Stern Gives Seminars on Both Coasts and Canada

It has been a very busy past two and a half weeks as I have given presentations on both coasts of the United States as well as Nova Scotia, Canada.  In late October,  I was invited by the Workers Injury Law and Advocacy Group to speak at their yearly convention in Santa Barbara, California.  There, along with my colleague Gordon Johnson, we gave a mock demonstration of a direct examination of a neurologist in a traumatic brain injury. A week later, I flew back to California to give a presentation entitled “Admissibility of Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI)” for the Brain Injury Association of California.

Back in New Jersey, I co-chaired a program entitled “Cross Examination College” at the New Jersey Association for Justice’s mid‑year convention at the Meadowlands in East Rutherford, New Jersey.  Besides co-chairing the college, I also gave a presentation on cross examination of the expert in a traumatic brain injury case. Finally, I was invited to speak at the Atlantic Province Trial Lawyers Association’s seminar in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.  There, I gave two presentations , one entitled “The Effect of Disability on Earning Capacity for Canadians”  as well as a presentation on “The Use of Demonstrative Evidence.

While travelling can be quite tiring and travelling back and forth to the west coast is exhausting, I believe it is important to help educate other trial attorneys so they can better be able to represent their clients who sustained injury as a result of the fault of others.

Motorcyclists Should Wear Helmets

I read a very interesting article published by the Journal of Emergency Medicine (September 24, 2009) which contained a research article studying the adult motorcycle crashes and the effect and comparing helmeted to unhelmeted motorcyclists. The study conducted by researchers at the Department of Surgery and Trauma Services in the University Medical Center at Brackenridge, Austin, Texas compared the outcomes of helmeted versus unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in motorcycle crashes.

Heparin Injury Lawyers Investigating Potential Claims

I wanted to let readers of my blog know that the injury lawyers of my firm are now investigating potential Heparin injury claims on behalf of those hurt by the administration of contaminated batches of the drug. The government issued a Heparin recall earlier this year after more than 80 people died and hundreds more suffered sever allergic reactions to the tainted blood thinning drug.

$975,000 For Brain Injuries In Crash

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.

Non-physician expert qualified to testify

The New Jersey Supreme Court held that a non-physician expert was qualified to testify regarding medical cause of a worker’s injury. In Clark v. Safety-Kleen Corp., 179 N.J. 318, 845 A.2d 578 (2004), the Court held that a non-physician research chemist was qualified to testify regarding the medical cause of a workers injury. The Plaintiff in Clark developed an infection after a cut on his finger was exposed to a certain chemical. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that it was an error to permit the chemist to testify regarding medical causation, since this opinion was beyond the scope of the expert’s qualifications. Read More about Non-physician expert qualified to testify

The need for certainty in personal injury claims

I was recently contacted to review a file on behalf of a woman injured in a bus incident. The accident had occurred a number of years ago and suit had already been filed in the United States District Court. In order to learn a little about the case before conducting an in-depth interview, I asked the individual to please send me copies of whatever medical records and legal pleadings she had in her possession. Unfortunately, the medical reports which were sent for review were on their face insufficient to meet the legal requirements necessary to succeed.

While the physician was able to document an impairment, he was unable to causally relate that impairment to the specific traumatic incident, simply stating “it is possible that the incident was the cause.”

Under our legal standards, an expert’s opinion must be based on a reasonable degree of medical probability or certainty (the case of a medical expert) or to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. The use of the term possible was fatal.

In any personal injury case, it is essential that the plaintiff have an expert causally relate the injury to the specific traumatic event. In other words, in bringing a personal injury case, a plaintiff must have a doctor, not necessarily a physician, state to a reasonable degree of medical, psychological or scientific certainty that the plaintiff suffered an injury that was causally related to the specific incident.

Stark & Stark helps injury victims and their families

As a result of our experience and through careful assessment and preparation, Stark & Stark’s personal injury lawyers have been able to help victims and their families obtain cash settlements for lost wages, medical expenses and pain and suffering.

Our personal injury practice is one of the largest in Central New Jersey. As many as 2,000 clients per year are assisted by our lawyers in personal injury matters and every case is supervised by a certified trial lawyer.

Our areas of practice include automobile accidents, birth injuries, construction accidents, traumatic brain injury, product liability, medical malpractice, motorcycle accidents, nursing home negligence, on the job injuries, slip and fall accidents and many more.

Blog Categories