Sudden Medical Incapacitation

[rosepark]

What is the name of your state? Idaho. My son was hit by an elderly gentlemen (87) we have learned since the accident that the elderly gentlemen was involved in an accident prior to ours and after the accident got out of his car surveyed the damages and got back in then proceeded to run into my son about 3 miles down the road. After he hit my son he did the same thing. He was sited for inattentive driving and leaving the scene of the accident. The police officers at the scene have stated that the family of the gentlemen thought he had suffered a stroke the night before the accident, they also stated that they were afraid of his driving prior to this. His wife was in the vehicle telling him to stop and due to his confusion he did not do so. I have been reading case law regarding Sudden Medical Incapacitation, and I can believe he was medically incapacitated but I don't believe it was sudden and I don't believe that it caused him to lose control of his vehicle. I think he was incapacitated prior to getting into his vehicle as the officers stated, and that his confusion caused him to violate the safety rules. He never lost consciousness and his condition has not improved. Is the insurance company right in claiming sudden medical incapacitation?

 

[JETX]

Is the insurance company right in claiming sudden medical incapacitation?

Since we have NO access to reviewing any of the medical and/or investigative reports, there is no way that anyone on this forum can determine the mental abilities of someone else.

 

[Lynx 36]

An insurance company won't deny a claim f/ that. If one has a heart attack behind the wheel and they cream another car, they or their insurance company is still liable. If the insuance company found he had a medical condition they could cancel his policy.

Bottom line id that man or his insuance company is liable f/ damages in the accident.

 

[stephenk]

An insurance company won't deny a claim f/ that. If one has a heart attack behind the wheel and they cream another car, they or their insurance company is still liable. If the insuance company found he had a medical condition they could cancel his policy.

Bottom line id that man or his insuance company is liable f/ damages in the accident.

That is not true under your example. A sudden heart attack with no history of heart problems does not make the driver negligent. If the driver is not negligent, the carrier does not owe a dime.

Our office had a case where our driver suffered a heart attack while driving. She hit many cars and injured a number of people. The plaintiffs were claiming she had the heart attack after her car stopped. We couldnt ask her since she died at the scene. The cases were dismissed after a couple of witnesses testified in deposition that they saw her car go past them with the driver slumped over to the side. No negligence = no recovery.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

The problem with this from a neuroscientific point of view is that we cannot determine from these data if this was sudden or not. It would require a complete medical record and neurological evaluation. While there may be a pattern, that does not necessiarly mean the condition is chronic, nor that the same condition caused both events. What is commonly referred to as "Stroke" represents a complex variety of medical conditions. Sometimes a "Stroke" is called a "Brain Attack" something "sudden" by nature. Also, the location in the brain may make a big difference in presentation. It is very possible for an impaird person with any type of brain impairment to not preceive that they have a problem or it's severity, same for a person close or dependent upon them. TIA's are sometimes called "mini strokes" These involve minor attacks and the person may recover in hours or days, a series of these may be silent in nature.

Is this going to be dismissed because the "stroke" was sudden, posibly not, but there's a lot of room for argument on both sides of the quesiton which will make for an expensive lawsuit. There may be others partially responsible for what happened, if there was knowledge if impairment.

Has the DMV restricted or revoked his license? Here is a link to an example from California where an elderly man with a history of minor accidents and questionable capicity plowed into a farmer's market http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/17/national/main563809.shtml

 

[JETX]

The problem with this from a neuroscientific point of view

HUH???? 'Neuroscientific' means "Any of the sciences, such as neuroanatomy and neurobiology, that deal with the nervous system."
Maybe you meant 'pseudo-scientific point of view'. Or even, 'Quasi-Scientific point of view'. But 'neuroscientific' doesn't apply..... at least as a 'point of view'.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

HUH???? 'Neuroscientific' means "Any of the sciences, such as neuroanatomy and neurobiology, that deal with the nervous system."
Maybe you meant 'pseudo-scientific point of view'. Or even, 'Quasi-Scientific point of view'. But 'neuroscientific' doesn't apply..... at least as a 'point of view'.

Let me be more specific, as a qualified expert witness in the field of forensic neurosciences, which indeed does include but not limited to; different aspects you noted, Neuroscientific would be the acceptable term qualified under FRE 702 and the Daubert standard, the terms you used, 'pseudo-scientific point of view'. Or even, 'Quasi-Scientific point of view' are more frequently attributed to the Frye Test accepted by some states.

I was agreeing with you in that we could not make such a determination based on the facts presented, for while they may be compelling to the layperson, it is a complex quesiton scientifically and in turn, in terms of the evidence, let alone what happens to the evidence once attorneys argue it, especially in a "Frye" state.



Jetx, Is that better?

 

[Lynx 36]

Quote: "That is not true under your example. A sudden heart attack with no history of heart problems does not make the driver negligent. If the driver is not negligent, the carrier does not owe a dime."

"Our office had a case where our driver suffered a heart attack while driving. She hit many cars and injured a number of people. The plaintiffs were claiming she had the heart attack after her car stopped. We couldnt ask her since she died at the scene. The cases were dismissed after a couple of witnesses testified in deposition that they saw her car go past them with the driver slumped over to the side. No negligence = no recovery."

Interesting......I've also seen them paid too. They certainly aren't a common thing but do happen. You could split hairs on this all day long.
Would ones lifestyle cause one to possibly have the heart attack, thus making him negligent? We all know the people who got their cars creamed weren't negligent.

 

[JETX]

Let me be more specific, as a qualified expert witness in the field of fornesic neurosciences

I would think an 'expert' could spell forensic.

which indeed does encompas different aspects you noted

Encompass?

 

[rmet4nzkx]

I would think an 'expert' could spell forensic.


Encompass?

Sorry, a typing disability I transpose some letters and don't always catch them and am a bit blerry eyed today, my son is in Mousel and so it's been a long day with so many killed and injured there. I'll go back and correct.

 

[stephenk]

"Would ones lifestyle cause one to possibly have the heart attack, thus making him negligent?"

No.

 

[Lynx 36]

I disagree. It can. But that arguement is f/ another board.