The no-refusal order is not something new to Texas. In 2011, Texas and other states across the country began an aggressive anti-DWI campaign. They initiated no-refusal weekends, which incorporate major holidays or events that typically accumulate a large number of drunk drivers.  If a driver refuses the traditional breathalyzer test, police officers can have a blood sample drawn.

Don’t You Need a Warrant for That?

The answer is yes – however, law enforcement has that covered. During these weekends, a judge is designated to issue warrants. An on-site nurse then draws blood from the suspect.. Before the no-refusal policy, drunken driving prosecutors had little evidence to support their cases. Now that more counties are adopting stricter policies, convictions are coming at a higher rate.

The cities of San Antonio and Houston are two of the largest supporters of the anti-DWI strategy. Bexar and Harris counties have outstanding numbers of deaths associated with DWI incidents. In 2010, Bexar had a population of 1,714,773 people and 6,000 DWI arrests.

Both counties expanded the program from major holiday weekends to every weekend. Harris County was awarded a three-year, $700,000 grant from the Texas Department of Transportation to continue the program until 2014.

The policy has gained tremendous support from organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). It has been hailed as a major step in the right direction to deter drivers from getting behind the wheel while intoxicated.

DFW No Refusal Weekends

No-refusal weekends are already in place in Dallas and Tarrant Counties, although not to the extent of Houston and San Antonio. As we near the beginning of Mardi Gras and St. Patrick’s Day celebrations, we can expect that law enforcement will use more no-refusal dates.

While this strategy has been successful, drunk driving is still a problem that claims too many victims each year. We encourage drivers to be proactive and stay off the roads as much as possible during these holidays. As personal injury attorneys, Parker McDonald fights for those who lose the most in an accident. Were you injured in a car accident with a drunk driver? Contact us for a no obligation consultation to determine how we can get you back on the right track.

So, what keeps reality TV so real? A waiver.  It guards against lawsuits from physical alterations, daring stunts and negative (truthful) portrayals of a show’s characters. But, like everything in the media, once information or an image is released trying to control it is impossible. Media outlets can control the tone and tenor of the coverage, though, and that is why the mother of one reality TV star is taking action.

If you haven’t heard of TLC’s Toddlers & Tiaras, it’s a behind-the-scenes view into the world of mini-pageant queens. The drama is nearly comparable to that of MTV’s Jersey Shore – on a PG level, of course. Since the show aired, it has drawn controversy. And, while some tactics are certainly questionable, the show has a large following. What could be more adorable than a 5-year-old dressing up like a doll? Possibly nothing … until several media outlets hosted some video footage and leveled criticism at girl and her mother.

The incident in question doesn’t actually involve the show, rather a charity event that Isabella Barrett, one of the mini pageant stars, attended. A video that surfaced features Isabella dancing in her seat while singing the lyrics to “I’m Sexy and I Know It” at a New York nightclub. All kinds of questions come to mind – and several online media outlets raised most of them

But, one they didn’t ask is: How far can the law go to protect these starlets? Susanna Barrett, the mother of Isabella, has taken that question to court, ostensibly to defend her daughter’s image.

Barrett has filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros. Entertainment, Associated Newspapers Limited, and AOL, Inc., (owners of the various media sites) citing damages to the tune of $30 million. The defendants have 20 days to respond to the complaint before they will be ordered to appear in court. The suit states that because of their headlines, Isabella is now perceived in a sexual manner and essentially a target for sex offenders.

Is this protected speech under the First Amendment? Has the media gone too far, or are they just pointing out the obvious? What liability do media outlets have when they report on the perception of a reality TV star? Regardless of the direction a piece may have, facts are facts. They do have video, and the lyrics of the song are clear.

Several publications stated that it was her mother who stood with her, encouraging as she sang. It was purportedly a hired deejay, instead, but the outlets labeled her as a parent that allowed her child to act in such a way. A behavior that isn’t very different to a pageant, but taken out of context, could be seen as something very damaging. Is it the court’s responsibility to separate someone from what they do and protect who they are?

We think so. To negatively characterize a child who dreams of winning crowns and bash a parent for supporting those dreams is harsh.  Parents are no different on the sidelines of a sporting event. A waiver cannot protect people from life outside of a show – that has to be the law’s job.

The ban is a big stride in the improvement of highway safety and the strictest to date. It appears that Congress wants to follow it up, however, with a law that would impede the progress made by the NTSB.

Efficiency over safety

For drivers, adding more weight to top-heavy tractor trailers would seem to increase a likely hazard. However, Congress is considering doing just that with the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act. If passed, the law would raise the national weight limit for commercial trucks by 17,000 pounds. That means trucks could be capable of carrying up to 97,000 pounds, which isn’t favorable for accident statistics.

Congress has concluded that, in order to increase the overall efficiency of our transportation system, trucks need to be able to carry more to cut costs. The proposal is backed by 200 companies that form the Coalition for Transportation Productivity. Brands like Hershey, MillerCoors and Home Depot have large stakes in pushing the law through Congress. Supporters believe that, with more weight on the trucks, reductions in costs and highway traffic will incur benefits for consumers.

Will the benefits really be worth it?

Aside from the possible increase in collisions, what other impacts can drivers expect? Opponents of the bill agree that heavier trucks will only damage the already crumbling infrastructure around the nation. You’ve probably noticed the various construction projects throughout your state, but the truth is, roads are breaking down faster than they can be repaired or replaced.

Heavier trucks carry the possibility of eroding existing roads and wearing down new ones more quickly. The result could be another incident like the Minneapolis bridge collapse in 2007. This tragic accident created only a mild legislative response to improve the conditions of roads and bridges across the country.

What does this mean for drivers?

It doesn’t take an expert driver to understand that the heavier you are, the more time and space you need to halt momentum and come to a complete stop. With this proposed weight increase, truck drivers would need 25 percent more stopping space. This could possibly cause more congestion as trucks slowdown in high traffic areas and construction zones.

However, supporters continue to argue that this is the best solution to meet safety and economic initiatives. Only six axle trucks will be affected – leveling their stopping capability to a five axle truck carrying 80,000 pounds.

A spokesman of the American Trucking Associations thinks that a six axle truck carrying up to 97,000 pounds will help road conditions because the trucks will be able to better balance their weight. This is important to all of us, since statistics show truck fatalities are rising – with 448 people killed in Texas alone. Although other factors do play a part in trucking accidents, every factor should be accounted for to ensure road safety stays a top priority.

Parker McDonald will continue to monitor the development of this story as news is released. If you or a loved one has been involved in a trucking accident, you know how painful and costly the damage is.

If you’ve ever watched daytime TV, there is no shortage of court shows trying to sort out the aftermath of personal relationships gone awry. However, the events that took place on Sept. 22, 2003, are far beyond what any TV court could handle.

Kurtulus Kalican, enraged by the relationship between his ex-wife Ayfer Kaya and David Romero, snapped when police refused to take action on his behalf. He claimed that the relationship violated a court order but was told to contact his attorney in the morning. Instead, Kalican drove a little over four hours to confront the couple.

He entered the home – which he still owned – with a spare key, retrieved a .357 magnum handgun and walked into the bedroom where Kaya and Romero lay sleeping. He fatally shot Romero and shot Kaya twice before beating her with the gun. Kalican was soon arrested and charged with four counts that included first-degree manslaughter and first-degree assault. He is currently serving 64 years in prison.

Fast forward nine years, the wrongful death suit Kaya and Romero’s sister filed in 2005 against New London will finally be heard. The lawsuit cites that the city failed to monitor Kalican’s behavioral flaws and enforce a protective order – the results were Romero’s death and the attempted murder of Kaya.

The plaintiffs claim that the police should have taken Kalican’s call seriously. The protective order was a clear indicator of his violent history.

The trial will feature witness testimony from New London police officers and Kalican’s son, who was in the house at the time of the shooting. Only 11, he acted quickly to guide his younger siblings out of the house. The plaintiff’s attorneys may also use Kaya’s 911 call for help while Kalican was on his rampage.

The jurors will have a difficult time deciding if a man’s impulsive actions are the result of the police department’s inability to predict his behavior. His history will be useful evidence to substantiate their claims.

At first, the plaintiffs intended to target the individual officers but changed their strategy to name the City of New London. It is apparent that they aim to expose the flaws in the system that led to the incident.

Wrongful death lawsuits typically involve a heightened level of emotions that can be overwhelming. However, plaintiffs still have the burden of proof against the alleged negligent party. In many situations the plaintiff is going up against a large entity with a high-powered legal team, like New London. Having experienced trial lawyers on your side is the best way to navigate the legal system and receive justice for your loss. Allow the attorneys at Parker McDonald to represent you in your time of need. Contact us today.

On January 3, 2012, the FDA commanded that all manufacturers of surgical mesh implants conduct postmarket surveillance studies, also known as 522 studies. In total, the FDA issued 88 postmarket study orders to 33 manufacturers of surgical mesh for POP and 11 postmarket study orders to seven manufacturers of single-incision mini-slings for SUI. The FDA is requesting that manufactures perform a three-year market survey to track side effects and the quality of life of patients.

From 2008 to 2010, the FDA received more than 1,500 complaints about surgical mesh implants – a fivefold increase from 2005 to 2007. Some of the complications reported to the FDA include mesh erosion through the vagina, urinary problems, bleeding, and severe pain. In 2010 alone, 75,000 women with POP were repaired with mesh, and 200,000 needed corrective surgery for stress urinary incontinence.

In July of last year, the FDA announced that the surgical placement of mesh through the vagina to repair POP may expose patients to greater risk than other options. Additionally, the FDA stated that there was no greater clinical benefit with the exposure to greater risk.

Thousands of women may experience POP during their lifetime, so the results of these studies potentially have a widespread impact. If the studies confirm the FDA’s thoughts on the use of the device, vaginal mesh could be reclassified in a higher-risk category. Transvaginal Mesh is currently a Class II medical device, meaning no clinical trials were required prior to market availability. Reclassification to a Class III device would force manufacturers, like Johnson & Johnson and Boston Scientific, to do pre-clinical trials before the devices can be approved.

Some information in this release was provided by Reuters. For additional information, visit us online at http://www.parkermcdonaldlaw.com/vaginal-mesh/. Parker McDonald will continue to monitor and report medical and legal developments on surgical vaginal mesh.

# # #