A new study conducted by researchers from Boston University found that children who sustained a concussion/mild traumatic brain injury prior to the age of 12 had a greater risk of later-life cognitive impairment. Robert A. Stern, Ph.D. and colleagues at Boston University conducted a study to “determine the relationship between exposure to repeated head impacts… Continue Reading
Readers of this blog are familiar with my efforts to bar defense biomechanical engineers and accident reconstruction “experts” from providing invalid biomechanical testimony that people cannot be injured in low-impact collisions. Recently, I served as amicus counsel for ATLA-NJ before the New Jersey Supreme Court.
On January 6, 2006, the Court ruled that CNA Insurance Company acted unreasonably in delaying my client’s right to arbitrate an underinsured motorist claim.
Over the past decade and a half, there has been a concerted effort by insurance carriers, product manufacturers and others whose improper behavior is curtailed by plaintiff’s trial attorneys to cap contigent fees.
I recently served as a presenter at the 6th Annual “Understanding The Medical and Legal Aspects of Brain Injury Litigation” Course sponsored by the Brain Injury Association of New York. Here is a podcast of my presentation, Use of Medical Literature in Brain Injury Litigation.
The October 2005 TBI Newsletter reports that the Mayo Clinic has created a new coma measurement system as a proposed replacement for the current Glasgow Coma Scale. The new system is called the FOUR (Full Outline of UnResponsiveness) Score.
Recently the Third Circuit clarified the boundaries surrounding the filing of informal proofs of claim. I thought this article would be of interest to the injury lawyers who read this blog and sometimes find themselves in a situation where their client has a claim against a company who files for bankruptcy protection.
At the conclusion of a recent trial, the court was never called upon to decide two outstanding motions that had been filed with regard to the validity of my client’s PET scan and the objectivity of neuropsychological testing.
This week’s New Jersey Law Journal’s Suits & Deals section mentions a case which I recently settled for $975,000.00 on behalf of my client who suffered a brain injury in an auto accident.
I spoke at the 6th World Congress on Brain Injury in Australia about the various schemes that exist in the United States, and primarily in New Jersey, regarding no-fault insurance. My intent was to warn the Australians, who in a number of states recently enacted no-fault guidelines, about the dangerous road on which they have embarked.