Study Shows Mild Traumatic Brain Injuries Lead to Alzheimer’s

0

According to the Traumatic Brain Injury Law Blog, a new study shows that older veterans who have sustained a mild brain injury were likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease and other dementia-related diseases later in life. There was a high rate of mild cognitive impairment, or “pre-Alzheimer’s,” in retired pro-football players who suffered from multiple concussions during their careers.

The study’s findings negate older reports which stated that only moderate or severe brain injuries led to dementia. The study raises concerns for current service men and women who have suffered from explosions in recent years.

Over the next seven years, more than 15 percent of those who had suffered a brain injury were diagnosed with dementia versus only 7 percent of the others – a more than doubled risk. Severity of the injury made no difference in the odds of developing dementia.

The importance of proper treatment following any head injury cannot be stressed enough. The fact is that brain injuries, even mild ones, can cause life-long damage that will impair your quality of life.

Your Health Insurance May Not Cover Motorcycle Accidents

0

Think your health insurance will cover you if you’re involved in a motorcycle accident? You might want to read the fine print. More and more insurance companies are adding language to their policies that exempts medical care payments for motorcycle accident injuries from coverage. So if you’re injured by an irresponsible driver while on a motorcycle, your health insurance may not help.

As motorcycle accident attorneys, we specialize in working with uncooperative insurance companies to try to ensure that you get everything you’re entitled to.

You may think that you have “full coverage.” You may have been told that you have full coverage. But please believe me when I say that there is no such thing as full coverage. In fact, you would probably be shocked to discover the list of things not covered by your insurance. Like motorcycle wrecks.

Most people imagine insurance as a warm blanket, protecting them from all the bad things that can happen everyday. And often it is. But sometimes, when things go wrong you end up on opposite sides of a dispute from your insurance company. When that happens, a strong advocate can mean the difference between success and failure. The insurance companies hire skilled attorneys to help protect their bottom line. Don’t you want someone on your side?

Hit by a Drunk Driver? Act Quickly

0

In personal injury cases involving a drunk driver, there’s an additional time constraint that doesn’t exist in other situations. Usually, the statute of limitations sets the amount of time an injury victim has to commence a lawsuit against the person who injured him. For personal injury cases in Texas, that’s generally the two year rule for tort actions. So, ordinarily you would have two years after an incident to find an injury lawyer and start a suit.

But, for victims hit by a drunk driver, there can be an additional restriction. Texas has what is known as a Dram Shop Act, which applies to people or businesses who sell or provide alcoholic beverages. The Dram Shop Act allows you to hold the bar responsible for your injuries if they served the driver who hit you while he was visibly intoxicated. If a bar serves a person who is clearly drunk, and that person then hits you while driving home, law holds the bar responsible as well as the drunk driver. But, in order to do this you have to notify the bar within 180 days of the incident and begin your lawsuit within 2 years. These restrictions over rule the standard limitation period and impose a greater burden on victims to act quickly.

A heavily divided Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of the statute. The victim was hit by a drunk driver shortly after he left the a tavern where he had been drinking all night. The victim filed her complaint a little over a year after the accident, but the District Court dismissed it because she had not given notice to the tavern. The victim appealed and challenged the constitutionality of the law. The majority of justices ruled that the law was constitutional (at least under the challenges the victim brought up in her appeal).

But, a concurring opinion, filed by a Justice raised an interesting point. The purpose of the law is to put Tavern owners on notice that something has happened. Conceivably, a driver could leave a bar, get in an accident miles and miles away, and the bar would have no way of knowing anything had happened. But in this case it was undisputed that the accident happened almost immediately after the drunk driver left the tavern. Highway Patrol Officers spoke with bar employees that night. There is no arguing that the tavern was aware of the incident. It appears a majority of the Court would have accepted that argument, but it was not raised on appeal.