Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Shoking Promotion strategy
The boss called one of his employees into the office. "Rob," he said, "you've been with the company for a year. You started off in the mail room, one week later you were promoted to a sales position, and one month after that you were promoted to district manager of the sales department. Just four short months later, you were promoted to vice-president. Now, it's time for me to retire, and I want you to take over the company.
What do you say to that?"
"Thanks," said the employee.
"Thanks?" the boss replied "Is that all you can say?"
"I suppose not," the employee said.
"Thanks, Dad."
What do you say to that?"
"Thanks," said the employee.
"Thanks?" the boss replied "Is that all you can say?"
"I suppose not," the employee said.
"Thanks, Dad."
Day Off, a Boss's Perspective
So, you want the day off?
Let's take a look at what you are asking for.
There are 365 days per year available for work. There are 52 weeks a year in which you already get 2 days off per week, leaving 261 days available for work. Since you spend 16 hours each day away from work, you have used up 170 days, leaving 1 days available. You spend 30 minutes a day on a coffee break. That accounts for 23 days each year, leaving only 68 days available. With one Hour for lunch period each day you use up another 46 days, leaving only 22 days available to work. You normally spend 2 days a year for sick leave. This leaves you only 20 days available for work. We are off for 5 holidays per year, so your available working time is down to 15 days. We generously give you 2 weeks off for vacation per year. This only leaves 1 day available for work.
And I'll be darned if you're going to take that day off!!
Let's take a look at what you are asking for.
There are 365 days per year available for work. There are 52 weeks a year in which you already get 2 days off per week, leaving 261 days available for work. Since you spend 16 hours each day away from work, you have used up 170 days, leaving 1 days available. You spend 30 minutes a day on a coffee break. That accounts for 23 days each year, leaving only 68 days available. With one Hour for lunch period each day you use up another 46 days, leaving only 22 days available to work. You normally spend 2 days a year for sick leave. This leaves you only 20 days available for work. We are off for 5 holidays per year, so your available working time is down to 15 days. We generously give you 2 weeks off for vacation per year. This only leaves 1 day available for work.
And I'll be darned if you're going to take that day off!!
Dictionary of Evaluation Comments
Job Evaluation Dictionary
Some of you might like to know what the supervisor is really saying in all those glowing employee work performance evaluations s/he keeps cranking out.
AVERAGE: Not too bright.
EXCEPTIONALLY WELL QUALIFIED: Has committed no major blunders to date.
ACTIVE SOCIALLY: Drinks heavily.
ZEALOUS ATTITUDE: Opinionated.
CHARACTER ABOVE REPROACH: Still one step ahead of the law.
UNLIMITED POTENTIAL: Will stick with us until retirement.
QUICK THINKING: Offers plausible excuses for errors.
TAKES PRIDE IN WORK: Conceited.
TAKES ADVANTAGE OF EVERY OPPERTUNITY TO PROGRESS: Buys drinks for superiors.
INDIFFERENT TO INSTRUCTION: Knows more than superiors.
STERN DISCIPLINARIAN: A real jerk.
TACTFUL IN DEALING WITH SUPERIORS: Knows when to keep mouth shut.
APPROACHES DIFFICULT PROBLEMS WITH LOGIC: Finds someone else to do the job.
A KEEN ANALYST: Thoroughly confused.
NOT A DESK PERSON: Did not go to college.
EXPRESSES SELF WELL: Can string two sentences together.
SPENDS EXTRA HOURS ON THE JOB: Miserable home life.
CONSCIENTIOUS AND CAREFUL: Scared.
METICULOUS IN ATTENTION TO DETAIL: A nitpicker.
DEMONSTRATES QUALITIES OF LEADERSHIP: Has a loud voice.
JUDGEMENT IS USUALLY SOUND: Lucky.
MAINTAINS PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDE: A snob.
KEEN SENSE OF HUMOR: Knows lots of dirty jokes.
STRONG ADHERENCE TO PRINCIPLES: Stubborn.
GETS ALONG EXTREMELY WELL WITH SUPERIORS AND SUBORDINATES ALIKE: A coward.
SLIGHTLY BELOW AVERAGE: Stupid.
OF GREAT VALUE TO THE ORGANIZATION: Turns in work on time.
IS UNUSUALLY LOYAL: Wanted by no-one else.
ALERT TO COMPANY DEVELOPMENTS: An office gossip.
REQUIRES WORK-VALUE ATTITUDINAL READJUSTMENT: Lazy and hard-headed.
HARD WORKER: Usually does it the hard way.
ENJOYS JOB: Needs more to do.
HAPPY: Paid too much.
WELL ORGANIZED: Does too much busywork.
COMPETENT: Is still able to get work done if supervisor helps.
CONSULTS WITH SUPERVISOR OFTEN: Annoying.
WILL GO FAR: Relative of management.
SHOULD GO FAR: Please.
USES TIME EFFECTIVELY: Clock watcher.
VERY CREATIVE: Finds 22 reasons to do anything except original work.
USES RESOURSES WELL: Delegates everything.
DESERVES PROMOTION: Create new title to make h/h feel appreciated.
Job Evaluation Dictionary Joke
Dictionary of Evaluation Comments
Some of you might like to know what the supervisor is really saying in all those glowing employee work performance evaluations s/he keeps cranking out.
AVERAGE: Not too bright.
EXCEPTIONALLY WELL QUALIFIED: Has committed no major blunders to date.
ACTIVE SOCIALLY: Drinks heavily.
ZEALOUS ATTITUDE: Opinionated.
CHARACTER ABOVE REPROACH: Still one step ahead of the law.
UNLIMITED POTENTIAL: Will stick with us until retirement.
QUICK THINKING: Offers plausible excuses for errors.
TAKES PRIDE IN WORK: Conceited.
TAKES ADVANTAGE OF EVERY OPPERTUNITY TO PROGRESS: Buys drinks for superiors.
INDIFFERENT TO INSTRUCTION: Knows more than superiors.
STERN DISCIPLINARIAN: A real jerk.
TACTFUL IN DEALING WITH SUPERIORS: Knows when to keep mouth shut.
APPROACHES DIFFICULT PROBLEMS WITH LOGIC: Finds someone else to do the job.
A KEEN ANALYST: Thoroughly confused.
NOT A DESK PERSON: Did not go to college.
EXPRESSES SELF WELL: Can string two sentences together.
SPENDS EXTRA HOURS ON THE JOB: Miserable home life.
CONSCIENTIOUS AND CAREFUL: Scared.
METICULOUS IN ATTENTION TO DETAIL: A nitpicker.
DEMONSTRATES QUALITIES OF LEADERSHIP: Has a loud voice.
JUDGEMENT IS USUALLY SOUND: Lucky.
MAINTAINS PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDE: A snob.
KEEN SENSE OF HUMOR: Knows lots of dirty jokes.
STRONG ADHERENCE TO PRINCIPLES: Stubborn.
GETS ALONG EXTREMELY WELL WITH SUPERIORS AND SUBORDINATES ALIKE: A coward.
SLIGHTLY BELOW AVERAGE: Stupid.
OF GREAT VALUE TO THE ORGANIZATION: Turns in work on time.
IS UNUSUALLY LOYAL: Wanted by no-one else.
ALERT TO COMPANY DEVELOPMENTS: An office gossip.
REQUIRES WORK-VALUE ATTITUDINAL READJUSTMENT: Lazy and hard-headed.
HARD WORKER: Usually does it the hard way.
ENJOYS JOB: Needs more to do.
HAPPY: Paid too much.
WELL ORGANIZED: Does too much busywork.
COMPETENT: Is still able to get work done if supervisor helps.
CONSULTS WITH SUPERVISOR OFTEN: Annoying.
WILL GO FAR: Relative of management.
SHOULD GO FAR: Please.
USES TIME EFFECTIVELY: Clock watcher.
VERY CREATIVE: Finds 22 reasons to do anything except original work.
USES RESOURSES WELL: Delegates everything.
DESERVES PROMOTION: Create new title to make h/h feel appreciated.
Some of you might like to know what the supervisor is really saying in all those glowing employee work performance evaluations s/he keeps cranking out.
AVERAGE: Not too bright.
EXCEPTIONALLY WELL QUALIFIED: Has committed no major blunders to date.
ACTIVE SOCIALLY: Drinks heavily.
ZEALOUS ATTITUDE: Opinionated.
CHARACTER ABOVE REPROACH: Still one step ahead of the law.
UNLIMITED POTENTIAL: Will stick with us until retirement.
QUICK THINKING: Offers plausible excuses for errors.
TAKES PRIDE IN WORK: Conceited.
TAKES ADVANTAGE OF EVERY OPPERTUNITY TO PROGRESS: Buys drinks for superiors.
INDIFFERENT TO INSTRUCTION: Knows more than superiors.
STERN DISCIPLINARIAN: A real jerk.
TACTFUL IN DEALING WITH SUPERIORS: Knows when to keep mouth shut.
APPROACHES DIFFICULT PROBLEMS WITH LOGIC: Finds someone else to do the job.
A KEEN ANALYST: Thoroughly confused.
NOT A DESK PERSON: Did not go to college.
EXPRESSES SELF WELL: Can string two sentences together.
SPENDS EXTRA HOURS ON THE JOB: Miserable home life.
CONSCIENTIOUS AND CAREFUL: Scared.
METICULOUS IN ATTENTION TO DETAIL: A nitpicker.
DEMONSTRATES QUALITIES OF LEADERSHIP: Has a loud voice.
JUDGEMENT IS USUALLY SOUND: Lucky.
MAINTAINS PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDE: A snob.
KEEN SENSE OF HUMOR: Knows lots of dirty jokes.
STRONG ADHERENCE TO PRINCIPLES: Stubborn.
GETS ALONG EXTREMELY WELL WITH SUPERIORS AND SUBORDINATES ALIKE: A coward.
SLIGHTLY BELOW AVERAGE: Stupid.
OF GREAT VALUE TO THE ORGANIZATION: Turns in work on time.
IS UNUSUALLY LOYAL: Wanted by no-one else.
ALERT TO COMPANY DEVELOPMENTS: An office gossip.
REQUIRES WORK-VALUE ATTITUDINAL READJUSTMENT: Lazy and hard-headed.
HARD WORKER: Usually does it the hard way.
ENJOYS JOB: Needs more to do.
HAPPY: Paid too much.
WELL ORGANIZED: Does too much busywork.
COMPETENT: Is still able to get work done if supervisor helps.
CONSULTS WITH SUPERVISOR OFTEN: Annoying.
WILL GO FAR: Relative of management.
SHOULD GO FAR: Please.
USES TIME EFFECTIVELY: Clock watcher.
VERY CREATIVE: Finds 22 reasons to do anything except original work.
USES RESOURSES WELL: Delegates everything.
DESERVES PROMOTION: Create new title to make h/h feel appreciated.
Job Evaluation Dictionary Joke
Dictionary of Evaluation Comments
Some of you might like to know what the supervisor is really saying in all those glowing employee work performance evaluations s/he keeps cranking out.
AVERAGE: Not too bright.
EXCEPTIONALLY WELL QUALIFIED: Has committed no major blunders to date.
ACTIVE SOCIALLY: Drinks heavily.
ZEALOUS ATTITUDE: Opinionated.
CHARACTER ABOVE REPROACH: Still one step ahead of the law.
UNLIMITED POTENTIAL: Will stick with us until retirement.
QUICK THINKING: Offers plausible excuses for errors.
TAKES PRIDE IN WORK: Conceited.
TAKES ADVANTAGE OF EVERY OPPERTUNITY TO PROGRESS: Buys drinks for superiors.
INDIFFERENT TO INSTRUCTION: Knows more than superiors.
STERN DISCIPLINARIAN: A real jerk.
TACTFUL IN DEALING WITH SUPERIORS: Knows when to keep mouth shut.
APPROACHES DIFFICULT PROBLEMS WITH LOGIC: Finds someone else to do the job.
A KEEN ANALYST: Thoroughly confused.
NOT A DESK PERSON: Did not go to college.
EXPRESSES SELF WELL: Can string two sentences together.
SPENDS EXTRA HOURS ON THE JOB: Miserable home life.
CONSCIENTIOUS AND CAREFUL: Scared.
METICULOUS IN ATTENTION TO DETAIL: A nitpicker.
DEMONSTRATES QUALITIES OF LEADERSHIP: Has a loud voice.
JUDGEMENT IS USUALLY SOUND: Lucky.
MAINTAINS PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDE: A snob.
KEEN SENSE OF HUMOR: Knows lots of dirty jokes.
STRONG ADHERENCE TO PRINCIPLES: Stubborn.
GETS ALONG EXTREMELY WELL WITH SUPERIORS AND SUBORDINATES ALIKE: A coward.
SLIGHTLY BELOW AVERAGE: Stupid.
OF GREAT VALUE TO THE ORGANIZATION: Turns in work on time.
IS UNUSUALLY LOYAL: Wanted by no-one else.
ALERT TO COMPANY DEVELOPMENTS: An office gossip.
REQUIRES WORK-VALUE ATTITUDINAL READJUSTMENT: Lazy and hard-headed.
HARD WORKER: Usually does it the hard way.
ENJOYS JOB: Needs more to do.
HAPPY: Paid too much.
WELL ORGANIZED: Does too much busywork.
COMPETENT: Is still able to get work done if supervisor helps.
CONSULTS WITH SUPERVISOR OFTEN: Annoying.
WILL GO FAR: Relative of management.
SHOULD GO FAR: Please.
USES TIME EFFECTIVELY: Clock watcher.
VERY CREATIVE: Finds 22 reasons to do anything except original work.
USES RESOURSES WELL: Delegates everything.
DESERVES PROMOTION: Create new title to make h/h feel appreciated.
Unusual Interviews
Vice Presidents and personnel directors of the one hundred largest corporations were asked to describe their most unusual experience interviewing prospective employees.
A job applicant challenged the interviewer to an arm wrestle.
Interviewee wore a Walkman, explaining that she could listen to the interviewer and the music at the same time.
Candidate fell and broke arm during interview.
Candidate announced she hadn't had lunch and proceeded to eat a hamburger and french fries in the interviewers office.
Candidate explained that her long-term goals was to replace the interviewer.
Candidate said he never finished high school because he was kidnapped and kept in a closet in Mexico.
Balding Candidate excused himself and returned to the office a few minutes later wearing a headpiece.
Applicant said if he was hired he would demonstrate his loyalty by having the corporate logo tattooed on his forearm.
Applicant interrupted interview to phone her therapist for advice on how to answer specific interview questions.
Candidate brought large dog to interview.
Applicant refused to sit down and insisted on being interviewed standing up.
Candidate dozed off during interview.
The employers were also asked to list the "most unusual" questions that have been asked by job candidates.
"What is it that you people do at this company?"
"What is the company motto?"
"Why aren't you in a more interesting business?"
"What are the zodiac signs of all the board members?"
"Why do you want references?"
"Do I have to dress for the next interview?"
"I know this is off the subject, but will you marry me?"
"Will the company move my rock collection from California to Maryland?"
"Will the company pay to relocate my horse?"
"Does your health insurance cover pets?"
"Would it be a problem if I'm angry most of the time?"
"Does your company have a policy regarding concealed weapons?"
A job applicant challenged the interviewer to an arm wrestle.
Interviewee wore a Walkman, explaining that she could listen to the interviewer and the music at the same time.
Candidate fell and broke arm during interview.
Candidate announced she hadn't had lunch and proceeded to eat a hamburger and french fries in the interviewers office.
Candidate explained that her long-term goals was to replace the interviewer.
Candidate said he never finished high school because he was kidnapped and kept in a closet in Mexico.
Balding Candidate excused himself and returned to the office a few minutes later wearing a headpiece.
Applicant said if he was hired he would demonstrate his loyalty by having the corporate logo tattooed on his forearm.
Applicant interrupted interview to phone her therapist for advice on how to answer specific interview questions.
Candidate brought large dog to interview.
Applicant refused to sit down and insisted on being interviewed standing up.
Candidate dozed off during interview.
The employers were also asked to list the "most unusual" questions that have been asked by job candidates.
"What is it that you people do at this company?"
"What is the company motto?"
"Why aren't you in a more interesting business?"
"What are the zodiac signs of all the board members?"
"Why do you want references?"
"Do I have to dress for the next interview?"
"I know this is off the subject, but will you marry me?"
"Will the company move my rock collection from California to Maryland?"
"Will the company pay to relocate my horse?"
"Does your health insurance cover pets?"
"Would it be a problem if I'm angry most of the time?"
"Does your company have a policy regarding concealed weapons?"
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Delayed Delivery of Baby Results in $22.6M Verdict
A 13 1/2 hour delay in the delivery of a baby girl who was stuck in the birth canal resulted in brain injuries from both the delay in delivery and from the mother's uterus repeatedly contracting on the baby's head because of medications given to the mother to encourage labor. Testimony during the 5 week trial demonstrated that the treating OB/GYN knew prior to delivery that the mother had a narrow pelvic arch and that the baby was approximately 9 pounds. Notwithstanding these two contradictory facts, the doctor allowed the mother to attempt a vaginal delivery when a cesarean section was indicated. The doctor not only attempted a vaginal birth, but then allowed it to continue for 13 1/2 hours, during which the mother was having contractions every 1-2 minutes for many hours.
Because the baby's head was squeezed so many times during the long delivery by the frequent contractions, the now-10 year old suffered brain damage that resulted in permanent injuries. She has been diagnosed as spastic guadriplegic, which means she has only limited use of her arms and legs. She is limited to walking short distances and only with the use of a walker, she can ee but because the part of her brain that processes what she sees was damaged, she can't interpret what she is seeing, she is mildly retarded and she has difficulty utilizing her hands.
After hearing all the testimony, the jury in this Ohio case awarded almost $8M for future medical care, over $7M for the inability to perform normal activities, and $3M for pain and suffering. Grow v. Yang, Hamilton County, Ohio.
Because the baby's head was squeezed so many times during the long delivery by the frequent contractions, the now-10 year old suffered brain damage that resulted in permanent injuries. She has been diagnosed as spastic guadriplegic, which means she has only limited use of her arms and legs. She is limited to walking short distances and only with the use of a walker, she can ee but because the part of her brain that processes what she sees was damaged, she can't interpret what she is seeing, she is mildly retarded and she has difficulty utilizing her hands.
After hearing all the testimony, the jury in this Ohio case awarded almost $8M for future medical care, over $7M for the inability to perform normal activities, and $3M for pain and suffering. Grow v. Yang, Hamilton County, Ohio.
Child Declared Dead Was Alive - Lawsuit Settled
In a case strikingly (and frighteningly) similar to one I am currently handling, a patient's family filed suit in California for the family of a child who was pronounced dead by a hospital and then later found to actually be alive. In both my current case and the California case, the patient suffered brain damage from the delay in necessary treatment and was forced to sue the hospital and doctors to obtain compensation for the injuries and medical care caused by the obvious negligence of the medical providers.
In the California case, which settled in April, 2008, then 20 month old Mackayla Jespersen was rushed to the emergency room after being found floating facedown in her family's pool in November, 2003. Paramedics initially provided treatment to Mackayla at her home and then transported her to the emergency room of the Anaheim Memorial Medical Center where doctors pronounced her dead 39 minutes after arrival. Following the determination that Mackayla was dead, the doctors removed a breathing tube and left her unattended for over an hour despite the fact that Mackayla's parents and grandmother advised doctors and nurses that they saw her breathing.
Just over an hour after Mackayla was left for dead, a police officer who was photographing the body observed her chest moving and called for help. Mackayla's family argued in their lawsuit against the hospital and treating doctors that Mackalya should have been warmed upon arrival at the emergency room so that her vital signs could be properly monitored. The family further argued that if Mackayla had not been left unattended for over an hour, she would have recovered from the drowning event or suffered significantly less brain damage. The hospital and treating doctors argued that it was not the absence of treatment for the hour she was wrongfully declared dead, but rather the 15 minutes under water, that caused her brain injury.
Mackayla, who is now 6 years old, has regained most of her brain functioning and appears about to learn to walk, but she continues to suffer from spastic movements and requires medical care from her injuries. The settlement amount is confidential.
In the California case, which settled in April, 2008, then 20 month old Mackayla Jespersen was rushed to the emergency room after being found floating facedown in her family's pool in November, 2003. Paramedics initially provided treatment to Mackayla at her home and then transported her to the emergency room of the Anaheim Memorial Medical Center where doctors pronounced her dead 39 minutes after arrival. Following the determination that Mackayla was dead, the doctors removed a breathing tube and left her unattended for over an hour despite the fact that Mackayla's parents and grandmother advised doctors and nurses that they saw her breathing.
Just over an hour after Mackayla was left for dead, a police officer who was photographing the body observed her chest moving and called for help. Mackayla's family argued in their lawsuit against the hospital and treating doctors that Mackalya should have been warmed upon arrival at the emergency room so that her vital signs could be properly monitored. The family further argued that if Mackayla had not been left unattended for over an hour, she would have recovered from the drowning event or suffered significantly less brain damage. The hospital and treating doctors argued that it was not the absence of treatment for the hour she was wrongfully declared dead, but rather the 15 minutes under water, that caused her brain injury.
Mackayla, who is now 6 years old, has regained most of her brain functioning and appears about to learn to walk, but she continues to suffer from spastic movements and requires medical care from her injuries. The settlement amount is confidential.
Medical Malpractice Verdict for Bowel Cut During Surgery
Medical Malpractice Verdict for Bowel Cut During Surgery
A New Jersey jury awarded a woman $6 Million and her husband $500,000 for injuries she suffered when her OB-GYN (obstetrician) cut her bowel during a routine caesarean section ("c-section") in 2001. The doctor testifed that a piece of Jane Bodell's small intestine was stuck to her uterus and that while trying to separate the bowel from the uterus, he unknowingly cut the bowel. He then failed to discover that he had cut the bowel until a subsequent exploratory surgery intended to determine why Mrs. Bodell was suffering from severe abdominal pain and fever after her c-section.
As a result of the bowel being cut, the contents of the bowel leaked into the stomach, which caused infections, organ scarring and blockages of the intestines. Mrs. Bodell now requires surgery on a regular basis to keep her condition manageable. The jury awarded Mrs. Bodell $6 Million for her pain and suffering and her husband $500,00 for his "loss of consortium" claim (his loss of Mrs. Bodell's companionship and marital services related to her injuries).
Surgical mishaps are a common source of medical malpractice cases. Although cutting the bowel or another organ during surgery is frequently a recognized complication of surgery, when detecting such a complication is delayed, it may be medical negligence.
A New Jersey jury awarded a woman $6 Million and her husband $500,000 for injuries she suffered when her OB-GYN (obstetrician) cut her bowel during a routine caesarean section ("c-section") in 2001. The doctor testifed that a piece of Jane Bodell's small intestine was stuck to her uterus and that while trying to separate the bowel from the uterus, he unknowingly cut the bowel. He then failed to discover that he had cut the bowel until a subsequent exploratory surgery intended to determine why Mrs. Bodell was suffering from severe abdominal pain and fever after her c-section.
As a result of the bowel being cut, the contents of the bowel leaked into the stomach, which caused infections, organ scarring and blockages of the intestines. Mrs. Bodell now requires surgery on a regular basis to keep her condition manageable. The jury awarded Mrs. Bodell $6 Million for her pain and suffering and her husband $500,00 for his "loss of consortium" claim (his loss of Mrs. Bodell's companionship and marital services related to her injuries).
Surgical mishaps are a common source of medical malpractice cases. Although cutting the bowel or another organ during surgery is frequently a recognized complication of surgery, when detecting such a complication is delayed, it may be medical negligence.
Electricuted Worker Gets Jury Verdict of $1.25 Million
Electricuted Worker Gets Jury Verdict of $1.25 Million
A 27 year old man from Delaware county, who was injured from an electric shock he sufferred after a cherrry picker struck power lines, was awarded $1.25 Million by a Jury. Although plaintiffs are generally prohibited from suing their employer, the injured man was argued not to be a regular employee, but instead was argued to be a temporary worker, who could recover for his injuries. The plaintiff's attorney insisted that the injured man was only a temporary worker (Independant Contractor) because he worked for the company just 5 days over a three period of time. Therefore, he should not be covered by the general prohibition concerning suing his employer. Because there was no clear law on this issue in Pennsylvania, all parties agreed to a binding high-low agreement, which will result in the plaintiff actually being compensated $900,000.
The cherrry picker was actually being operated by the company's owner at the time of the accident. Apparently, the owner/operator was maneuvering the cherry picker when his head came into contact with the live electrical wires. The plaintiff in the case was also exposed to the live current causing him to pass out. When the plaintiff awoke, he proceeded to pull the owner/operator off the live wires. Unfortunately, the owner/operator died from his injures. The co-worker (plaintiff) then sued the company for his own injuries, which included speech problems, inability to work in construction and post-traumatic stress disorder. An investigation of the incident by OSHA resulted in the company being cited for two violations, which were not contested.
This case involved complex and novel legal issues in Pennsylvania concerning when a worker is covered under a worker's compensation insurance policy and when a worker is actually functioning as an independant contractor. Such issues are central to determining a plaintiff's rights to recover for their injuries. These issues were never finally resolved in this case, but because the case did go through trial and verdict, an important precedent was set. This case demonstrates how only an experienced and qualified trial attorney, who is willing to fight for your rights, can ensure that your potential case is properly evaluated and litigated to a successful conclusion.
A 27 year old man from Delaware county, who was injured from an electric shock he sufferred after a cherrry picker struck power lines, was awarded $1.25 Million by a Jury. Although plaintiffs are generally prohibited from suing their employer, the injured man was argued not to be a regular employee, but instead was argued to be a temporary worker, who could recover for his injuries. The plaintiff's attorney insisted that the injured man was only a temporary worker (Independant Contractor) because he worked for the company just 5 days over a three period of time. Therefore, he should not be covered by the general prohibition concerning suing his employer. Because there was no clear law on this issue in Pennsylvania, all parties agreed to a binding high-low agreement, which will result in the plaintiff actually being compensated $900,000.
The cherrry picker was actually being operated by the company's owner at the time of the accident. Apparently, the owner/operator was maneuvering the cherry picker when his head came into contact with the live electrical wires. The plaintiff in the case was also exposed to the live current causing him to pass out. When the plaintiff awoke, he proceeded to pull the owner/operator off the live wires. Unfortunately, the owner/operator died from his injures. The co-worker (plaintiff) then sued the company for his own injuries, which included speech problems, inability to work in construction and post-traumatic stress disorder. An investigation of the incident by OSHA resulted in the company being cited for two violations, which were not contested.
This case involved complex and novel legal issues in Pennsylvania concerning when a worker is covered under a worker's compensation insurance policy and when a worker is actually functioning as an independant contractor. Such issues are central to determining a plaintiff's rights to recover for their injuries. These issues were never finally resolved in this case, but because the case did go through trial and verdict, an important precedent was set. This case demonstrates how only an experienced and qualified trial attorney, who is willing to fight for your rights, can ensure that your potential case is properly evaluated and litigated to a successful conclusion.
$1.2M Verdict for Family of Woman Who Died After Hernia Operation
Evidence showed that poor nursing care at Pennsylvania Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania Health System, including failure to contact a physician as ordered when the patient's blood pressure dropped below 100 and the absence of documented nursing care for a 16.5 hour period after surgery, resulted in the death of a 55 year old woman following a routine hernia operation. At trial, medical records presented to the jury showed that after surgery, a resident examined the patient and noted in her chart that nurses should call a physician if the patient's blood pressure dropped below 100. The same records showed that later the same day, at 5:15 p.m., a nurse recorded a blood pressure of 90/60, but did not call a doctor. This was the last nursing note written in the chart for the patient until 9:45 the next morning, reflecting a gap in documented care of 16 and 1/2 hours. The 9:45 a.m. chart noted that the patient was "extremely sedated, requiring painful stimuli for arousal and with a blood pressure of 90/58."
Following the 9:45 a.m. note, the patient's morphine pump was stopped and she was transferred to the intensive care unit, where she died two and a half days later. Attorneys for the woman's family argued that the nurses violated the standard of care by not calling for a doctor when the patient's blood pressure dropped below 100. Although attorneys for the hospital disputed that the nurses' care was negligent, a nursing supervisor employed by the hospital testified that a doctor should have been called when the patient's blood pressure dropped below 100.
In addition to the allegations that the nurses were negligent for failing to call for a doctor, the plaintiff's attorneys argued that the patient was over-medicated with morphine. Evidence presented at trial showed that people with compromised livers, which this patient had because of a chronic alcoholism condition, process morphine 50% slower than patients with a healthy liver. Attorneys for the hospital essentially argued that the patient was caused by her alcoholism and related medical problems such as liver disease and high blood pressure.
A jury voted 10-2 to award the patient's family $1.2 million dollars, which was $900,000 more than the highest offer the hospital had made to settle the case prior to trial. The hospital has stated it will appeal the verdict.
Following the 9:45 a.m. note, the patient's morphine pump was stopped and she was transferred to the intensive care unit, where she died two and a half days later. Attorneys for the woman's family argued that the nurses violated the standard of care by not calling for a doctor when the patient's blood pressure dropped below 100. Although attorneys for the hospital disputed that the nurses' care was negligent, a nursing supervisor employed by the hospital testified that a doctor should have been called when the patient's blood pressure dropped below 100.
In addition to the allegations that the nurses were negligent for failing to call for a doctor, the plaintiff's attorneys argued that the patient was over-medicated with morphine. Evidence presented at trial showed that people with compromised livers, which this patient had because of a chronic alcoholism condition, process morphine 50% slower than patients with a healthy liver. Attorneys for the hospital essentially argued that the patient was caused by her alcoholism and related medical problems such as liver disease and high blood pressure.
A jury voted 10-2 to award the patient's family $1.2 million dollars, which was $900,000 more than the highest offer the hospital had made to settle the case prior to trial. The hospital has stated it will appeal the verdict.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Promotion strategy in office
Two guys were hiking through the jungle when they spotted a tiger that looked both hungry and fast. One of the guys reached into his pack and pulled out a pair of Nike.
His friend looked at him "Do you really think those shoes are going to make you run faster than that tiger?"
I don't have to run faster than that tiger, his friend replied. "I just have to run faster than you".
Friday, January 9, 2009
Ethical declaration of KPO/BPO & LPO professionals
Ethical Declaration
I am proud to be a member of the "Ethical BPO Professional" community and out of my freewill do hereby agree to abide by the following ethical discipline at all times.
I shall at all times uphold the dignity of the profession and place my commitments to the profession above my personal interests both within the organization I work for and outside.
I understand that I am a trusted representative of my organization as well as its Clients and I shall take all care required for meeting their respective Moral, and Contractual obligations.
I understand and accept that I am a trustee for the information and data belonging to third parties and I shall take all care required to secure the data and its confidentiality.
I shall use the Cyber Space responsibly at all times and in particular I solemnly commit that I shall not use a Website, Blog, E-Mail, Chat, Message Board or any other means of communication for
v Offending any Person, Community or Religion
v Misleading any person for fraudulent reasons or for mischief
v Threatening or Harassing any person
v Publishing and Distributing Obscene information in electronic form
v Using another person's identity for Financial gain or for committing any crime or for Fun
v Conveying confidential information of the Company or its clients except under compulsion of law.
I shall endeavor to keep myself continuously updated with all regulations that affect my operations and comply with them at all times.
I shall take such steps that are necessary to prevent any other person breaching or attempting to breach these ethical principles and shall bring any such instance to the notice of appropriate authorities.
In every event of my changing my job, I shall provide a due notice and refrain from causing damage to the reputation or intellectual property of my employer.
Signature
Name
Monday, January 5, 2009
Inhouse lawyers_ Good idea
Imagine having your own in-house counsel,
totally dedicated to all your legal and paralegal matters, available 24/7
and at a fraction of the cost that you would pay a major law-firm or by hiring your own company lawyer.
The economics of outsourcing dictate that this is indeed possible for you to have your very own in-house counsel at a far more affordable rate, without sacrificing quality, and to have the kind of attention that you can only hope for from major law-firms.
Below is the Service offer of an attorney in Cochi Metro, India
Mathews Emmanuel & Asso has pioneered the concept of the 'Virtual In-house Counsel' which aims to provide companies with their own support function providing a range of appropriate legal and paralegal services for companies. Based on your specific requirements, we will depute a competent legally-trained professional, with the appropriate level of expertise to assist with your in-house legal and paralegal requirements.
You may also choose from a range of 'Package Options', ranging from an 'Annual Retainer' (for 24/7 support for 365 days) to a 'Pay-As-You-Go' option (for specific hourly support, as and when you need it).
Our Services for LPO and Companies
The range of outsourced legal and paralegal services offered by Mathews & Associates includes:
1. Drafting and Documentation
- Reviewing and /or drafting various template contracts for the Company's business activities, e.g., supply and distribution contracts, license and assignment agreements, confidentiality and non-compete agreements, etc.
II. Research
- Focused research on miscellaneous laws in any jurisdiction. We will also prepare a Memorandum summarizing the provisions of the law, to help you better understand what the law actually says.
III. General Corporate Advisory
- Commercially-driven advice on a range of legal issues affecting your Company, including employment and labour law issues, intellectual property, business registrations and compliance issues.
We provide innovative and economic legal support services to our national and international clients and strive to be in the forefront of current legal service business. The firm has worked in collaboration with many renowned law firms and eminent lawyers across the globe on multifarious projects and successfully executed legal process management services.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
