Windy City Law

Can Football Survive?

Pete Flowers — Tue, 08 May 2012 09:53:00 GMT

The tragic death last week of retired NFL player Junior Seau has added fuel to the debate about the safety of the sport of football. While the issue of concussive injuries is front and center – and at the heart of lawsuits filed by more than 1,000 former NFL players – the real issue goes beyond the pro ranks. Simply put, is football, by its very nature, too dangerous a sport to play on any level?

It wasn’t all that long ago a hard hit to a player’s head was brushed off as “having his bell rung.” We now know a single concussion can have long-lasting, even devastating, consequences to an athlete, and safeguards are slowly being put into place. (Of course, this knowledge doesn’t seem to translate into a public distaste for that kind of play. To this day, hard hits are compiled for TV sports highlight reels, and videos of the most vicious hits are top attractions on YouTube.) The question remains whether any safeguards can adequately protect football players from the effects of concussive injuries.

It seems doubtful; football is a contact sport, and the contact that happens, happens at high speed between players charging at one another. The human brain isn’t designed to absorb that sort of severe blow to the skull. What’s worse is studies are now suggesting it’s the cumulative effect of repeated impacts, not necessarily severe ones, a football player will sustain over a career that cause the most damage.

By the time a player has made it to the pro ranks, he most likely has had a successful college career, preceded by an outstanding high school one, and usually years of pee-wee or youth league play before that. That’s a lot of hits to absorb even before joining the big leagues. Which begs the question: Are the hits in the NFL the cause of the most severe concussive injuries, or just more in a long line that started when a boy first strapped on shoulder pads?

Although many, if not most, high school athletic associations have comprehensive procedures to detect and deal with player concussions, the same rules may not be in place for the youth leagues. Two more factors hindering treatment of concussive injuries are the natural tendencies of young athletes to lie about an injury to avoid being benched, and of amateur coaches whose advice to injured players consists of “Walk it off.”

Unfortunately, more and more evidence seems to be showing that even the best of intentions can’t eliminate the accumulation of blows to the head of a young football player, nor the increasing threat to his health.

We love football on almost any level; college or pro football games jam stadiums and command huge TV audiences. Here in Chicago, the Bears vs. Green Bay game is cause for all industry to come to a halt. Lately though, I’ve watched with a sense of unease, and this thought cannot be suppressed: Are the men at Soldier Field shortening their lives by playing the game we all love? Worse yet is the thought that when a high school boy says he’s dying to play football, he may be correct.

No one is calling for a ban on football, but as we discover more about the devastating effect the head blows that come with the game have on the health of the players, we have to start the discussion about how to make it safer to play. Even if it means giving up the highlight reel.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Pete Flowers

Flame retardants: lifesavers or industry hype?

Pete Flowers — Sun, 06 May 2012 16:05:55 GMT

For decades we have been treating all sorts of consumer products with chemicals labeled “flame retardant,” and most people have accepted at face value that the treated products are much safer than those left untreated. As it turns out, this may not be the case, and in fact household items treated with flame retardant may make fires more toxic.

The Chicago Tribune, in its Sunday, May 6, edition, reveals the result of an investigation into the use of flame retardants, the industry that supports it and their questionable tactics, and an “expert” who is caught stretching the truth during testimony to various legislative groups.

(The link for the story is: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/flames/ct-met-flame-retardants-20120506,0,3214816,full.story or simply got to the Trib website: http://www.chicagotribune.com)

The article is well-researched – and frankly troubling. One of the issues the authors point out is one many of us have faced: the use of phony “grassroots” groups to promote an industry agenda. The one mentioned in the article is “Citizens For Fire Safety Institute,” the whole cloth creation of the industry’s lobbying firm.

Here in Illinois, when the battle to fight caps on med mal awards was raging in our legislature, we did battle with the same kind of high-sounding “citizens” groups that were nothing more than shills for the insurance industry and the Chamber of Commerce. Among the more colorful were the “Civil Justice League” and “The Institute For Legal Reform.”

Beyond the industry-sponsored “grassroots” organization, the Tribune article goes on to describe in vivid detail the amount of flame retardant chemicals one can find in furniture in the average American home. A sofa, for instance can contain as much as 2 pounds of chemical retardant in its foam cushions. That’s in addition to the same sort of chemicals found in other furniture, bedding, and clothing in the typical household. The fear is that these chemicals, because of their toxicity, represent as great a danger in a fire as they do a benefit.

Fire safety is not an issue to take lightly. According to government figures, more than 3,500 lives are lost every year in this country to household fires, and more than 18,000 suffer injuries. The toll was far higher in decades past, so the introduction of different products designed to reduce the risk were hailed as major advances. Many of those innovations do save lives, and that would include the judicious use of flame retardants.

However, as the Tribune points out, sometimes what is presented as an advance in safety may not live up to its hype, and may in fact add to the overall dangers of a fire. Do yourself a favor and click on the link above. It’s a good, if unsettling, read about a subject most of us are unaware of, and about the tactics an industry will employ to advance its own agenda.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Pete Flowers

Recalled…but still for sale.

Ryan Theriault — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:01:46 GMT

As the parents of young children, my wife and I have purchased or received as gifts everything from car seats to strollers to cribs to toys…the list goes on and on. We try and keep up with safety warnings and product recalls on all the items that will end up being used by our children, but as we recently discovered, our own vigilance isn’t enough.

The biggest problem is simply being made aware about a dangerous toy or piece of baby furniture. Unless you have registered as the owner of a crib later found hazardous, for instance, you may not receive a recall notice. To avoid this, I strongly suggest filling out and sending in those pre-paid postcards that come with every new product. This is the best aid a manufacturer has to notify you in case of a recall.

The second best is to periodically check the Safe Kids website http://www.safekids.org This is a must on every parents website bookmarks as it is continuously updated and lists children’s product recalls going back years. Drop-sided cribs that can injure, mesh “playpens” that collapse, toys with high levels of lead, plush animals whose ears are held on with a spike and button eyes that come off easily, toys that can choke, pajamas that can catch on fire…all listed here.

It’s a great resource to check for a recall you may not have noticed so you can return the item – or avoid buying it in the first place. However, as I said at the beginning of this article, your attention to the products in your home isn’t enough to keep your children away from the danger they pose, nor is the fact the products are no longer being sold at the mall. They’re still out there, and they’re still being sold.

Garage sales and second-hand stores are the huge marketplaces for used children’s furniture and toys. I’d venture to say someone selling their used crib at a garage sale has no idea it was recalled because of a manufacturing defect that causes a side to drop. Worse yet, the purchaser isn’t aware of the danger, and is often someone on a budget and can’t afford a new crib.

Another large group of purchasers are folks who run daycare or babysitting services out of their homes. They’re looking for inexpensive toys and children's furniture - with safety as an afterthought. Unfortunately, there’s also another group that can unwittingly buy recalled and dangerous children’s products: grandparents.

Grandparents, especially those that live out-of-state from the grandkids, will haunt garage sales and used furniture stores looking for things to furnish the spare room when “the kids” come to visit. As loving as this gesture is, it can also mean filling the guest room with recalled toys and baby furniture. As parents, it is up to us to review the grandparents’ purchases. Introducing them to the Safe Kids website is a terrific first step; encouraging them to research before they buy is a lot easier than asking them to remove a defective crib from their home.

My wife and I are under no illusions that we can remove all the dangers our children will face as they go through life. We do what we can do with the resources available, and have had talks with the grandparents about dangerous and defective kids’ products. Keeping our children safe is a priority for us as it is for all parents, and it’s worth a few extra minutes on a website to cut down some of the risks.

In closing, for those who may think I’m being a bit over-protective, let me close with an anecdote from a friend with twin 6-year old boys…seems the boys were visiting the grandparents, and Grandpa had been to a garage sale, where he bought the “perfect” gift for the boys…an old set of Jarts. Big pointed tips and all, banned decades ago, but still for sale. Heads up!

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Ryan Theriault

Keeping Kids Safe At Playgrounds Can Be A Challenge

Pete Flowers — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 10:44:10 GMT

This week, a lawsuit was filed in Chicago on behalf of the family of a young girl who was injured after falling off a slide at a neighborhood park. The seven-year old girl broke her arm in the fall from what is called a “slalom glider;” a metal and poly slide standing over six feet tall that the child straddles as it twists to the ground.

Actually, you really have to see it to understand it…and wonder how it came to be placed in a playground in the first place. Frankly, it looks like an accident waiting to happen, so the lawsuit (which I am not a part of) should have come as no surprise.

When newly designed pieces, such as the slalom glider, are placed in parks, parents assume they have been tested and found safe. That’s only partially true; park districts depend on the manufacturers to test their products, and assume what they’re buying is safe. That’s obviously not always a good assumption.

About ten or fifteen years ago, a lot of playgrounds were redesigned, and a lot of wood was used. They looked great and were a big improvement over the old structures. However, it was later discovered the treated wood many places used contained high levels of arsenic. Oops. And while most parks have replaced those structures, many parent-built ones using the same treated wood still remain in a lot of suburban backyards.

Despite tremendous improvements from the days of tube-metal “monkey bars,” wooden swings, and teeter-totters, playgrounds are still surprisingly full of perils. Even modern pieces of equipment, such as the slalom glider, can be hazardous to the children playing on or with them, and often the most innocuous play equipment hides the greatest dangers.

One standard item in a playground is the sandbox; kids of all ages love to dig and play with trucks, or just go barefoot in the sand. Unfortunately, in too many public parks the sandbox is used by the neighborhood cats as a litter box, and in more urban areas it can hide garbage, broken bottles, and the occasional used syringe.

But worse than a sandbox full of cat poop is what lurks in the “ball pit” of the kids play section at your local hamburger joint. Then again, what can anyone expect after the plastic balls have been slurped on by dozens of kids…some with runny noses, some with leaking diapers. And after playing in that cesspool junior will start scooping up some fries. Yum.

The biggest dangers are of course the old slides, swings, and climbers that still can be found in small town parks. Metal slides that heat up in the sunlight to temperatures that will burn kids’ bare legs, steel “jungle gyms” just waiting to crack a skull, and see-saws primed to take a tooth or two still exist in out-of-the-way parks and highway rest areas, all set to ruin a vacation.

Although I’ve been a little lighthearted, the truth is as parents we cannot assume just because it says playground it’s a safe place for our children to play. Take an extra few minutes to check out the equipment before you set your kids loose; a little caution first can save a trip to the ER later.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Pete Flowers

Dangers of metal on metal hip replacements featured on NPR

Pete Flowers — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:46:11 GMT

A recent program on NPR gave a fairly comprehensive overview of the dangers of metal on metal hip replacement devices. I’ve copied the link below, and I encourage you to give it a read or listen to the audio.

Titled “Prone to failure, some all-metal hips need to be removed early,” the report originally aired on NPR’s Morning Edition, and includes an interview with a woman who is waiting for revision surgery to remove her failing artificial hip.

Her description of the pain she’s suffered is graphic and detailed - and will make you cringe. Since her original implant, she has suffered from “constant, worsening pain.” “It’s a hot pain…every step is agony…I can’t sleep without painkillers.” All made worse when you discover this will be her second surgery to alleviate the damage done by her original implant.

These types of devices are failing at an alarming rate; there’s some dispute on exact percentage, but at least 500,000 Americans having all-metal hips, it adds up to a staggering number of patients who are suffering because of them.

What is even more disturbing is, despite all the problems associated with all-metal devices and despite the thousands of lawsuits being filed, they are still being marketed.

This is troubling because researchers are finding high levels of cobalt and chromium in the blood and organs of many patients with all-metal implants. This causes metallosis, a buildup of metal debris, tiny pieces of cobalt and chromium that flake off and work their way into surrounding tissue.

I am very involved in this issue, and I will be writing more about it in the future. In the meantime, I urge you to go to the NPR link to learn more about the dangers of metal of metal hip replacement devices. Sheer numbers say it’s a safe assumption many of you have clients who have this type of artificial hip, and many of those will fail. Be prepared, they will be needing help in the near future.

NPR link:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/03/19/148769073/prone-to-failure-some-all-metal-hip-implants-need-to-be-removed-early

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Pete Flowers

An Ounce Of Preservation

Brian Perkins — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:26:25 GMT

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, “An ounce of preservation is worth a pound of leverage.” If you want to have the leverage to negotiate a favorable settlement or convince a jury to sign your verdict form, you need to protect your case and preserve your evidence from day one.

To many, this is a frightening subject that keeps practitioners up at night. To me, evidence collection and preservation is an opportunity to get a leg up on the opponent by gathering the physical and testimonial evidence that will ultimately prove your case. Of all the information gathered during a client intake, questions regarding the collection and preservation of evidence should be at the top of every trial attorney’s list. Evidence will not last forever. At some point, it will be destroyed, tainted, or forgotten.

You do not want to be prepping your client for trial six months after the incident and suddenly learn the airbags in their rented car had failed to deploy during a high speed, head-on collision. As you try and process this new information, you come to the awful realization that the car was declared a total loss and has been scrapped by the insurance company. There will be no investigation into the failure to deploy or its contribution to your client’s injuries. You have missed out on another potential source of insurance coverage and have failed to protect your client.

As a former Assistant State’s Attorney, I had the opportunity to work crime scenes with officers and detectives who taught me the importance of meticulous evidence collection and preservation. During a criminal investigation we would spend a great deal of time and effort on the subject of evidence. The yellow tape was not removed until everyone was absolutely sure that no trace of potentially useful evidence remained uncollected.

We brainstormed and sent preservation letters and subpoenas to phone companies, internet providers, employers, grocery stores, restaurants, etc. In addition to physical evidence and records, we also focused on the collection of testimonial evidence from witnesses through recorded interviews and written statements. This kind of effort locked up a case and ensured that nothing was left to chance.

While no Personal Injury firm has a team of experienced detectives at their disposal, these same investigative principles can, and should, be applied to a civil case. Work with your client and brainstorm as to potential sources of evidence. Form a game plan. What will you want to argue during trial? What exhibits will you use? Where do you need to send preservation letters? Who do you need your investigator to interview? What subpoenas need to be issued? Take photographs. Take videos. Have your client keep track of his pain, suffering and loss of normal life in a journal. Document everything.

In an auto case, before the property damage claim is settled make sure there were no mechanical issues that contributed to the crash or your clients injuries. If you aren’t sure, send a preservation letter, and talk to an expert. Take photos of all cars (don’t rely on insurance photos). Have your client take photos of the injuries as they heal of the wheelchair, cast, sling, stitches, etc. These will be invaluable documentary evidence for you to use during settlement negotiations and trial.

If liability is at issue, interview all witnesses identified by your client and the investigative report. If the color of the traffic control device is at issue, send a preservation letter to the city to keep documents related to the programmed light sequence on the day of the crash. Are there cameras at the intersection? If so, are they controlled by the state, county, or municipality? Typically, these recordings will be deleted or overwritten at some point so time is of the essence.

Are there security cameras at a nearby retail business? If so, send an investigator to their loss prevention department or manager to view the tapes and to hand deliver a preservation letter. While this is a lot of work that may not turn up any useful evidence, no trial attorney can pass up the opportunity to capture the defendant’s negligence on tape.

The examples here are from automobile cases, but the steps I’ve outlined fit virtually any injury case. The overall rule is to be proactive and take the time to think about evidence, and actively collect and preserve it from the first contact with your client. Just that extra ounce of preservation will give you the pound of leverage you may need to win your case.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Brian Perkins

Nothing Trivial About Any Head Injury

Ryan Theriault — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 14:10:43 GMT

“He got his bell rung.” “He saw stars.” “He was out of it for awhile”

Familiar phrases we’ve all heard and probably used to describe someone who’s just gotten a blow to the head. One thing all these phrases and many others like them have in common is how they trivialize an injury that is anything but trivial. In my dealings with several clients I’ve come to understand just how serious even the most seemingly mundane head injury can be.

One such client that comes to mind was a police officer in Illinois; a man who’d spent thirteen years in uniform without harm, only to be brought down by a freak incident. The officer and his partner were in their department’s booking room, waiting to process an arrestee. The arrestee became unruly, and began fighting with the partner. When my client attempted to help his partner, he was knocked to the floor and struck his head.

After the fracas was brought under control, my client went to the hospital with concussion like symptoms. Despite his pain, he quickly returned to duty, assuming, as I believe many men do, that he could just “shake it off.” Unfortunately, that wasn’t going to happen, and after a week of half-duty he was diagnosed with post-concussive syndrome. Eventually this condition would be enough to end his career with a duty related disability, but not without a fight with his employer.

Post-concussive syndrome (PCS) is what at one time was called “shell-shock,” the term first given to returning WWI vets who had suffered concussive injuries. Now we realize it is a form of traumatic brain injury, and its effects can last from days to years to a lifetime.

The main PCS symptom is headache. While most people have headaches of the same type they experienced before the injury, people with PCS often report more frequent or longer-lasting headaches. Between 30 and 90% of people treated for PCS report having more headaches than they did before the injury, and between 8 and 32% still report them a year after the injury.

Dizziness, the second most common symptom, occurs in about half of people with PCS and is still present in up to a quarter of them a year after the injury. Older people are at especially high risk for dizziness.

About 10% of people with PCS develop sensitivity to light or noise about 5% experience a decreased sense of taste or smell, and about 14% have blurred vision. People may also have double vision or ringing in the ears, also called tinnitus. Loss of hearing occurs in 20% of cases. PCS may cause insomnia, fatigue, sleepiness, or other problems with sleep. Other physical symptoms include nausea and vomiting.

For my client, his most serious lingering symptoms still include short-term memory loss and loss of peripheral vision in his right eye. He was diagnosed by three different physicians, and all agreed that, for all intents and purposes, his career as a police officer was over.

Incredibly, this wasn’t enough for the pension board of the municipality who employed him to initially agree to a line of duty disability pension. Although the issue was eventually resolved in my client’s favor, I believe the reluctance of the pension board was more rooted in our old ideas about head injuries than in the medical evidence. Too many of us, and frankly I’m referring to men, think a blow to the head is nothing to get worked up about, and, just as my client believed, you can simply “shake it off.”

Truth is, you can’t, and even the most innocuous smack to the noggin can have a serious and long-lasting effect. My association with this case and others like it have made me very aware of the dangers posed by head injuries, but even more so the dangers of ignoring or minimizing those injuries.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Ryan Theriault

Fatal Consequences When Old becomes New

Craig Brown — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:27:51 GMT

I doubt there are many drivers who would knowingly buy tires to put on their vehicles that are five or six years old, but knowingly or not, it happens frequently. I also doubt that many of us are aware just how old our “new” tires might be, and the older a tire is, the more dangerous it becomes.

Most drivers know they should watch for excessive tread wear on their tires, but they're unaware the age of the tire itself is also a risk factor. Unscrupulous dealers sometimes sell consumers tires that look new but have been sitting on a tire rack for years. Drivers who don't use a particular vehicle very often, such as a second car or truck, may think minimal wear on its tires means they can delay purchasing new ones.

In fact, as all tires age they become more prone to losing their tread suddenly and causing an accident. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), when tires are older than six years, the chances of a sudden "tread separation" start to climb. Car companies and tire companies have sent bulletins to dealers saying that tires older than six to ten years should be replaced.

Unfortunately, despite warnings and bulletins, old “new” tires are placed on vehicles far too frequently, and the result can lead to a horrific accident, as a current case of mine illustrates.

On October 10, 2010, my client was a passenger in her husband’s 2001 Ford F350 as they drove on a busy interstate. Suddenly, the tread separated on the front left tire on the truck, causing the vehicle to become uncontrollable and strike another car before finally overturning onto its roof as it came to rest in a ditch at the side of the road. The driver was killed in the crash and his wife sustained serious injuries.

We were able to determine the tire that caused the accident was over eight years old – yet it had a minimal amount of road wear. As we looked into this closer we discovered the tire was in fact the spare, and it had been mounted on the vehicle fairly recently. It had the appearance of being new, but was really quite old.

Our complaint names both the tire manufacturer and the dealership that serviced and inspected the vehicle; due to the negligence of these two companies, the tire separated from its tread and caused the car to flip into a ditch. My client was badly hurt, and was unable to aid her husband, who lay beside her, fatally injured.

This incident could have easily been avoided had the manufacturer and the dealership done their jobs properly and informed their customers of the potential risks of using older tires as well as the failure to catch and alert consumers to obvious defects.

Fortunately, you don't have to depend on a professional to determine the age of your tires. The answer is right in front of you, written on the side of the tire itself.

Every tire has a Tire Identification Number -- a serial number -- inscribed on its sidewall. On tires manufactured after 2006, the number is written on the sidewall that faces out and is easily visible. On tires manufactured in 2006 and earlier, the number is inscribed on the inside sidewall, meaning that you would have to crawl under your car to read the digits.

The identification number starts with a serial number but then ends with a four digit batch code. Those four numbers tell you the age of the tire. The first two numbers are the week of the year in which the tire was made; the last two numbers are the year. A tire made in the 47th week of 2008 – meaning November 2008 – would have a serial number ending in 4708.

If the tire's number ends in only three digits, that means it was manufactured prior to 2000. A tire made in the 47th week of 1998 would end in 478. A tire with only three digits at the end of its Tire Identification Number is a tire that should immediately be replaced.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Craig Brown

“It’s the principle of the thing”

Ryan Theriault — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:00:55 GMT

“It’s the principle of the thing” Now there’s a phrase that we’ve all heard and used, and it usually refers to an issue that isn’t earthshakingly important, but a clear case of right versus wrong.

As attorneys, we are often faced with handling matters of principle, as in those small injustices visited upon our clients. They’re rarely issues that involve large amounts of money, but what they do involve are issues of fairness our clients need our help to resolve.

A current case of mine is the perfect example of this. It involves a police officer who was injured and subsequently awarded a line-of-duty disability pension. However, his employer (a village in Illinois) balked at paying his continuing health insurance premiums. The total amount of money involved is less than $2,500 a year, but the issue is of immense importance to my client.

And to me. I handle quite a few workers’ compensation cases, with many of those involving police officers who have been injured in the line of duty. Prior to becoming an attorney, I worked for eight years at a large Chicago-area police department, and I have family members who are police officers. It’s safe to say I have a special interest in representing public safety officers.

In this case, the officer’s injury occurred when he responded to an automobile crash. The vehicle involved had struck a tree, which in turn knocked a traffic signal into the intersection. With the help of a fellow officer, my client attempted to move the fallen signal out of the intersection. Unfortunately, when he did so he suffered a serious injury.

Nearly two years later he was awarded a line-of-duty disability pension by his village’s police pension board. However, his application for health insurance benefits, which because of his disability status, should have been at no cost to him, was denied by the village.

The reason for the denial was in my view a misinterpretation of the statute, but unless challenged it would stand as a final decision. Fighting this meant investing a lot of my time and effort, and winning meant my client wouldn’t have to pay a $212.00 monthly insurance premium. Not exactly the case of the century.

But it was a clear-cut matter of fairness, and I took it on because I felt an injured police officer had been wronged. As these things go, the village has dragged its heels for over a year, but I’m in it until we prevail. Frankly, when that day comes I don’t know who will be more pleased, my client or me.

I have handled cases involving far more serious issues, and I have won awards for clients hundreds of times greater than what’s at stake in this case. However, it’s a case I’ve enjoyed more than most others because it involves an injured police officer, it will right a wrong, and, well, it’s the principle of the thing.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Ryan Theriault

Take Control Of Your Story

Pete Flowers — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:33:31 GMT

The other day I was driving and listening to one of our “talk radio” stations, when the host read a story that got his station’s phones ringing. It was a tale of another horrible miscarriage of justice, of society gone crazy, of…well, of a class action lawsuit.

According to the yakker, the suit was brought against a manufacturer of refrigerators because the little light inside the fridge didn’t go off when the door closed. Just the type of silly lawsuit that was destroying American business, he said. And what kind of court would even allow such nonsense to be heard?

On and on he and his listeners went; I heard the terms “runaway juries” and “ambulance chasers” and “tort reform” as everyone weighed in about the silly lawsuit over little lights that don’t go off when the fridge door closes. Well, everyone except those people whose lives were affected by those little lights.

As it turns out, the real issue was the electrical glitch that kept the little lights on also created a fire hazard, and some of those refrigerators caught fire. Appliance fires are no small matter; the Consumer Products Safety Commission estimates major appliances cause more than 150,000 residential fires every year, and result in 3,670 injuries, 150 deaths, and $547 million in property damage. The suit was brought to force the refrigerator manufacturer to reimburse buyers for repairs related to the light, something they’d been unwilling to do on their own.

None of these facts were related by the radio host or his callers, but rather than blame him, I think the blame partially rests with us and our failure to explain to the public what’s behind our actions. When that happens we allow our work to be defined by those who would purposely distort it.

I have no part in the refrigerator light case, but the issues it raises are the same as ones I’ve faced throughout my career. This was especially true during my tenure as President of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association (2009-2010), when we were fighting to reverse a state law that would cap medical malpractice awards.

According to the opposition, high insurance premiums and “jackpot justice” were causing doctors to “flee” the state. They flooded the media with stories and statistics to back up their claims, and the fact none were accurate didn’t seem to bother them or, unfortunately, the press.

Our strategy was two-fold. First, every time one of their false claims was printed we immediately countered with articles and letters containing hard facts. This gave us the last word on the subject, and never resulted in a comeback from the other side. Second, we also became proactive, aggressively pursuing airtime and op-ed space to present our arguments.

We knew were fighting against some pretty powerful interests, so our arguments were not presented as abstract issues of law, but rather as stories about those whose lives had been affected by medical negligence. While the opposition spoke of insurance premiums we told of a child whose life, and the lives of her family, were shattered by a negligent physician.

In the end, we prevailed, but the battle taught me to never be complacent or silent. I often enlist the press at the beginning of a case, and don’t wait to react to negative stories. A good example is one of my current cases involving a faulty medical device. We have been on local television and print media explaining the dangers of the device, and why we have brought suit against the manufacturer. We have, to use a phrase, “framed the argument” in our favor. It would be very difficult for anyone on the other side to gain any sympathy.

Which brings us back to the refrigerator lights. The story that should have been told was about the dangers of appliance fires, about the deaths, injuries, and property damage. Because that story was never told, a very serious problem was trivialized, and made the butt of a media outlet’s jokes.

My advice to all is to take control of your story. Frame it the way you want to see it presented to the public, and be relentless in getting it out to the press. Do that and you’ll never have to worry what’s being said by some guy on the AM dial.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Pete Flowers