The Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidated a nursing home’s contract requiring residents to submit all claims to binding arbitration under the National Arbitration Forum’s Code of Procedure. After the mother was taken from the hospital to the nursing home, the nursing home administrator told the daughter to sign the contract “in order to have your mother admitted.” She wanted her mother to get the immediate care she needed and signed it. Barbara Axelrod wrote a brief on behalf of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice supporting the family’s right to sue the nursing home in court for gross neglect leading to their mother’s death. She argued that the contract was unenforceable, because only the NAF was authorized to apply its Code, but the NAF had signed a Consent Judgment agreeing to stop handling consumer arbitrations following federal and state investigations revealing that its arbitrations were unfair to consumers. The nursing home argued the contract was still enforceable if the court appointed a different arbitrator. However, Barbara used her nationwide research to show that most courts had decided that the contract was unenforceable, because only the NAF was permitted to conduct arbitrations under its Code, and it could not do so as a result of the Consent Judgment. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that the Pennsylvania Association for Justice, in the brief Barbara wrote, “emphasizes that most courts have deemed Appellants’ Agreement unenforceable due to the unavailability of the NAF and its Code of Procedure” and agreed with “the majority of our sister jurisdictions.”
The Firm’s client was operating a high performance single engine aircraft when he and the passengers crashed at night, causing all of the occupants to perish, with our young client leaving an unborn son. Years of litigation and deep investigations taking us around the globe resulted in a substantial, confidential settlement against the aircraft manufacturer, the United States, and the training facility where our client was trained to fly this aircraft. Because of Jim Beasley’s experience with high performance single engine aircraft he was able to quickly assemble the proper expert support and obtain the truth as to the reason this plane was uncontrollable when on a “go-around” when the landing attempt was aborted. This investigation revealed that there have been fourteen other similar crashes with this aircraft type. It was because of the Firm’s knowledge, tenacity and resources that this case was successfully prosecuted and an excellent result obtained for the clients.
Over the past 50 years, The Beasley Firm has obtained numerous verdicts and settlements on behalf of parties injured by all manners of transportation vehicles. When the Pennsylvania Bar Institute decided who would lead their course on plane, train and bus accident litigation, they chose experienced accident attorneys Jim Beasley, Jr., Heidi Villari and Scott Bennett.
The July 9th course will cover all aspects of litigation that an attorney will encounter in a transportation accident case, starting at the accident scene all the way through trial. Those who take the course will get an in depth look into how to perform the initial data collection and analysis, choosing expert witnesses, accident reconstruction, and a litany of other investigation methods.
Each of the course planners were chosen because of their extensive experience litigating high profile transportation accident cases. Jim Beasley, who performs in his vintage planes at airshows around the world, has successfully represented scores of clients injured in aviation accidents as well as bus and automobile crashes. Heidi Villari spent more than a decade building a thriving practice as lead counsel for several transportation, construction, manufacturer and “premises operations” insurers before joining The Beasley Firm to exclusively represent injured plaintiffs. In his over three decade career, Scott Bennett has represented hundreds of people injured in motor vehicle and public transportation accidents.
The course is especially relevant with the fatal Amtrak derailment in Philadelphia making national headlines. Investigations are ongoing into the chain of events that caused 8 fatalities and sent over 200 riders to the hospital.
On April 8, 2015, a jury in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas awarded $4.875 million to a medical malpractice victim represented by Marsha Santangelo, M.D., Esq., of The Beasley Firm.
The case involved a 50 year old woman who went to Dr. Eric Williams, an orthopedic surgeon at Albert Einstein Medical Center, for an elective spinal surgery including a decompressive laminectomy. A week after the surgery, she called the surgeon’s office to report that she had a fever and that her wound appeared to leak a fluid, both of which are signs of a wound infection. Without consulting the doctor, a staff member at the surgeon’s office told her they could give an appointment the next day, or that she could go to the emergency room. The patient then went to the closest hospital to her home, Underwood-Memorial Hospital in New Jersey, where the emergency room confirmed a wound infection with pus draining from the incision.
The emergency department staff at Underwood contacted Dr. Williams, who agreed to accept transfer of the patient to Albert Einstein Medical Center. Einstein, however, did not have enough beds, and so didn’t accept the transfer, and, according to Dr. Williams, never informed him that they couldn’t do the transfer. At Underwood, the patient continued to get worse, with severe pain in her legs that required intravenuous narcotics. She wasn’t transferred to Einstein until the afternoon the next day.
Incredibly, nearly all of Einstein’s records from those first few hours are missing, but the records that do exist show that the patient still had neurological functioning in her legs and feet. Over the next few hours, virtually nothing was done for the patient: no medication, evaluation, monitoring, or intervention. Six hours after she arrived at Einstein, she was taken to the operating room, but by then it was too late: because her surgical would infection and epidural abscess had gone untreated for so long, she is permanently paralyzed below the waist. Due to her injuries, she is confined to a wheelchair, requires assistance for normal daily living, and can no longer work her job as a Philadelphia school bus driver for handicapped children.
On behalf of the patient, Dr. Santangelo brought malpractice claims against Dr. Williams, against the surgical resident who oversaw the patient when she was transferred to AEMC, and against the hospital itself. Dr. Williams and Einstein denied they were negligent and claimed that the patient was already paralyzed by the time she arrived at Einstein, despite medical records from the transport service indicating that she still had sensation and activity in her legs and feet. Einstein also claimed that the patient’s injuries weren’t caused by the infection (which was later found to be MRSA) but by a “vascular insult” to her spinal cord.
For the trial, Dr. Santangelo obtained reports from seven medical expert witnesses, including:
- A former hospital CEO who is board-certified in hospital administration;
- A neurointerventional surgeon who is board-certified in radiology and neuroradiology;
- A board-certified orthopedic surgeon;
- A board-certified neurologist;
- A cardiologist who is board-certified in cardiovascular disease and internal medicine;
- A board-certified emergency medicine physician; and,
- An orthopedic trauma nurse.
After 8 days of trial, the jury unanimously found for The Beasley Firm’s client, finding negligence by the orthopedic surgeon (who was 34% responsible), negligence by the senior orthopedic surgery resident (who was 33% responsible), and negligence by the hospital (which was 33% responsible). The jury found the patient’s damages were $4,875,200.14, broken down as:
- Past medical expenses $20,180.14
- Past lost earnings $266,444
- Past noneconomic damages $750,000
- Future medical expenses $2,825,566
- Future lost earning capacity $263,010
- Future noneconomic damages $750,000
It is unknown at this time whether the defendants intend to appeal, but, if they do, Dr. Santangelo and The Beasley Firm’s two full-time appellate lawyers will be ready.
It is no secret that healthcare costs are out of control. It also should not be a secret that one of the causes of increasing healthcare costs is rampant malpractice throughout the healthcare industry. One study by the Society of Actuaries found that “measureable” medical errors — i.e., the errors that are reported, which are just a fraction of the overall errors every year — directly caused $17.1 billion in avoidable follow-up care. (Another study found that the cost to society of preventable deaths alone was between $735 billion and $980 billion).
The smart folks at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) came up with one solution back in August 2007: they created a list of preventable errors (many of which are on the so-called “never events” list) and told hospitals and doctors that they would no longer pay for the additional costs associated with those preventable errors. For example, since February 2009, CMS has not paid for any costs arising from “wrong-site surgeries.” Several states and private health insurance companies have followed suit.
It’s easy these days to complain about “bureaucrats,” but the truth is that many government agencies are doing good work. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has produced a wealth of information about medical standards that have reduced costs and saved lives. Recently, a bill was introduced into Congress that would require the government to measure the quality of healthcare provided by physicians, and to rate them accordingly, but, according to The New York Times, the malpractice insurance companies snuck in some sweetheart language:
WASHINGTON — A little-noticed provision of a bill passed by the House of Representatives with overwhelming bipartisan support would provide doctors new protections against medical malpractice lawsuits.
The bill, which requires the government to measure the quality of care that doctors provide and rate their performance on a scale of zero to 100, protects doctors by stipulating that the quality-of-care standards used in federal health programs — Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act — cannot be used in malpractice cases.
The provision is nearly identical to legislative language recommended by doctors and their insurance companies. They contend that federal standards and guidelines do not accurately reflect the standard of care and should not be used to show negligence by a doctor or a hospital.
To draw an obvious analogy, this is like saying that, when a worker is injured by a contractor that blatantly violated the standards set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the worker can’t show the OSHA standards at trial to prove negligence. Of course they can. An OSHA violation isn’t the end-all-be-all of occupational safety, but it is undeniably relevant in determining the standard of care.
Over forty years ago, our firm litigated and won the leading case on the “standard of care” in medical malpractice cases in Pennsylvania. As Justice Roberts wrote in his concurring opinion, “The standard of care required of a specialist or general practitioner should be that of a reasonable specialist or general practitioner in similar circumstances practicing medicine in light of present day scientific knowledge.” Incollingo v. Ewing et al., 444 Pa. 263, 299 (1971). This has long been the rule across most of the country. See, e.g., Landeros v. Flood, 551 P. 2d 389, 408 (Cal. 1976)(“we have consistently held that a physician is required to possess and exercise, in both diagnosis and treatment, that reasonable degree of knowledge and skill which is ordinarily possessed and exercised by other members of his profession in similar circumstances.”).
Are the standards carefully developed by CMS and AHRQ through years of research, scholarly input, and feedback from the healthcare industry relevant to that question? Of course! If the defendant doctor or their expert witnesses believe otherwise, they’re free to tell the jury how wrong CMS and AHRQ are.
Unsurprisingly, this special-interest giveaway is coming from the same legislators who claim they believe in “federalism” and “limited federal government.” If they really believe that, why are they trying to set up a federal law that limits states’ rights to determine what evidence they will or will not admit in their own medical malpractice trials? If a state doesn’t want juries to look to the CMS guidelines, the state legislators and state judges can decide that for themselves.
For more than a year now, our firm has been entrenched in litigation against the manufacturers of several “incretin mimetic” diabetes drugs, including Januvia, Janumet, Victoza, Byetta, and Onglyza, which, we allege, cause pancreatic cancer.
No trials have been held, and so much of what has occurred there remains confidential, but two recent developments may fundamentally alter the course of the lawsuits — and may help protect unwary patients from one of the most feared diseases known to man.
The drug companies still vehemently deny any connection between these drugs and pancreatic cancer. Their drugs mention all kinds of nuisance side effects, like flatulence and burping, but not one has a word about pancreatic cancer. That may be about to change.
First, in a study published in October 2014, one of the FDA’s own labs confirmed that giving a GLP-1 agonist to mice causes precancerous injuries to the pancreas, particularly if the mice eat a high fat, high carbohydrate diet. (“Extended Exenatide Administration Enhances Lipid Metabolism and Exacerbates Pancreatic Injury in Mice on a High Fat, High Carbohydrate Diet.”)
In people with type 2 diabetes, the beta cells in the endocrine pancreas don’t work as well as they should, and the incretin diabetes drugs are supposed to work by making the beta cells in the endocrine pancreas function better. For example, the incretin diabetes drugs could cause more beta cells to proliferate, or could cause them to grow bigger, or live longer.
Problem is, you can’t pick and choose which cells you make proliferate, and at some point, when cells proliferate too much, they become cancerous. Pancreatic cancer is, in many ways, just too many cells growing, and growing too quickly, in the duct of the pancreas.
Technically, the FDA researchers found injuries to the pancreatic ducts consistent with “focal proliferation of the exocrine pancreas and possibly pre-neoplastic PanIn lesion development.” That is, they saw the drug — specifically, Byetta — causing mice to develop more cells in their exocrine pancreas. Worse, those cells were damaged in a lot of worrying ways, damage that could make them become “PanIn lesions,” which are precancerous.
As the FDA researchers said, they didn’t quite see cancer, their findings were “consistent” with the extremely worrying results reported back in 2013 by a team of researchers that found people treated with Januvia and Byetta had evidence of precancerous changes in their pancreas. (“Marked Expansion of Exocrine and Endocrine Pancreas With Incretin Therapy in Humans With Increased Exocrine Pancreas Dysplasia and the Potential for Glucagon-Producing Neuroendocrine Tumors.”) That’s a pretty big deal, and the FDA researchers said the next step was to look at mice with genetic mutations that made them better mimic pancreatic cancer in humans.
Second, also in October 2014, Health Canada revealed in a communication to physicians that, “[a]s of July 31, 2014, Health Canada received 13 reports of pancreatic cancer suspected of being associated with all incretin-based therapies.” Further, the agency “has initiated an epidemiological study through the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network (DSEN) to assess the potential association between pancreatic cancer and incretin-based therapies and will continue its ongoing monitoring of this potential safety issue.”
The study covers Nesina (alogliptin), Tradjenta (linagliptin), Onglyza (saxagliptin), Januvia / Janumet (sitagliptin), Byetta (exenatide), and Victoza (liraglutide).
We’ll see if either action causes some serious change in these products, like perhaps a withdrawal, as Public Citizen has recommended for Victoza, or at least better warnings. Patients have the right — the legal, ethical, and moral rights — to know the risks of the drugs they pay for and put into their bodies.
If you or a loved one developed pancreatic cancer after taking Byetta, Januvia, Janumet, Victoza, or another diabetes drug, please read more about our pancreatic cancer lawsuits.
A Luzerne County Judge awarded $8 Million+ costs for the victim of a helicopter crash caused by a distracted driver in a damages hearing handled by attorney Heidi Villari of The Beasley Firm. The helicopter had been operated for a charity golf event for crippled children. Unfortunately, the helicopter pilot was operating the helicopter 200 ft. above ground at an unsafe speed, and nose-dived simultaneously. This caused a crash to the ground and plaintiff was partially ejected out of the seat. He never lost consciousness, and recounted the accident, multiple surgeries and lengthy stays in rehabilitation to the Court.
Joseph Matteo the plaintiff, age 69 at the time of the crash, who was solicited to drop golf balls onto a golf course as a belted passenger suffered from incomplete paraplegia, neurogenic bladder and bowel, nerve pain as a result of the accident. While he could move his legs, stand and walk with a walker, he is not able to walk about freely. Mr. Matteo, who lives alone, testified that his life had become “a living hell” not only because he had become wheelchair-bound but because of the unbearable pain he endures from nerve damage.
Since 1958, The Beasley Firm has fought for the rights of victims of aviation accidents across the country. To date, we have obtained over $2 billion in awards for our clients. If you or a loved one has been injured or suffers from nerve damage and/or spinal injury as as result of an accident, contact us for a free consultation by filling out our online contact form or by phone at (888) 823-5291.
I read a lot of medical blogs, including the blog at Emergency Physicians Monthly authored by a pseudonymous ER doctor who goes by the name “WhiteCoat.” WhiteCoat recently complained about a $14.5 million malpractice verdict in favor of a baby born at 24 weeks with severe disabilities. WhiteCoat thinks the case was a “no win” situation in which the doctor would have been blamed either way.
Preterm labor is an issue near and dear to my heart: I’ve represented birth injury victims for years, and my twins were born extremely premature (26 weeks). From what we can tell about the case from the newspaper article, it’s simply malpractice.
The case arises from a birth back in 2003. According to an article at Cleveland.com, the mother went into labor three times during the 22nd and 23rd weeks of her pregnancy, and each time it was stopped with medication* and bedrest, and she was discharged. According to the article:
On April 10, Stewart’s water broke and she was admitted to the hospital at 12:30 p.m. She and her doctor had discussed that she should get another caesarian section [like with her last child].
Although she asked to deliver her baby soon after she was admitted, the nurse and residents on call did not agree, Pantages said.
When Weight, the attending obstetrician, arrived at 5:30 p.m., she asked to have the baby delivered, but he said monitors showed the baby was healthy.
The baby later showed signs of distress and Stewart had an emergency caesarian section at 9 p.m. Alijah had a massive brain hemorrhage, and evidence showed it occurred after 5:30 p.m., Pantages said.
The child, now 11 years old, still suffers from “cerebral palsy, cognitive delays, visual impairments and other issues that will require lifelong care.”
From those facts alone, I can see three potential avenues for a malpractice case:
- The doctors wrongly discharged her previously, and should have kept her in the hospital to monitor the baby’s health and attempt to prevent preterm labor or premature rupture of members (like with the medications above, or with a cerclage, if she was showing signs of cervical insufficiency or cervical funneling).
- The doctors failed to timely diagnose the potential for preterm labor and failed to administer steroids (i.e., “antenatal corticosteroids” like betamethasone), which have been produce to reduce the likelihood of premature birth complications.
- The doctors failed to recognize fetal distress prior to 9pm, and thus failed to perform an emergency c-section as soon as they should have.
Based on the article, it seems the case focused on #1 and #3, because #2 wasn’t mentioned. Maybe it came up at the trial.
WhiteCoat complains most about the mother’s request for a c-section, arguing that she’s not a doctor, and so her views are irrelevant. Indeed, she’s not a doctor, and thus not the expert on the standard of care. Her lawyers would have their own expert witness to testify about that. But that’s beside the point: the reason that evidence came into the case was to show the jury the whole context, and to respond to the hospital’s arguments about what she would have done if they had offered her a c-section.
Moreover, the bigger picture of the case isn’t about what the mother did, or did not, say. It’s about whether the baby showed signs of fetal distress and the doctors missed it. If so, then a 24 weeker spent up to 9 hours in distress before the c-section was performed, time in which they would have suffered profound — and preventable — injuries.
WhiteCoat is correct that extremely premature babies are at a high risk of numerous disabilities, including cerebral palsy, intraventricular hemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, and many of the other complications experienced by the child, but those complications by no means guaranteed. There are plenty of perfectly healthy former 24-week-preemies living full, productive, active, healthy lives, no different from anyone else. Then there are a tragic number of babies born at much later gestations that suffered complications which could have been prevented by better management of the pregnancy (such as to discover low amniotic fluid levels, or growth restriction, or the like), by the administration of steroids, or by an emergent c-section rather than a prolonged delivery.
The question is what those fetal strips showed. If they showed distress, then it was negligent to not perform an emergency c-section. Period. In short, it’s not a “no-win” case for the doctor. If they had properly diagnosed the distress and performed a c-section, the kid would be better off and no one would be liable for anything.
Two Union County men who were injured in an October 4th, 2013 plane crash have hired aviation accident attorney Jim Beasley, Jr. to investigate the incident. Doug Cromley, of Lewisburg, and his uncle Todd Cromley, of Windsor, sustained serious injuries after crashing their single engine Piper-Pacer on takeoff at Penn Valley Airport.
An eyewitness reported seeing the plane’s nose drop when it reached about 125 feet before crashing back on the runway, damaging the wings and fuselage.
A preliminary report released a month after the accident by the NTSB stated that the plane was taking off for the first time since receiving maintenance from Heritage Aviation, who operate at Penn Valley Airport. The full report by the NTSB is expected within the year.
The Beasley Firm has over 50 years of experience investigating and litigating on behalf of pilots or passengers who have been catastrophically injured or killed in aviation accidents. Jim Beasley, the founder of this firm, was also an experienced pilot, who obtained a twenty-nine million dollar verdict against an airplane manufacturer after he proved that a defective airplane part was the cause of a fatal crash. His passion for aeronautics lives on with his son, Jim Beasley, Jr., who flies vintage planes in air shows around the world. Beasley and his team know the inner workings of an airplane and what can go wrong, and have obtained millions of dollars in compensation for their clients.
Update: Mr. Morgan and two of his traveling companions have filed a complaint against Walmart. Here’s the most important parts:
68. Wal-Mart knew, or should have known, that Mr. Roper was awake for more than 24 consecutive hours immediately before the subject accident on June 7, 2014.
69. Wal-Mart knew or should have known that it was unreasonable for Mr. Roper to commute more than 700 miles from his home in Jonesboro, Georgia to work at a Wal-Mart facility in Smyrna, Delaware, especially immediately before he was to commence a long shift operating a truck that weighed approximately 30–40 tons. Additionally, there were many Wal-Mart distribution facilities closer to Mr. Roper’s home — including at least nine in Georgia alone—which would have significantly reduced Mr. Roper’s commute to work.
70. As a result of Mr. Roper’s fatigue, he fell asleep behind the wheel of his truck while he was driving, failed to slow down for traffic ahead, and resultantly collided with the Limo directly in front of him in which Plaintiffs were passengers.
That’s consistent with what I wrote right after the accident: many of these truck accidents are caused by the company compelling drivers to keep driving even when they haven’t slept enough. These allegations are interesting as well:
71. Further, the Truck being operated by Mr. Roper was state-of-the-art, and equipped with sophisticated collision-avoidance systems all designed to begin automatically braking the truck when it senses slowing down traffic.
72. However, the Truck did not automatically brake before the accident, and thus, Wal-Mart knew or should have known that one of the truck’s most important safety features was compromised.
The truck’s “black box” data recorder should be able to tell us a lot about what really happened in terms of the automatic braking, but I doubt anyone would have access to it yet other than the NTSB, which typically retains it until they have completed their investigation.
Walmart has responded with typical corporate doublespeak, promising to do “the right thing,” at least to the extent the law forces them to do so.
Here’s my original post:
Yesterday, comedian Tracy Morgan was involved in a horrible accident on the New Jersey Turnpike near Cranbury Township that killed one member of his group, seriously injured another two members, and left Morgan in the ICU.
It seems the group was riding back to New Jersey from Delaware in a passenger bus when traffic slowed — a common occurrence on the turnpike, even at 1am — and a Wal-Mart tractor-trailer failed to notice the slowed traffic, then, at the last second, swerved, but still ended up hitting Morgan’s bus from behind. That sent the bus into other vehicles, and it ended up on its side. (I’ve seen a lot of reports calling it a “limousine” bus, which may be technically true, but it doesn’t seem the vehicle was modified, it was just a normal Mercedes-Benz “Sprinter” passenger van.)
The circumstances of the accident are depressingly commonplace.
Let’s start with the time of the accident: 1am. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, although the evening rush hours (5pm to 7pm) has the highest total number of fatalities, the hours from midnight to 3am actually have the highest fatal accident rate per number of people on the road.
There are a couple reasons why. First, it’s dark — even with streetlights, it’s darker than in the earlier hours in the night, because businesses tend to be closed and, with fewer cars, there are fewer headlights. I’ve driven that stretch of the NJ Turnpike innumerable times late at night, and it can get really dark, more like a rural highway than the type of driving you would expect between New York City and Philadelphia. The absence of scenery can cause drivers to acclimate to the speed, lulling them into complacency. 70 mph doesn’t feel that fast when all you can see are the road signs ‘slowly’ rolling by.
Second, late into the night, more people are intoxicated, and more people are very intoxicated.
Third, people are just plain tired at that time of day, which causes “drowsy driving” and bursts of “microsleep.” Other than the obvious problems — a drowsy driver is less likely to perceive problems, to react in time, to make the right choice under pressure — there’s also the more subtle problem of how even people who are not at fault in the accident make mistakes. People are are less likely to wear their seatbelt at night, in part because they’re more likely to forget it. (This is part of why it’s good to teach children to put on belts habitually, and to do the same yourself, even just to drive across a parking lot, so that it feels abnormal to be in a car without a belt.)
Then there’s the involvement of the tractor-trailer. A couple years back, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conducted the Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS), a collection of data on 1,000 large truck crashes, along with a thorough view of the data for each. Their findings showed that “one-half of the LTCCS crashes involved collisions between a large truck and a passenger vehicle (car, pickup truck, van, or sport utility vehicle),” and, of those crashes, the ten most common associated factors were:
- Interruption of the traffic flow
- Unfamiliarity with roadway
- Inadequate surveillance
- Driving too fast for conditions
- Illegal maneuver
- False assumption of other road user’s actions
- Distraction by object or person inside the vehicle.
Most of these issues are caused, at bottom, by bad policies in place at trucking companies. Policies that put speed over safety. Policies that encourage — or require — driving more hours than allowed by law, thereby forcing drivers on the road even when they’re fatigued. Policies that put unqualified, incompetent, or untrustworthy drivers behind the wheels of >80,000 lbs vehicles.
All those issues were part of why, last year, the Department of Transportation finally amended the FMCSA had amended the ‘hours of service’ rules to force drivers to get more sleep. (As I wrote about here almost exactly two years ago, given that the hour of service logbooks were already ripe with fraudulent entries, i.e., lying about the number of hours on the road, we desperately needed regulations forcing better compliance, like GPS and satellite tracking.)
In an amazing coincidence, just before the accident,the Senate had discussed rescinding those new rules and forcing the FMCSA to use the old rules. The claim is that the new rules cause congestion during the day; the reality is that manufacturers and retailers have a ton of clout on Capitol Hill, far more clout than safety advocates do.
It is cold-comfort for the victims of any accident to think there is a silver lining to their pain. But here there might really be one. If this accident prevents Congress from taking us back to the old, less safe driving rules of the past, then it will save numerous lives in the future.