Injury Law Blog

Worldwide Complications with Transvaginal Mesh

LaBovick Law — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:48:11 -0500

It appears the transvaginal mesh (TVM) fiasco is gaining worldwide traction. You’ve most likely heard about the extensive litigation here in the US, but this is not only a problem in America. There is new transvaginal sling litigation filed in Canada and a few hundred women have filed a TVM lawsuit alleging complications from their mesh in Australia!

If you are unfamiliar with what TVM is and does, here is a quick explanation:

Women who have abdominal organ disruption from anything, usually starting with childbirth, but including aging, being involved in an accident or just degeneration can also cause them to develop pelvic organ prolapse (POP). POP is when the organs of the abdomen start to “sag” out of their usual place. They can press on a woman’s pelvis and uterus. This causes pain and uncomfortable sex. In some cases, organs press so far down that they look as if they are falling out of the woman. They can also commonly cause incontinence. The new “end all be all” in medicine to fix this problem was the transvaginal mesh/ transvaginal sling (TVM). This was a mesh-like material that could be placed in a woman’s abdomen. It would ostensibly hold the organs in place, thus alleviating the pain. The problem is that the mesh causes more problems than it solves. The most common problems from TVM are:

•   Migration: The mesh actually moves out of position.
•   Organ Perforation: The mesh cuts or harms the organ it is supposed to support.
•   Rejection: The body does not like the mesh and responds poorly to its intrusion into the body. This can be as simple as inflammation or as serious as complete body system failures.
•   Impossibility of Removal: Some women who react badly have a problem removing the mesh as well. The body incorporates the mesh into the tissue, and the surgeons can’t remove it without doing more harm than good.

At this point, TVM is still on the market. The US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has noted that TVM is not the preferred method of treating POP or serious urinary incontinence (SUI). The FDA has ordered the manufacturers of the TVM materials to conduct a study on women who have used their product to see the effects of the TVM product. It’s been said that after the problematic mesh migrates away from initial placement, it causes pain and even impacts intercourse between partners. Other plaintiffs have claimed their mesh has become intertwined with vital organs.

In any of these cases the women have long-term and serious damages. Finding a law firm that understands mesh and the problems it can cause is important. At LaBovick Law Group we understand your needs and can help get you to a point of justice!

Florida's Privacy Laws & Aaron's Rent-to-Own Computers

LaBovick Law — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:03:41 -0500

Have you heard about the federal investigation and lawsuits involving Atlanta-based Aaron' s rent to own stores installing spyware into rental computers? It seems many franchise owners took it upon themselves to install spyware into computers that were being offered for rent. The idea was that if the renter fails to make payments or claims the equipment was stolen, the franchise owner could track down the computer and repossess it. The spyware also allowed for Internet access by the stores. Unfortunately, the program that was chosen to do this, DesignerWare, also allowed store employees to review e-mails, look at photographs, and have snapshots taken from the computers and emailed to the franchise store.

Could this happen in Florida? Absolutely. There are many such stores within the state. However, Florida has many laws to protect its citizens from such intrusive behavior.

There are generally four different tort actions that can be brought for invasion of privacy:

1. The most commonly recognized is appropriation, which is using somebody's picture without authority.

2. The second is intrusion, which is what happened in the Aaron’s situation. Intruding into someone's privacy by installing spyware and reviewing what it captures is a clear intrusion into someone's privacy.

3. The third claim can be public disclosure of private facts; newspapers are frequently charged with this.

4. The last claim is false light, which is claiming something that is not quite false, but presents someone in a false situation.

The damages for all of these claims can be substantial.

The rent-to-own computer controversy is now expanding to many other states as the federal investigation reveals the extent that this company's franchise stores were allowed to do this. What is interesting is that it appears the spyware downloaded the data and information directly into the main corporate computer. Therefore, it is hard to believe that Aaron's corporate offices did not know this was going on.

For Aaron's customers who may be concerned that their privacy was invaded, LaBovick Law Group offers free legal consultations and an opportunity to have computer security technicians evaluate their computers. Those customers found to have this spyware installed are encouraged to pursue their rights under Florida's laws.

Florida Bans Texting and Driving, But What About Social Media Posts, Pictures and Tweets?

LaBovick Law — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:00:05 -0500

Florida has taken an important first step in curtailing the deadly habit of texting and driving, but should Florida legislators have done more? Last month the Sunshine State joined 39 other states to make texting and driving illegal. Unfortunately, the new Florida law is being criticized because of its lackadaisical approach to the idea of texting and driving.

Police departments should be able to use the new law to encourage safe driving habits and the prevention of auto accidents. However, the new law is currently just a secondary offense, which is only relevant when a driver is caught in the act of committing another more serious traffic infraction, like causing a crash, speeding or running a red light. This “after the fact” approach seriously undermines the effectiveness of the new ban on texting while driving.

Furthermore, many are curious why the new law doesn’t address many of the other activities motorists are doing in the car. The new law deals only with written communication. This includes manually sending or reading information using a wireless device, which is conduct associated with texting, emailing and instant messaging. Text messages and phone calls are relatively easy to sort through on a cell phone bill, but how do we decipher how many Instagram pictures you saw while driving or “Likes” drivers are giving their friends’ photos? Plainly, the law is silent as to the various streams of data that a cell phone is capable of receiving.

How about YouTube, Netflix and other video streaming services? Think that it’s crazy a driver would watch a video on their portable device? I have witnessed it personally! While the driver may be able to divide their attention on a long stretch of road, how would they be able to react to a sudden occurrence on the road, like a tire blowout, scattered debris, other drivers’ negligence and accident avoidance?

Research shows that distracted driving can adversely impact one’s consciousness and focus just as much as driving drunk (a condition some researchers refer to as “inattention blindness”). The reckless and negligent nature of these behaviors should be addressed by better and more applicable legislation.

Unintentionally False Statements In Insurance Application Can Lead To Carrier Voiding Policy

LaBovick Law — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:44:02 -0500

Insurance applications can be very confusing at times. It is very important that every question be answered truthfully and accurately. In situations where an application contains a vague request for information, get a clarification in writing. Don't rely on verbal statements by agents, they don't work for the carrier, they work for you. Almost every insurance policy contains provisions that allow the insurance carrier to walk away from a covered claim if they can establish that there was something false in the application.

Does this sound fair? Probably not, but it's the law. Florida statute 627.409 (1) allows an insurance carrier to void an insurance policy if they would not have issued the policy, not issued the policy for the premium charged, or not provided coverage at the limits stated.

What does this mean? It means an insurance carrier can walk away from processing your claim if they think something was left out or not accurately stated. You don't even have to be intentionally wrong, just wrong!

Persons with questions regarding insurance carriers trying to avoid policies because of misstatements need an experienced insurance attorney who knows how to deal with such attempts.

The SMART Law and How it Affects You

LaBovick Law — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 17:00:05 -0500

On December 21, 2012 the Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act (SMART) was passed by Congress. SMART applies to health insurance plans that are not a part of a group plan. An example of that would be workers’ compensation, no-fault insurance (known as PIP) and liability insurance (often called BI insurance.) The provisions of SMART will help streamline the settlement of liability/injury cases. While a lot of the SMART regulations will be detailed and worked on by the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, the highlights are noted below:

What is the new SMART law, and how does it apply to me?
This new law will help personal injury attorneys properly calculate the amount their injured client must repay to Medicare. It will also assure that the government doesn’t continue to shoulder an unfair share of the burden in injury cases. While injury lawyers have hoped for a solution to the morass of unknown outcomes with Medicare, the act was actually moved forward by the Medicare Advocacy Recovery Coalition. On January 10, 2013 House Resolution 1845 was signed by President Obama, and that included the SMART Act.

Getting Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS/MSPRC) to conclude your injury case with them could only be done after the case was over. In other words, you had to wait until after you settled the case to get to a conclusion. Of course without knowing what CMS would want in terms of repayment, settling is made very hard.
SMART changed that, and now you can get CMS to advise you as to their total lien as long as you are within 120 days or less of an expected settlement date (This works for both injury cases, called “liability” or workers’ compensation). After CMS is advised about the forthcoming settlement, it has 65 days to give the plaintiff a “Statement of Reimbursement” and make that statement available on the CMS website. They can extend that an additional 30 days if they file some additional paperwork, but it is more likely they will start sending the information quickly once the procedure is in place. The plaintiff is then allowed to rely on that statement of reimbursement in settling the case. SMART forces CMS to keep information on their website on how to accomplish the procedure and what is required to finalize the settlement. The formal regulations on how the law will be followed are not due until the end of 2013. But we know they are on their way, and that is a great sign!

What if your attorney doesn’t agree with CMS on the amount that needs to be reimbursed?
Previously, you would submit a challenge to the CMS “Conditional Payment Letter” and explain that there was a problem with the amount. This was accomplished after the injury case settlement was obtained. A typical problem with the conditional letter’s amount was that the government would include payments for medical care not related to the injury case. In one of our cases, our client had a back injury in December, and CMS included medical payments for a foot surgery in July that year. CMS had no deadline for responding to these challenges to their requested payment. They also had no risk or penalty for not responding. That obviously was not a good system for the plaintiff.

SMART made some great changes to this system, and now CMS must respond within 11 business days of receipt of a challenge. CMS must figure out whether their claim is correct or if they need to remove any items. If CMS does not complete the review in the 11 given business days then CMS must remove the charges.

The statute of limitations for CMS to make any claim is still an issue, though. It seems the federal government would have 3 years after it is notified through Section 111 to file suit for a recovery of their medical payments.

All in all we believe the changes to CMS and government repayment will be good for both parties. The government deserves to be repaid, and the plaintiff deserves to know how to do so in a fair system. Let’s hope the government regulations don’t over-complicate the system and put the proverbial fly in the ointment. We can only wait and see

Boating safety awareness decreases injuries in 2012

LaBovick Law — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 09:19:26 -0500

The past year was proven to be a safer boating year than those in the past with reported deaths at zero and injuries down from the year before. However, property damage estimates were up, and that could be attributed to a number of external forces.

Florida Fishing & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) officials cite the increased number of people wearing life jackets as a reason for the decline in deaths and injuries in 2012. Children six years and under are required to wear a life jacket at all times on a boat while it is moving. The vessel must have enough jackets to accommodate all guests. Additionally, people are becoming aware of the boating safety rules and are paying better attention while on the water. Most incidents occur in the inlets, which are higher traffic areas.

Remember, boating can be fun but can be dangerous if the safety rules are not followed. The captain has a responsibility to the passengers to provide a safe experience. Failure to do so results in injury and can result in liability for the person at fault. Pay attention. If you follow the safety rules set for by the FWC and Coast Guard, you will have guaranteed yourself and your passengers a better, safer experience.

Personal Injury Protection (PIP) being kept busy by new regulations

LaBovick Law — Thu, 30 May 2013 09:10:01 -0500

As we know, the Personal Injury Protection (PIP) laws in the state of Florida have undergone a radical transformation in the past year. The new law is both cumbersome and confusing. Pundits and lawyers alike both opined that it would spawn much litigation simply to interpret the new statute.

To recap, the new law places a limit of $2,500 in medical care for non-emergency cases. Only certain medical professionals can declare a situation an emergency to trigger the remaining $7,500 in benefits. Further, massage and acupuncture are no longer covered.

Recently, a circuit court ruling placed an injunction on insurance companies from following the law by declaring it unconstitutional. Most carriers are abiding by that decision; Progressive Insurance is not. As predicted, the law is creating more litigation that the legislators intended, but it isn’t as if they were not warned. Looks like it will be up the State Supreme Court to resolve these conflicts. Yet, in no way will it stop the litigation to enforce the law, whatever shape it takes. PIP lawyers will be busy keeping the insurance industry honest, and protecting the medical community and the injured.

Another Cruise Ship Accident and the Passengers Bill of Rights?

LaBovick Law — Tue, 28 May 2013 17:00:22 -0500

Over the weekend, a Royal Caribbean ship, the Grandeur of the Seas, caught fire in the aft section and diverted to Freeport in the Bahamas. Fortunately the ship did not lose power, propulsion or any essentials, but due to this incident, the trip was cancelled. The passengers were flown back to their original port in Baltimore, MD.

This, among the latest events, comes on the heels of the cruise industry passing the "Passengers Bill of Rights.” This concept was discussed at the recent cruise line convention in Miami to present a uniform and industry-wide way of dealing with trip interruptions caused by ship failure.

The Bill, among other things, gives the passengers the right to leave the ship if essentials are not being provided; they have the right to be flown home or to the port of origin in the event the trip is cancelled; they have the right to a full or partial refund depending on the when the trip was canceled. This is an industry-wide movement to re-establish customer loyalty and trust in an industry that lately has taken some PR hits.

The cruise lines are trying very hard to increase safety and passenger comfort aboard their ships. However, it is unlikely to do much in the prevention of lawsuits since without personal injuries, no lawsuits are viable. A bad trip or one that is canceled inconveniently does not generally give rise to a cause of action.

Why Are Subsequent Remedial Repairs Inadmissible in Court?

LaBovick Law — Fri, 24 May 2013 09:50:53 -0500

Injuries resulting from dangerous conditions on commercial or personal property amount to a significant number of cases in the personal injury arena. Often times, these injuries are a result of a defective condition on the property that was either known by the owner or should have been noticed by the person in control of the real estate. It is when these conditions go unnoticed over a period of time that injuries can result.

Unnoticed property safety hazards give personal injury attorneys difficulty in prosecuting claims for their clients. More often than not, the person in charge of the property will correct the dangerous condition thereby making the area safe. Many clients question why that repair does not come into court for the jury's consideration. To the layman, it would seem that a subsequent repair of the dangerous condition would go to proving negligence. In many instances, it would.

However, Florida has adopted portions of the Federal Evidence Code that exclude this type of evidence for public policy reasons. If the subsequent repair becomes admissible evidence, landowners would be less likely to repair a dangerous condition for fear that it would be used against them in any subsequent litigation. It is thought that repairing the dangerous condition outweighs the evidentiary implication that the owner knew the condition was dangerous prior to the repair. Therefore, in the state of Florida and in most instances, a subsequent remedial repair is inadmissible to show fault on the part of the landowner.

There are exceptions to this rule:

The more routine exception is when the landowner disavows ownership of the property that caused injury and then fixes it.
Feasibility is another exception. If the landowner claims it is infeasible to fix the dangerous condition and subsequently does so, the fact that it was fixed by the landowner may become evidence in trial. However, as a general rule, subsequent remedial repairs are inadmissible in court to show negligence.

The Conspiracy Theory of the Letter of Protection (LOP)

LaBovick Law — Tue, 21 May 2013 13:28:46 -0500

One of the worst things to happen to injury law is the ability of the defense attorney to create a conspiracy between the doctor, lawyer and injured victim. There is no doubt that America now literally hates the injured victim. If you are in a car accident, literally sitting still, and you are hit from behind, you better be lily white and pure if you expect to collect reasonable money from a jury. If you have prior accidents, if you are partially at fault, or if your injuries are not observable on an X-ray or MRI you have almost no shot at getting a fair settlement on your case. This is because the general belief in our country is that most accident victims are frauds and that small injuries are not worthy of a jury’s time and attention.

How is that relevant to the use of a Letter of Protection (LOP)? (An LOP is the contract between the victim and the doctor to pay the doctor’s bill out of the settlement or verdict funds.) It is relevant because when there is a financial incentive for the doctor to trump up the medical diagnosis to make the victim “more hurt” in the diagnosis and then charge “more for medical services than is reasonable or typical” it becomes very easy for the defense attorney to hold that contract in front of a jury and shout conspiracy!

Doesn’t it make sense? There is a conspiracy when there is an agreement between all three parties (doctor/patient/lawyer) in that all three share in the money the case generates! You know why that works for the defense attorney? Because there is a small element of truth to the statement. The doctor, by necessity, can’t get paid unless the jury believes the victim and the victim’s lawyer, and gives them a decent verdict. So the doctor, who is typically seen as the most credible source of information in an injury case, becomes no better than the victim or worse, his lawyer. He is biased by his need for payment from the injury case! That is a loss of credibility the victim’s case many times cannot overcome. The truth is not as simple as a conspiracy. The victim many times has no other choice but to beg the doctor to wait for payment. Further, the victim can’t tell a jury the reason he did not get medical care was financial because he doesn’t have health insurance. That is against the rules. So, while it hurts the case, it may not have much real truth weight. Nonetheless, the element of truth is all the defense attorney needs to discredit the doctor and the case!

The real truth is that the LOP does more harm than just hurting the case. It actually often creates a bad relationship between the doctor and the lawyer. Assuming there is a settlement or a verdict, then at the end of the case the lawyer will want to negotiate to lower the doctor’s bill. The doctor, who did bear risk by waiting to get paid, deserves some reward. The reward he wants is to be fully paid. That negotiation is always a tough one for the doctors. During the process, bad blood develops between the doctor and his/her patients who are told that the doctor is being greedy and wants the patient’s rightful money. The doctor’s services are now not as needed, so they are emotionally devalued. Even though the doctor treated the patient for months, in the end, the patient will want to pay the doctor the lowest rates. In order to do a good job, the lawyer must, by definition, represent his client’s best interests against a doctor.

As you can see, the entire BI Lien /LOP system is messed up.

Our office represents victims in accident cases. We also represent doctors and medical providers in their collection of medical bills. We have seen both sides of this coin. We have determined the LOP must go.

Doctors should use all available insurance sources and then deal with a payment plan directly with their patients. The patient’s injury lawyer should never sign the LOP or BI Lien, assuming there is such a document. The patient must understand medical services are not volunteer activities. Doctors must get paid. They must also understand that the doctors must be treated fairly if they want the doctors to support and deal with the aggravation of the injury case.

At LaBovick Law Group, we concentrate on getting the available insurance money to fully pay the medical bills. We do not allow our doctor/clients to lose a dollar to the insurance company’s medical payment responsibility. We try to avoid becoming the middle man between the doctor and the patient but make it clear to our client’s doctors that we represent the client when we do. We believe having clear roles at the beginning of the case will be better for everyone. It allows the medical providers to maximize the value of their services within the market, and it is much better for our victim’s accident case. Now that is a win/win/win!

See my previous blog on LOPs: Letters of Protection: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly... Everything Consumers and Doctors Need to Know About LOPs.

What is the Jones Act, and how could it affect you as a maritime worker?

LaBovick Law — Mon, 20 May 2013 09:39:45 -0500

One of the most powerful protections maritime workers have is the Jones Act. This is a federal act that protects crew of boats and ships, and is designed to make work environments safe on the sea. Just like others who work in high risk careers, maritime workers are entitled to compensation for injuries resulting from an employer's negligence or failure to provide a safe working environment.

There has been an underground push by the shipping industry to revisit the age-old way to compensate injured crew aboard vessels. Traditionally, able-bodied seamen are covered by the Jones Act, which calls for medical treatment and per-dime wage to an injured seaman regardless of fault.

Currently, the company sends the crewman to a doctor of the company's choice and pays a draconian per dime wage, sometimes so low that the seaman is left destitute.

The industry now is saying that they are being hurt financially by having to pay these “arbitrary” benefits and now seek to lower or eliminate them all together. They offer no workable solution.

The Jones Act has been on the books for as long as anyone can remember and is weighed heavily in favor of industry. If it were to be changed at all, it should weigh more in favor of the injured crewman, not the company.

Sailing Rescue: Every Boater MUST Be Prepared Before Going to Sea

LaBovick Law — Thu, 16 May 2013 15:35:39 -0500

Earlier this year, two old friends set out from Port St. Lucie, FL to the Virgin Islands on a sail boat. The two gentlemen are 86 and 71 years old. They had invited another friend who turned them down and warned them that the currents and winds would make the trip too difficult if not dangerous. The friend proved to be right. The sailboat lost power, and the two men drifted at sea for seven days before being rescued. Thankfully, they were alright.
After the rescue, it was learned that the vessel was woefully under-supplied and provisioned. It did not have handheld VHF radios, emergency personal beacons (EPERBs) to give off radio signals, or even flares. Apparently, the owner was too cheap to purchase these items. Any of these items alone may have been enough to speed up a rescue.
Every boater must take an inventory of their vessel and account for safety equipment before going out on the water. The US Coast Guard sets for the standard minimum requirements, but boaters should always go beyond these minimums when venturing into a trip of this magnitude.
Any overseas trip dictates the presence of back-up radios, EPERBs, flares and other provisions to account for every perceived incident. A seasoned boater should know better, and a novice has a duty to himself/herself and any passengers to find out how to safely equip the vessel. Every captain has a legal duty to use reasonable care under the circumstances to protect the passengers and crew. This duty cannot be breached or delegated.
These two fellows had no business being on the ocean for a trip of that nature and especially being completely unprepared for such an event. They got lucky this time.

Is a Sterile-Smell Misleading? How One Dentist's Office Committed Terrible Medical Malpractice.

LaBovick Law — Wed, 15 May 2013 15:21:53 -0500

I always hated going to the dentist. Not only does the sound of the drill make the hair on my neck stand on edge, but the smell is terribly distinct. There is just something sickly sterile about the dentist office. But, in their defense, the smell was good marketing. I would say to myself, “it is such a sterile smell; it must be 100% germ free in here. At least I won’t get sick!” Well, not so fast! More than 7,000 patients in Oklahoma are now at risk for HIV and Hepatitis because of their dentist!

The dentist at the forefront of this issue is Dr. Scott Harrington. He is facing what could turn into criminal charges for permitting uncertified dental assistants to work in his office. They were allowed to complete dental procedures, and they did so in unapproved and unsafe fashions. The former patients are now lining up to get tested for HIV, Hepatitis B and C, and any other diseases that could have been transmitted by the dental office. Not only did the office use “rusty equipment” (ABC News on 3/29), but they allowed unlicensed assistants to administer IV sedation with reused needles and old drug vials. They even improperly sterilized the tools by using bleach, which caused them to corrode.

Dr. Harrington has voluntarily suspended his license and is cooperating with the investigation. Only one person was found to have Hepatitis C thus far, but literally thousands have to be tested.

It just goes to show you that you can’t trust your nose when it comes to a clean environment!

LaBovick Law Group is interested in many forms of consumer advocacy. While we do not handle dental malpractice, we do understand the gravity of what doctors do for a living. We support a strong and fair system of justice where doctors are given the ability to practice without worry of frivolous lawsuits, and patients have the right to find justice if they are injured through the negligence of a medical provider. Most of our doctor/clients support this fair analysis of the justice system, and all of us in the medical and legal community are horrified that such a terrible practice occurred. We wish the victims of this criminal act the best and hope they find that they are not afflicted by any of these terrible ailments.

Why is it important to give a full accident report to the police?

LaBovick Law — Tue, 14 May 2013 16:41:00 -0500

A majority of those living in the state of Florida, at one time or another, has been involved in an auto accident. Whether it be in a parking lot fender bender or a highway collision, more often than not the police arrive. The investigating officer will go to each driver and ask them what happened. This is done during the course of an accident investigation. The accident investigating officer's intentions in interviewing the drivers is to obtain a factually accurate account of the incident. The purpose of this is to document the crash and determine who, if anyone, will be given a citation – in other words, who is at fault.

The accident report is also used for insurance purposes. Carriers rely on these action reports to assess fault in order to pay property damages and injury damages. However, the statements of anyone involved in the crash given to the investigating officer during the accident investigation are privileged.

This means a driver confessing to causing the accident can be assured that the statement will be inadmissible in a court of law to prove liability. This seems incredible. However, the public policy behind the accident report privilege is to allow participants in a crash to convey freely and accurately information relating to the cause of the crash to the investigating officer. If the law allowed for these admissions to become evidence in any subsequent trial, it would have a dampening effect on the willingness of an individual to speak freely about the incident. In other words, the public policy of obtaining accurate information relating to a crash outweighs the admissibility of these confessions to establish liability in subsequent court proceedings.

Therefore, every driver or participant in a crash should feel comfortable about talking to the officer and relating accurately what they know about the crash without fear of having the information used against them later.

What Are Your Rights If You Are at Fault for an Accident?

LaBovick Law — Mon, 13 May 2013 09:15:42 -0500

As a personal injury attorney, I deal with countless victims who suffer due to the negligence of others. Oftentimes, the person who caused the injury will attempt to place some of the blame on the injured person. Sadly, sometimes they are correct, and the injured party was partially at fault.

Let’s imagine a case where a small child is injured in a motor vehicle accident due to a negligent driver who ran a red light. Clearly, the person that ran the red light is at fault. However, what if the parent of the child failed to properly secure the child in a child seat?

What if the injuries could have been prevented? What may the outcome have been if the parent would have simply followed the proper child restraint protocols? Should the person that ran the red light still be solely liable?

Pursuant to Florida law, if a jury assigns fault to the parent of the minor child, the percentage of fault will be deducted from the final judgment in the case. Nevertheless, the parent can still recover the percentage of fault assigned to the other driver. Thus, even if you are partially at fault in an accident, you can still recover if you were injured. If you are being told you are solely or partially responsible for an accident, seek legal advice immediately.