Victoria Personal Injury Lawyer - Miscellaneous

House Fires - Time Change Is Time to Change Smoke Alarm Batteries

Mike Parker — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:52:04 GMT

At 2:00 a.m. Sunday, November 2, 2008, Daylight Savings Time ends. Remember to set your clock back 1 hour. However, now is a good time to change the batteries in your home's smoke alarms.

According to the U.S. Fire Administration, nearly 5,000 Americans die each year in fires, and 80 percent of those deaths result from home fires.

Statistics show that more American's are killed from fire each year than from all natural disasters combined.

Don't be a statistic! Change your smoke alarm batteries this weekend when you move your clocks back 1 hour.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Parker

Harsh Method to Ensure Your Wishes Are Followed After Death

David Coffey — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:14:09 GMT

The New York Times has reported that Anthrax Suspect, Bruce Ivans, used a creative, albeit terroristic, method of ensuring his wishes with respect to the dispostion of his remains be honored. His Will states that “[i]f my remains are not cremated and my ashes are not scattered or spread on the ground, I give to Planned Parenthood of Maryland” the sum of $50,000. His wife is a devout Catholic and according to church teaching, one's ashes are to be buried in sacred ground and not scattered. So Mr. Ivans, a right to life activist, is forced to chose between honoring her husband's wishes or having a large portion of her husband's $143,000 estate pass to an organization whose views on abortion are in direct opposition to hers. She has decided to dispose of his remains as her husband wished.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Coffey

Texas Hurricane Ike Victims Qualify for IRS Disaster Relief

David Coffey — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:19:02 GMT

On September 18, 2008, the IRS granted Texas Hurricane Ike Victims IRS Disaster Relief .

Taxpayers residing in the effected area have been granted an extension of time to file and pay taxes until January 9, 2009 for returns or payments due after September 7, 2008 and before January 5, 2009.

The counties covered by this extension are: Angelina, Austin, Brazoria, Chambers, Cherokee, Fort Bend, Galveston, Grimes, Hardin, Harris, Houston, Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Madison, Matagorda, Montgomery, Nacogdoches, Newton, Orange, Polk, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, Trinity, Tyler, Walker, Waller and Washington.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Coffey

What will happen with Heath Ledger's $20M+ estate?

Paul Romano — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:45:09 GMT

Heath Ledger, star of the recent Batman film the Dark Knight who died of an accidental drug overdose on January 22, 2008, left an estate that may top $20M after proceeds of his most recent hit movie finish pouring in. In 2003, Ledger executed a will in his home country of Australia in which he put the bulk of his estate into a trust for the benefit of his parents, Kim Ledger and Sally Bell, and his three sisters. Although the fallen star left his testamentary wishes absolutely clear and in writing, there is still some controversy over who should be entitled to Ledger's estate.

The dispute lies in the fact that subsequent to signing his will, Ledger fathered a child, Matilda, with his then girlfriend, actress Michelle Williams. Although the general rule in all of the United States is that a person may disinherit anyone he likes, including his children, most states in America, including New York where Ledger died, have laws against the accidental disinheritance of a child. Generally, the law presumes that an after-born child who is not mentioned in a will that was signed before the birth of the child would have been included as a beneficiary if the deceased person had taken the time to update their testamentary wishes. If the facts to this point in my blog constituted the entirety of the story, then under New York law, Matilda would be entitled to Ledger's entire estate in spite of the movie star's 2003 will directing otherwise. But, of course, the story does not end there.

It seems that there are rumors that a young Heath Ledger may have fathered another child when he was age 16 with an older woman when he lived in Australia. This rumor, as far as I can tell, has not yet been confirmed. However, if rumors of a second child are true, Matilda's claim to her father's estate may be in jeopardy. Although the law generally favors a child disinherited by a will signed before the child's birth, the presumption in favor of that child disappears if the testator (the person who signed the will) had another child at the time the will was signed who was also disinherited. The theory is that if the testator disinherited the child who was living at the time the will was signed then he would also have disinherited any afterborn children as well. Additionally, it would not matter, as in this case, that the testator may have had no knowledge of the other child's existence when the will was executed. The law would presume that Ledger knew he had a child and intentionally disinherited that child, and no evidence to the contrary may be admitted to prove otherwise.

At this point, Ledger's parents have proclaimed their intention to "take care of" Matilda; however, two of Ledger's uncles have questioned the sincerity of their brother Kim Ledger's generosity. The uncles claim that Kim Ledger mismanaged their father's estate and should not be trusted to properly manage his son's estate on Matilda's behalf.

I will keep you updated as the story progresses.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Romano

Protect Your Will

David Coffey — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:56:26 GMT

The Texarkana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's admission of a lost will to probate in the Estate of Wilson, 252 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2008, no pet. h.). The presumption in Texas is that if an original will is not produced in court, it was revoked by the testator. In this case, the court of appeals held that the decedent's wife did not meet the high standard required to prove that a will not produced in court was, in fact, lost and not merely revoked.

It is very important that you keep your will in a place that is safe from fire, flood, or disgruntled beneficiaries.

Thanks to Professor Gerry Beyer for bringing this case to my attention.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Coffey

Website for Texans to Become Organ Donors

David Coffey — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:26:51 GMT

Anyone in Texas interested in being an organ donor can go to the following site in order to obtain an organ donor card: Donate Life Texas Site. In addition to registering as a donor, it is important that your loved ones understand that you want to donate your organs. If they do not, your wishes may not be followed.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Coffey

Elderly More Likely to Die in Pedestrian Accident

Will Sciba — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:30:10 GMT

Older Texans are more likely to die in pedestrian accidents. The Death rate in Texas is significantly higher than the national average. According to the Victoria advocate:

From 2002 to 2005, the Texas pedestrian fatality rate was 2.0 per 100,000, 17 percent higher than the national rate. Among older Texans, the per 100,000 rate was 2.7, 35 percent higher than the state rate, according to the study released this week by WalkWell Texas.

WalkWell Texas compiled the data on pedestrian fatalities.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Will Sciba

Paris Hilton Disinherited

David Coffey — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:23:34 GMT

The head of the Hilton clan, Barron Hilton, has decided to disinherit all of his grandchildren. He is particularly "embarrassed by how the Hilton name has been sullied by Paris." He has chosen, instead, to leave his fortune to the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Coffey

FDA Warning About SSRIs May Have Increased Teen Suicides

Jenny Albano — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:53:45 GMT

According to a new study in the Journal of American Psychiatry, the decreased use of SSRI prescriptions and the record increase of teen suicides from 2003 and 2004 may be linked.

The number of SSRI prescriptions for pediatric depression (ages 5 to 18) tumbled more than 50 percent between 2003 and 2005. In a troubling parallel development, the number of teen suicides jumped a record 18 percent between 2003 and 2004, the most recent year for which data exist.

According to Dr. Kelly Posner, a Columbia University child psychiatrist, "All the data point in one direction: antidepressants save lives and untreated depression kills people".

The FDA may have scarred people away from using SSRIs because the agency issued a health-advisory warning of a potential link between the use of the drugs and teen suicide in 2003. In 2004, the FDA put a "black box" warning on these antidepressants that showed the increased risk of suicidal thinking and behavior among children and adolescents.

Now, some experts think the FDA's warning may have done more harm than good. Most psychiatrists think that SSRIs can put people at a temporary risk of suicide, but they consider untreated depression as much more lethal than using the drugs.

"You may induce two suicides by treatment, but by stopping treatment you're going to lose dozens to hundreds of kids. You're losing more than you're saving. That's the calculus," says Dr. Robert Valuck, of the University of Colorado Heath Sciences Center, coauthor of the new paper.

The FDA has already discussed changing the black box warning because of the misunderstanding. The FDA may see more evidence that the warning and teen suicides are linked when the CDC releases the suicide figures for 2005. If the rates are still high the agency will likely go back to the board of advisers.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Tort Reform

John Rudd — Wed, 30 May 2007 16:58:39 GMT

Proponents of tort-reform would have you believe the debate is about frivolous lawsuits. It's really about corporate responsibility and who, if anyone, will be held accountable when American consumers are defrauded, injured or killed as a result of someone else's negligence.

Big businesses continue to finance a massive public relations effort lobbying legislators for more tort-reform measures. Corporations say they need protection from lawsuits, but they're really looking for protection from the people they hurt.

Advocates of tort-reform may have a lot of money, but they don't have a monopoly on the truth. Tort-reform legislation undermines a consumer's right to a trial by jury. Tort-reform may sound good - until you're the victim.

Placing limits on damages makes the cost of negligence affordable and predictable. Such action requires the Federal and/or State Constitutions be changed. Before changing the laws that protect us from those with enormous financial and political power, shouldn't we ask some questions?

Do consumers want legislators limiting our ability to go to an attorney? That's what happens with caps on damages. Do consumers really want limits on the ability to collect evidence against those whose negligence has caused them harm? That's what happens with mandatory arbitration.

When legislators restrict your constitutional protections, they've shifted the scales of justice so the process can never be fair. Most people believe in getting their money's worth in a deal, but we aren't getting a fair deal when it comes to Constitutional reform disguised as tort-reform.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Rudd