conservative or liberal, Democrat, Independent, or Republican. but an undeniable and harsh reality. Our government agencies, departments, policies, procedures and operations, whether city, county, state or Federal, are simply not operated for profit,which is the very engine that drives people and business to succeed. Whether one calls it accountability, a burning desire to succeed,extremely high energy, and/or an optimum level of action and responsibility, the motivation of private enterprise is simply lacking in the business of government.This is not an indictment of government as a whole, but an observation that seems to be missing when the subject comes up. Regardless of your perception or the truth about government and/or the VA, our soldiers and military deserve much better. Let’s fight for them as they fight for us!

Is The Right to Privacy Compromised via Emails, Text, Cell Phones or Browsing the Internet?

Posted on May 18, 2014 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

Dating back to 1789, the Bill of Rights was enacted establishing personal freedoms to protect the public from and thereby limit the Federal Government. Not very long after, the states ratified these laws so these freedoms applied equally to action by state governments. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted in response to the abuses of the British government and to prevent unlawful searches and seizures. The earlier decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the 4th Amendment to bar actual and physical intrusion by law enforcement into &/or on one’s private property. Later decisions, however, rightfully expanded the limitations on the government to our individual rights to privacy.

But the question of governmental intrusion is no longer the only conundrum we face in society. There is what could be labeled a scourge of interference in our right to privacy through expanded and invisible electronic surveillance (for the purpose of this blog, however, the author is not referencing CCTV or other types of concealed commercial video cameras).

Focusing instead on the internet, our email, cell phones and text messages, have you given any thought to the impact on our right to privacy, a concern that did not exist during the previous four centuries? Today, businesses are extracting information from the content of our messages, whether email, text, cell phone or simply browsing (surfing) the internet. They are recording the words we use and the places we visit to build profiles of who we are and our interests, collecting the data and selling it to other companies.

Should you have a concern that businesses and individuals are able to and actually monitor and secretly eavesdrop into our private lives? For example, one decides to go online to research the availability and prices for binoculars for an outdoor event they intend to obtain tickets for, an otherwise ordinary and uneventful activity. The next time that individual searches the internet for something totally different, even a newsworthy article, there will be advertisement banners for binoculars in the headers of the pages. Similarly, customer data in our emails are scanned by the various email providers and soon thereafter one will view contextual advertisements dealing with words and subjects that otherwise one might believe his/her emails were totally private and protected.

What do you think? Should your personal information be your own? Should you have a right to privacy and expect that what you view online, what you write or receive in an email or text is not accessed by anyone, whether government, business or any private individual? Should heretofore unidentified companies know everything about us, our interests, our family and friends, under the stated goal to sell advertisements that are intended to solicit our business? Is there a risk of fraud &/or unlawful activity well beyond what may seem an ostensible commercial purpose when data mining produces what we heretofore believed were our very private personal profiles? You be the judge.

Should law Enforcement Be Permitted to Stop and Search on the Basis of an Anonymous Tip of Reckless Driving?

Posted on April 26, 2014 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

In the U.S. Supreme Court case of PRADO NAVARETTE et al. v. CALIFORNIA, 12-9490 (April 22, 2014), the Court held the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not violated and, therefore, the traffic stop by a CHP law enforcement in which the officer searched the bed of a pickup truck and found about thirty pounds of marijuana was lawful since he had a reasonable suspicion of criminality, smelling marijuana and having a belief the driver was intoxicated.as a result of an anonymous tip given by a 911 caller.

The Dissenting opinion in this case captured the essence of the issue by writing a compelling summary stating all of us are at risk of losing our freedom of movement by an anonymous telephone tip such as this one regarding a reckless driver, whether true or false. Further, other opponents of these types of searches argue law enforcement should not be able to stop and search the public on an en masse basis. Criminal and constitutional lawyers maintain this Supreme Court opinion constitutes a further loss of our freedom to be secure from government intrusion.

Boston Bombing – A Fortuitous Event?

Posted on April 15, 2014 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

On the anniversary of the Boston Bombing, April 15, 2013 in which three innocent victims were killed and nearly 300 others were injured, many are asking whether this was a fortuitous event, or calculated killings by terrorists using weapons of mass destruction. Even more compelling is the surfacing of information that one of the bombers has been linked to a triple murder in 2011 in which three individuals had their throats sliced. These insights raise a question as to whether the bombings last year could have been prevented had even only one of the radical extremists been arrested and convicted for the slayings in 2011.

Some commentators contend the government lacks the tools to prevent such horrific crimes to maintain the safety of our citizens. Others believe it may be politics and a lack of communication between agencies; they remind us of the 9/11 deaths they claim may have been prevented had the CIA and the FBI shared data bases and the substance of their respective investigations. The sad reality is that religious fanatics are rapidly increasing all over the world, and many in society are afraid to criticize under the veil of freedom of religion. Regardless how small in number they may be the fact remains the murders that have been committed have changed the way far too many people all over the world now have to live. Few will take issue with the fact we need to do more for the family members of those killed, other survivors and first responders, and to pay tribute to each and every one of them.No one disputes that we need to put a stop to senseless carnage.

Health Care – Should Your Doctor Decide?

Posted on March 29, 2014 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

In years past, a doctor had the authority and power to decide what treatment and/or modality was appropriate. Each health care provider chose the remedy, relief &/or intervention based upon the following: (1) a specific diagnosis; (2) a tentative diagnosis [provisional]; &/or (3) a differential diagnosis [generally, that which relates to multiple conditions or causes that are based upon probabilities].

As medical insurance, Medicare, Medicaid and now Obamacare (officially entitled the Affordable Care Act) have intervened, their coverage for treatment rendered by a physician has been strictly refined and restricted, as well as subject to interpretation more often than not by lay individuals. These current business and regulatory systems in place seek to justify their role by pointing to, among other things, the nature and amount of waste, and their goal to make our health care better. In doing so, they often perceive medical treatments as increasingly suspect. As such, the scope of coverage of the third party payer system has continued to place limits on physicians, hospitals and other health care providers, along with using monetary incentives to achieve their political and business goals.

Clearly, there are many who support the current scheme and, therefore, contend it is designed to produce an effective health care system, albeit conceding it is far from an ideal one. The opponents assert this system will inevitably lead to the rationing of medical care with a much smaller group of health care providers who choose such a career and, therefore, less available to serve the public, fewer innovations, and eventually far less medical research. In addition, they cite other countries that have socialized medicine and the inherent problems therein, including but not limited to the increasing waiting time before one can obtain an examination or evaluation; the length of time until one can obtain certain procedures and treatment; the inability of the physician to choose the nature and extent of care deemed appropriate; and, the growing trend to depersonalize the health care system as a whole. The debate continues while the ability to produce a better result is limited as each side remains polarized, and at times vilifying the other.

Do Older Drivers Have More Accidents?

Posted on March 18, 2014 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

According to a recent study of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, drivers 70 years or older, who make up about 10% of the population, are less likely to be involved in auto accidents and less likely to be seriously injured or killed. It is anticipated that by 2050, the number of people in this age group will rise to 16 % of the population in the United States (over fifty percent higher than the most recent amount).

Some have opined this is because automobiles are safer than earlier makes and models. While there are increased numbers of baby boomers who are now seniors and, therefore, an increased number of this group driving on the streets and highways, they actually account for much lower rates of accidents and fatalities. Interestingly, the study revealed the greatest decline was in the group of drivers 80 years and older; this group had nearly a 50% larger decline than either middle age drivers or those between the age of 70 and 74.

Also and somewhat unexpected are statistics revealing those of retirement age are driving more than they did in the past, whether commuting to work (even if part time), shopping, vacation or visiting family and friends. In the age group of 75 years and older, their annual average miles driven increased 50%. Some commentaries believe this portion of the population take better care of themselves, live a much more healthy life and are leading more productive lifestyles than the same age group 15 years ago.

Clearly, senior drivers are more comfortable driving than their predecessors, and they take extra precautions such as driving less during the rush hours during the day, in inclement weather &/or at night. Nonetheless, eye examinations are a must, and there are classes available that test reaction times (perhaps helpful for many drivers). The next time we see an older driver we should be reminded of and think about emulating their wisdom and good habits, and not focus on any negativity that might otherwise come to mind.

Law Enforcement Can Search a Shared Residence Even When a Co-Tenant Objects

Posted on February 27, 2014 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

In the recent case of FERNANDEZ v. CALIFORNIA, 12-7822 (February 25, 2014) the U.S. Supreme Court held the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not violated and, therefore, law enforcement can make a warrantless search of a shared residence when a co-tenant provides consent even though the other co-tenant shortly before refused to allow a search.

The general rule as to searches of a residence is that any occupant may provide consent to a search of the premises. Also, searches are considered reasonable and, therefore, deemed permissible without a warrant when the consent comes from the sole occupant of the premises However, when an inhabitant is physically present and refuses to consent to a search, that refusal is deemed legally dispositive, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant.

Here, the U.S. Supreme Court created an exception and distinguished earlier case law that held the police cannot use any evidence seized as a result of a lawful arrest that takes place when there is a warrantless search performed immediately after a co-tenant refuses to allow a search, even though a co-tenant consents, relying upon the facts in the within case that the objection was made by an occupant that was no longer on the premises.

Some commentators have expressed outrage at the opinion as it would mean law enforcement can only initiate a consensual search if an objecting co-tenant is not standing at the door declaring the police cannot come inside and should stay out. Proponents in favor of the current opinion state the distinction in the current Supreme Court holding is the fact the objecting co-tenant was not present at the exact time a co-tenant gave consent. Nonetheless, defense attorneys would argue these distinctions are illusory since it would mean the police could come back a few minutes after they were told they could not search the premises and do so without a warrant as long as another occupant gave consent. They further contend this ruling makes it easier for law enforcement to search a residence without a search warrant when there are simple procedures for them to first obtain a search warrant. Lastly, those who object to the Court ruling believe it is a further example of the erosion of our civil liberties and right to be safe and secure in our homes without government intervention &/or intrusion.

Update on the Right to Carry a Concealed Weapon

Posted on February 21, 2014 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

In the recent case of Edward Peruta vs. County of San Diego, 10-56971, (February, 2014), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held a private citizen may carry a firearm in public for self-defense pursuant to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

As a general rule, one previously could not carry a concealed weapon in California unless an application was first submitted to the County Sheriff’s Department and the right to do so was granted. One had to show good moral character and establish good cause after completion of a gun training class. In San Diego County, however, good cause has been strictly construed. In fact, establishing that one is concerned about their own personal safety would not suffice. The Sheriff has required one to prove a sufficiently pressing need for self-protection different than the mainstream population. In order to obtain a concealed carry weapon permit (CCW) in San Diego, one heretofore had to prove a unique risk of harm

The 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded the right to bear arms within the Second Amendment affords one the right to carry a concealed weapon outside of their home for self-defense. In doing so, the Court determined the interpretation of good cause by the Sheriff in San Diego County infringed that right. This is a significant victory for gun owners. Nonetheless, the current policy and procedures will, likely not change due to an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court that will no doubt be filed by officials of San Diego County.

Senate Committee Approves Eliminating and Reducing Certain Criminal Sentences

Posted on January 31, 2014 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

On January 30, 2014, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would abolish mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders who do not have a prior criminal history, as well as reducing by 50% mandatory minimum sentences for specified nonviolent drug offenses. The proposed law among other things eliminates mandatory minimum sentences if there is a finding by the Judge that the defendant does not have any previous conviction for crimes involving a firearm, violence, terrorism, a sex offense, racketeering or conspiracy involving illegal drugs. It would also reduce mandatory minimum sentences from 20 to 10 years, from 10 to five years, and from five to two years. There would be no change lowering the maximum sentence.

Opponents believe this law could result in prosecutors being unable to curtail gangs and drug organizations (drug cartels, etc.). Moreover, it is argued that there are very few criminals in federal prison for only simple drug possession, and the rest are mainly drug dealers that are the subject of the bill.

Proponents site the overcrowding and excessive costs of our Federal prisons, the latter estimate being as much as $3 billion over 10 years. They also claim the current laws do not sufficiently distinguish career criminals from low level offenders, and further that nonviolent drug offenses only would be the subject of the new law if it is passed by the full Senate, and goes through the rest of the process in which new laws are made.

Handshake or Fist Bumping – Which Do You Prefer and Why?

Posted on January 14, 2014 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

Most of us will agree a handshake is the best way to express a connection with another person. It is a way to send a message; whether in addition to a verbal “hi” or “hello” it is most often deemed a sign of thoughtfulness &/or affection. Although many individuals may not like to be touched, a handshake is a gesture with limited and accepted physical contact; and, it is commonly considered to be humanizing as in “I am extending my hand, please do the same.”

In fact, there are different types of handshakes that can even be labeled as such: The Squeeze where the other’s hand is grabbed or squeezed in a very strong handshake. It is directly or indirectly used to evince power or to intimidate. The Sandwich involves putting a friend’s hand between your two hands. It is most often intended to make the other person feel important. Then, there is the Tenacious, a handshake in which the other’s hand is held without moving or releasing it while staring at that individual’s eyes. Clearly, there are different inferences that can be drawn depending upon the corresponding verbal or visual cues. In some cultures, there is the Kiss which is an opportunity to show respect and/or admiration by kissing the hand of another person.

Fist bumping has become a popular alternative in which one lightly taps their fist against the front of the other person’s fist, or bumps one’s fist on top of the other’s fist. Some proponents claim fist bumping is as good or even better than hand shaking and still creates a social connection because of other factors, such as the facial expression, demeanor, how long the bump is and/or the degree of force applied (but clearly not used to hurt the other).

Opponents of the handshake claim more bacteria are transmitted with a handshake than fist bumping. They maintain it exposes over three times the hand surface area as a fist bump, the contact averages almost three times longer and, therefore, a hand shake should be limited. They further note that even after washing our hands, 80% of us will retain some form of disease-causing bacteria. But, proponents of the handshake claim that getting germs helps develop immunity, and aside from the societal and cultural values identified above, hand shaking is actually good for our health.

The major concern to the opponents of hand shaking is the increased numbers of people exposed to infectious disease. There are many medical conditions that carry an extraordinary risk of infection unless antibiotics are used. For example, severe burns are highly susceptible to infection. Many procedures require suppressing the immune system, such as in helping to destroy cancer or to keep viable a transplanted organ; these treatments make individuals vulnerable to infection and, therefore, antibiotics have to be used to reduce the threat. Also, antibiotics are administered as a prophylactic prior to countless types of surgeries and operations, and are used when performing C-sections and prostate biopsies. While treatable for decades, the ability of antibiotics to be useful more recently has diminished and/or become extinguished for some conditions. Without antibiotic drugs, physicians will become unwilling to perform increasing numbers of operations and procedures.

In summary, opponents of the handshake have demonstrated concerns about the germs that are passed by what otherwise would seem an ordinary action. They identify the serious consequences when bacteria are resistant to antibiotics. In addition to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is the fact 80% of all antibiotics are used on farm animals. To varying degrees chickens, cows and pigs in the United States, and fish and shrimp in foreign countries, are given regular doses of antibiotics to protect them from disease, but also to increase their weight and speed their growth.

Because now is a time of concern about drug-resistant bacteria and almost untreatable infections (such as MRSA), the proponents of fist bumping are making a concerted effort to show how it can lead to decreased transmission of bacteria and hence fewer colds and infections. Then, less reliance can be had on antibiotics and in turn a more healthy society. Is fist bumping a better alternative to a handshake?

Ratings and Reviews