Uncategorized

Are You Suffering from PTSD after a Car Accident?

Car Accidents: Medical attention is usually given to physical injuries following a car accident. Doctors examine for brain damage, fractures, neck injuries, and spinal cord injuries. A car accident victim may also suffer psychological injuries such as post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD. If you think you are experiencing PTSD after an accident speak with a car accident lawyer today.

New York City Car Accident: PTSD


After an auto accident, it is easy to overlook post-traumatic stress disorder. While doctors focus on the physical injuries sustained in an accident, they often overlook the emotional and psychological trauma that a car crash can cause. Studies have shown that people involved in car accidents are at greater risk of developing emotional disorders such as PTSD. Car accidents are the leading cause of posttraumatic stress disorder. A study found that 22 percent of victims of car accidents develop PTSD. After any trauma, individuals can develop post-traumatic stress disorder. Floods, earthquakes and fires are all examples of trauma events. You may also be the victim of assaults, dog attacks, sex crime, or any other violent act. Many soldiers suffer from PTSD when they are in combat or in a war zone. Some people might develop PTSD from witnessing a crime or assault. To develop PTSD following a traumatic event, a person doesn’t need to be physically injured. PTSD is a serious, medically diagnosed anxiety disorder. Untreated, people can experience severe symptoms and complications. A person could also develop eating disorders, depression or sleep disorders. If they don’t receive treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder, they may attempt suicide or harm their own health. Its important to speak to a car accident lawyer if you are suffering any of these symptoms.

What are the Signs and Symptoms for PTSD after a Car Accident?


Individuals suffering from PTSD can experience a range of symptoms including:

  • Avoidance symptoms
  • Re-experiencing symptoms
  • Reactivity and arousal symptoms
  • Symptoms that are related to mood
  • Cognitive symptoms

Although symptoms of PTSD may appear immediately after a trauma, some people don’t experience them for months or even years. You may experience symptoms that come and go over time. Symptoms of PTSD can include anxiety, depression, mood swings and aggression after a car accident.

One may also experience:

  • Fear of driving, riding in a motor car or having nightmares about it can cause panic attacks or flashbacks to the wreckage.
  • Interest in activities has declined
  • Feeling agitated upon hearing sirens
  • Talking about the car accident and injuries is not a good idea.
  • Refrain from being around people or going to places that remind you of the car accident
  • Feeling mood swings like crying, anger, sadness, and laughter
  • Isolating oneself from family members and friends
  • Changes in eating and sleeping habits. Inability to perform at school or work. Problems with concentration, memory, focus, and concentration.
  • Trouble remembering details of traffic accidents?

Individuals with symptoms of PTSD should see a doctor immediately. To help an individual overcome the emotional and mental trauma caused by a car accident, a physician can diagnose and treat PTSD. Children can also suffer from PTSD following an accident. Parents should immediately seek medical attention if their child exhibits symptoms of PTSD, or changes in mood or development.

Treatments for PTSD after a Car Accident

Treatments for PTSD vary depending on the person and the severity of the symptoms. Different people may respond differently to different types of treatment. One or more of these treatments may be used to treat PTSD.

  • Medications
  • Behavioral therapy
  • Psychotherapy
  • Counselling
  • Cognitive therapy

It can be difficult to live with PTSD following a car accident. It can be difficult to work or return to your home due …

Mentoring Lawyer News Uncategorized

Laws For Medical Malpractice in Brooklyn, New York

The laws for medical malpractice in Brooklyn are very specific. You need to contact one of the highly qualified medical malpractice lawyers in Brooklyn in order to win your case. Your medical malpractice attorney will know all the medical terms and the medical ethics, and the law. It can be confusing and frustrating to try to understand the complex terminology used in the laws. So, if this is the case, you need to find a medical malpractice lawyer who understands medical law.

It is against the law for any doctor, hospital, medical school, etc to be negligent when treating patients. In fact, all medical malpractice cases are heard by the same lawyer. This means that you will need someone who understands medical malpractice law and who has a great deal of experience with medical malpractice cases. A qualified medical malpractice lawyer will do his/her best to get you a fair and just settlement.

Doctors and hospitals in New York State are required to maintain personal liability insurance. Even if the hospital maintains medical malpractice insurance, it is only to the extent of its ability to pay. When a medical malpractice lawyer is involved in your case, the insurance carrier may very well have to foot the bill. This is not usually the case, but it may be an option to explore if you can afford it.

There are also several other types of medical malpractice. For example, dental malpractice occurs when a dentist fails to diagnose a dental condition or vice versa. While this may seem like a simple case of medical negligence, it can actually have very detrimental consequences. If the dentist wrongly diagnoses a medical condition you may require surgery and even then you could be sued for medical negligence. Medical malpractice cases like this can be quite complex and time-consuming.

Another type of medical malpractice is sexual abuse or rape. In New York State as well as across the country, victims of medical malpractice are entitled to compensation. However, the statute of limitations on filing a medical negligence claim in such instances is usually ten years. Victims should take all necessary action to file their claims. This should include notifying their medical provider, their personal doctor, their lawyer and the state’s attorney general.

Other laws for medical malpractice in Brooklyn NY are related to the quality of the medical care itself. Doctors and hospitals must be held accountable for their services. Some medical professionals are known to use abusive and sometimes illegal procedures. While others may simply lack the education, training or knowledge to provide a quality medical service. Either way, medical malpractice victims should be able to receive proper justice.

In the medical malpractice case you will likely be involved with one doctor and one medical facility. At first it may seem that you are dealing with two separate doctors and two medical facilities, but if you can work it out you could end up settling with a third medical facility. You want to make sure you work out an arrangement where the doctors work together to find a solution. You also want to make sure you work out an arrangement with the doctor that you prefer working with. Otherwise you might find yourself having to go to another medical facility because the doctor from which you chose cannot work with the other doctor.

Laws for medical malpractice in Brooklyn NY are very strict. It is very important that you know what your legal rights are. A good lawyer can help you deal with the powers that be. Don’t take any chances. Make sure you take …

Mentoring Lawyer News Uncategorized

Wisconsin Student Accused Of Arson In Hoax Hate Crime

Viterbo University in Wisconsin has been the scene of protests for months over alleged hate crimes committed on campus.  The police however has charged a student, Victoria Unanka, with what it says was a hoax hate crime involving the setting of a fire in her dormitory. What interested me about the case was the curious combination of criminal charges. She is being charged with both arson and “the negligent handling of burning materials.”

The arson occurred during protests over alleged racial incidents on campus. A student complained about racial slurs directed against her. The university cancelled classes and campus-wide demonstrations were held. One of those who reportedly spoke at the demonstrations was Unanka.

The LaCrosse Police Department report states that Unanka “admitted to intentionally setting the fire in the second level lounge for attention purposes.”  According to media reports, President Glena Temple has later announced that the responsible student would be expelled.

There were also slurs written on a dorm room door and the campus installed cameras and launched a full investigation. That investigation was closed and a Viterbo spokesperson said that “the remaining person of interest is no longer a student.”

Viterbo is not the only university dealing with such a controversy. Wayne State University Police launched a major investigation after student Zoriana Martinez alleged that, on February 16 and March 1, someone threw eggs at her residence hall door. She also alleged someone tore down her LGBT Pride sticker and stole a photo of her dog.  While the police later concluded that Martinez was likely responsible for the acts herself, it did not seek charges. There was a notable twist.  The police report indicated that “Isis,” a Wayne State University employee was believed to have information on the case. However, she “isn’t compelled to speak with police or WSU administration despite the fact that Isis is a WSU employee and holds some obligation to report such concerns.”

Back to Viterbo.  What struck me about the story was the initial charges of arson and negligent handling of of burning materials. One is an intentional act while the other is an act based on fault rather than intent.

Here is the latter provision:

941.10 Negligent handling of burning material.

(1)Whoever handles burning material in a highly negligent manner is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

(2)Burning material is handled in a highly negligent manner if handled with criminal negligence under s. 939.25 or under circumstances in which the person should realize that a substantial and unreasonable risk of serious damage to another’s property is created.

History: 1977 c. 173; 1987 a. 399.

The charges seem inherently in conflict. However, this may be an effort to offer a plea for the lesser charge, though it is not clear why the prosecutors would not seek an arson plea if the evidence is strong. The fire endangered everyone living in the dorm.

There is also a possibility that the prosecutors will shake out the charges by adding and dropping charges.  The negligent charge can be a placeholder in that sense, a charge that is likely to pass judicial muster on review as they work out other possible charges.

Mentoring Lawyer News Uncategorized

No, The Second Amendment Was Not Primarily About Suppressing African Americans

The media has given highly favorable coverage to a new book by Dr. Carol Anderson, chair of Emory University’s Black Studies Department, that argues that “[the Second Amendment] was designed and has consistently been constructed to keep African Americans powerless and vulnerable.”  In interviews with media outlets like CNN and NPR Anderson’s theory is not challenged on the history and purpose of the Second Amendment. Like the contested claims of the “1619” project (which posited that slavery was the motivation for the establishment of the colonies), there might be a reluctance by academics to raise the countervailing historical sources out of fear of being labeled insensitive, defensive, or even racist.  However, this is not a new theory and, while there were concerns at the time about slavery and uprisings, the roots of the Second Amendment can be traced largely to England and the fears of government oppression. The point is not to dismiss this consideration for some pro-slavery figures at the time but to put those statements in a more historically grounded and accurate context.

The book, “The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America,” is the latest work of Anderson who previously published “White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide.”  NPR bills its interview as “Historian Carol Anderson Uncovers The Racist Roots Of The Second Amendment.”

In truth, this is not a new theory and was long preceded by more detailed accounts by figures like Carl Bogus who wrote the 1998 work The Hidden History of the Second Amendment. Carl T. Bogus, The Hidden History of the Second Amendment, 31 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 309 (1998); see also Carl T. Bogus, Race, Riots, and Guns, 66 S. CAL. L. REV. 1365 (1993). These works are worth reading as are the writings of my colleague Robert Cottrol (and my former colleague) Ray Diamond. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 GEO. L.J. 309 (1991).

Bogus highlighted the quotes used later by Anderson, including a warning by Patrick Henry that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government in the “common defense” and did not leave enough powers with the states to defend themselves. Bogus asked “What was Henry driving at? In 1788, Americans did not fear foreign invasion.  Nor did Americans still harbor the illusion that the militia could effectively contest trained military forces.” His answer was slavery and its preservation.

Slavery was a matter discussed both at the Declaration of Independence and during the Constitutional debates. There were those who were concerned about efforts to abolish slavery as well as slave uprisings. However, the Second Amendment does not appear the result in whole or in large part due to those fears. The right to bear arms was viewed as a bulwark against oppression of citizens by the government. In Northern states where slavery was not as popular, the Second Amendment was an important guarantee against that danger of tyranny. For example, the Pennsylvania Constitution (that preceded the Constitution) included these provisions:

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination …

Mentoring Lawyer News Uncategorized

“Discrimination at the Hands of Their Government”: Another Federal Court Has Halted a Federal Relief Program As Racially Discriminatory

(Official White House Photo/Adam Schultz)

President Joe Biden is facing an embarrassing and growing problem as he continues to declare his focus on ending racial discrimination: another federal court appears close to ruling that his Administration is engaging in raw racial discrimination. Milwaukee District Judge William Griesbach issued a temporary restraining order in Wisconsin halting Biden’s controversial $4 billion race-based federal relief program for farmers.  The awarding of relief based on race immediately raised objections of racial discrimination. The ruling is based on the court’s view that the white farmers challenging the program are likely to prevail.

The order was made in favor of twelve plaintiffs from nine different states who sued the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency to enjoin the Biden Administration from implementing a loan-forgiveness program for farmers and ranchers under Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). The program pays up to 120% of direct or guaranteed farm loan balances for Black, American Indian, Hispanic, Asian American or Pacific Islander farmers.

As part of the ARPA, Congress appropriated “such sums as may be necessary” to pay for the cost of loan modifications and payments to “socially disadvantaged” farmers and ranchers. § 1005(a)(1). The term “socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher” is defined under 7 U.S.C. § 2279(a). § 1005(b)(3) as a farmer or rancher who is a member of a “socially disadvantaged group.” § 2279(a)(5).

“Socially disadvantaged group” is then defined as “a group whose members have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities.” § 2279(a)(6).

The Biden Administration defines “socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher” to include individuals “who are one or more of the following: Black/African American, American Indian, Alaskan native, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, or Pacific Islander.” American Rescue Plan Debt Payments, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, available at https://www.farmers.gov /americanrescueplan (last visited June 7, 2021).

The lawsuit was previously criticized as baseless or, as NBC reported, part of a “war against equity” by Trump supporters.

The Court found that the program was unambiguously discriminatory since “the only consideration in determining whether a farmer or rancher’s loans should be completely forgiven is the person’s race or national origin.” As such, “Plaintiffs are excluded from the program based on their race and are thus experiencing discrimination at the hands of their government.”

The Court found on the required compelling interest that the Administration failed to state a case:

Here, Defendants lack a compelling interest for the racial classifications. Defendants assert that ‘Congress targeted the debt payments in Section 1005 to the minority groups that it determined had suffered discrimination in the USDA programs and that had been largely left out of recent agricultural funding and pandemic relief.’ Dkt. No. 17 at 17. But Defendants have not established that the loan-forgiveness program targets a specific episode of past or present discrimination. Defendants point to statistical and anecdotal evidence of a history of discrimination within the agricultural industry. Id. at 16–17. But Defendants cannot rely on a ‘generalized assertion that there has been past discrimination in an entire industry’ to establish a compelling interest. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. at 498; see also Parents Involved, 551 U.S. at 731 (plurality opinion) (‘remedying past societal discrimination does not justify race-conscious government action’). Defendants’ evidence of more recent discrimination includes assertions that the vast majority of funding from more recent agriculture subsidies and pandemic relief efforts did not reach minority farmers and statistical disparities. Id. at 17.

Judge Griesbach further rejected the government’s arguments on the narrow tailoring prong:…