Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Pregnancy counselors offer Chorionic Villus Sampling as a way to determine whether a fetus is likely to have Downs Syndrome. CVS is an alternative to amniocentesis. Some prefer CVS to Amnio because CVS can be performed earlier in the pregnancy, typically at 10 to 12 weeks compared to 15 to 18 weeks. Whether to undergo chorionic villus sampling is a sensitive decision that should be made only after full consideration of the risks and benefits. I became familiar with the procedure as an attorney representing children born with missing fingers and missing toes and hemangiomas, which, we believed were caused by CVS procedures that occurred in Portland, Oregon.

Sometimes, patients and doctors consider procedures too lightly. In the case of CVS and Amnio, some counselors just tell the women, "at your age, you should probably have chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis." But that should be just the start of the conversation, not a box to check on a consent form. Here are some of the things that the counselors should walk you through.

What is the benefit?

You must determine what are YOUR risks that YOUR baby will have Downs Syndrome or some other genetic anomaly that the test will identify. More importantly, what would you if the test showed an anomaly? The only purpose for any medical test to obtain information that you will act upon. If there are no actions you can or would take based upon the results, then don't take the test. Counselors should review this with you, I believe. CVS became popular because it offered results in the first trimester, which meant an abortion could then occur in the first trimester, if so desired.

What are the risks?

Medical knowledge changes rapidly. Early studies indicated a correlation between CVS and "transverse limb anomalies," which often meant missing fingers, missing toes, or other shortening of the limbs. Some later studies downplay the risk and some argue that the early bad results were due, in part, from performing CVS before the 10th week. Personally, I've noted a correlation between the gestational development and the injury. So, it is not surprising to me that later studies tend to find the limb defects more limited. Now that more tests occur at the 11 or 12 weeks, compared to 9 or 10 weeks, it makes sense that the fetus was more developed and less susceptible to injury.

Hemangiomas, which look like port wine stains on the skin, is another condition researchers and others have noticed among children born following chorionic villus sampling.

Of course, your pregnancy counselor should discuss with you the above risks, and all other risks, before you decide whether to go forward with the procedure.

If (1) your Oregon pregnancy counselor did not thoroughly cover the risks and benefits, (2) you would have decided against CVS if she had discussed these issues, and (3) your child suffered because of the poor counseling, then you should contact me, an Oregon attorney who has helped children injured because of bad counseling regarding chorionic villus sampling.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234

The above is not legal advice. I cannot give you sound advice without knowing more information. It is intended to raise some issues for you to discuss with your own lawyer.

Last week, Oregon's Court of Appeals confirmed that Geico must pay personal injury protection (PIP) insurance benefits to the son who borrowed his mom's car and was injured in a car accident. Geico tried to weasel out of payment by arguing that the son did not reside with mom at the time. In Brandon Sheptow v. Geico General Insurance Co., the court said, in effect, "phooey." Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 806.080(1)(b) specifically requires that any motor vehicle policy sold in this state covers "all persons who, with the consent of the named insured, use the motor vehicle[.]"

Personal injury protection benefits provide no-fault benefits to people injured in car accidents. (In this case, Brandon was not at fault; the other driver caused the car collision.) PIP covers medical bills, lost wages, and certain other losses up to the amount the limitations of the insurance policy. Regardless of what the insurance contract says, the coverage applies. Under Oregon law, the statutes provide a coverage "floor." An insurance policy may provide more benefits, but it cannot provide fewer benefits.

In this case, the Geico denied coverage based on an old case that predated the key provision in ORS 806.080. However, every law school teaches every law student law that a later law enacted by the legislature trumps an earlier law, and, especially, an earlier interpretation of the law by a court. The trial court did not fall for Geico's, and neither did the court of appeals.

So, yes, when an Oregon mom lends her car to her son, mom's insurance covers him as if she were driving, whether the son lives with her or is just visiting.

The moral of the story: Beware of the jocular gecko lizard who is happy to accept your money but transmutes into a weasel when it comes time to pay money to you or your loved ones. Instead, hire an Oregon attorney when you are involved in a car or truck accident.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234

The above is not legal advice. I cannot give you sound advice without knowing more information. It is intended to raise some issues for you to discuss with your own lawyer.

Yet another Oregon motorist called me who was rear-ended while stopped. The suspected reason: the other woman was using her cell phone, probably reading it or texting. She is responsible for the car damage and the personal injury to my new client, but an interesting legal question came to mind. Does the law against cell phone use apply if someone is just reading or watching video on it?

First, the driver must pay for monetary damages because of negligence whether or not she should be ticketed under the driving statutes. The negligence standard is a reasonable person standard. A reasonable person does not read or watch video while operating a car or truck. If that causes a collision, then the person is must pay for the losses she caused.

But is just reading or viewing something a traffic offense covered by the statute prohibiting cell phone use?

ORS 811.507 prohibits driving "while using a mobile communication device," unless the person is 18 or older and uses a hands-free accessory. The law defines a "mobile communication device" as a device designed to "receive or transmit voice or text communication." But many devices now provide text, voice, PLUS Internet. What if someone is surfing for sports scores or the latest news? Does ORS 811.507 prohibit that?

The answer is we do not know until a test case makes it to the courts. On one side of the argument, the law prohibits "using" the "device" with your fingers or hands. If the driver uses the device for something other than voice or text, he is still "using the device," and that seems to be prohibited. On the other hand, the statute, as a whole, refers to communication between the driver and others. One could argue that the simple receipt of information is not, strictly, prohibited.

As a practical matter, just pay attention to driving when you drive. Whether or not you violate ORS 811.507, if you hurt someone because you are texting or Internet surfing while driving, the victim has a valid claim against you.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234

The above is not legal advice. I cannot give you sound advice without knowing more information. It is intended to raise some issues for you to discuss with your own lawyer.

Head and brain injuries among children occur too frequently. The numbers are increasing. On October 28, 2011, the Brain Injury Association of Oregon holds a conference on best practices for diagnosing and treating brain injuries.

I've written about the problems before. At earliest ages, falls cause many pediatric brain injuries, and head injuries, overall cause most of traumatic deaths among children. Statistics indicate that at age 15, head trauma increases significantly, likely due to football and other sports and driving. Although we're getting better at identifying brain injuries after the fact, the number of brain injuries is increasing.

Children's brains differ from adult brains. Their brains are softer because of more water content. This increases the risks of injury.

Speakers at the conference will discuss three general topics: the latest medicine; how educators can better work with students after injury; and tips to the families to get the assistance they need. For more information, please see the Association's website.

If your child was hurt because of the fault of others, please know that there are strict time limits for making legal claims. For example, if a school or public agency is at fault, the time to act may be as short as 270 days. So, although families have much to deal with when confronted with a brain-injured child, sometimes, contacting a brain injury attorney should not wait. If you want to discuss your legal options, please call me.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234

The above is not legal advice. I cannot give you sound advice without knowing more information. It is intended to raise some issues for you to discuss with your own lawyer.