The basics of a criminal prosecution, including presumption of innocence, trial by jury, felonies, misdemeanors, conviction and innocence.
What's Below:
Who decides how the criminal justice system works?
What's the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor?
How can I tell from reading a criminal statute whether I'm guilty of the crime it defines?
What is the "presumption of innocence?"
What does it mean to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
If I'm accused of a crime, am I guaranteed a trial by a jury?
Can a jury acquit me even if I broke the law?
I am confused about why a defendant would choose to not testify. If I were innocent, why wouldn't I want to take the stand and tell my story?
What is self-defense?
What happens if a defendant is judged "incompetent to stand trial?"
Can a defendant go free because he was drunk or high on drugs when he committed a crime?
Who decides how the criminal justice system works?
Though legislators have relatively unfettered power to decide whether a certain behavior should be a crime, many rules limit the ways in which the state or federal government can prosecute someone for a crime. These restrictions start with the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, which provides basic protections-such as the right to refuse to testify against oneself, the right to confront one's accusers and the right to a trial by jury-for people charged with crimes. State constitutions may increase (but not take away from) the federal protections. Federal and state legislatures can pass laws governing how criminal procedures work in their jurisdictions, but these laws cannot reduce the protections offered by the federal and state constitutions.
The interplay between constitutional provisions and legislative enactments is regulated by our courts. Courts decide whether or not a particular legislative rule, court practice or police action is permissible under federal and state constitutional law. What may seem like a slight variation from one case to another can be, in the eyes of a court, the determining factor that leads to a vastly different result. For example, a police officer is frisking a suspect on the street and feels a hard object in the suspect's pocket. Suspecting that the object is a possible weapon, the officer reaches into the pocket and finds both a cardboard cigarette box and a packet of heroin. This action by the police officer -- reaching into the pocket -- would be deemed a permissible search under the rulings of most courts (to protect the officer's safety), and the heroin could be admitted into court as evidence. However, if the object felt by the officer was soft and obviously not a weapon, then reaching into the suspect's pocket might be deemed an illegal search, in which case the heroin couldn't be used as evidence.
Back to top
What's the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor?
Most states break their crimes into two major groups-felonies and misdemeanors. Whether a crime falls into one category or the other depends on the potential punishment. If a law provides for imprisonment for longer than a year, it is usually considered a felony. If the potential punishment is for a year or less, then the crime is considered a misdemeanor. In some states, certain crimes, called "wobblers," may be considered either a misdemeanor or a felony, because under some conditions the punishment may be imprisonment for less than a year, and in other situations, the criminal may go to prison for a year or more.
Behaviors punishable only by fine are usually not considered crimes at all, but infractions-for example, traffic tickets. But a legislature may on occasion punish behavior only by fine and still provide that it is a misdemeanor -- such as possession of less than an ounce of marijuana for personal use in California.
Back to top
How can I tell from reading a criminal statute whether I'm guilty of the crime it defines?
All criminal statutes define crimes in terms of required acts and a required state of mind, usually described as the actor's "intent." These requirements are known as the "elements" of the offense. A prosecutor must convince a judge or jury that the person charged with the crime (the defendant) did the acts and had the intent described in the statute. For example, commercial burglary is commonly defined as entering a structure (such as a store) belonging to another person, with the intent to commit petty or grand theft (that is, to steal) or any felony.
To convict a person of this offense, the prosecutor would have to prove three elements:
1. The defendant entered the structure.
2. The structure belonged to another person.
3. At the time the defendant entered the structure, he intended to commit petty or grand theft or any felony.
You will have to do the same when you read the law. Parse the crime into its required elements to see if each applies in your situation.
Back to top
What is the "presumption of innocence?"
All people accused of a crime are legally presumed to be innocent until they are convicted, either in a trial or as a result of pleading guilty. This presumption means not only that the prosecutor must convince the jury of the defendant's guilt, but also that the defendant need not say or do anything in his own defense. If the prosecutor can't convince the jury that the defendant is guilty, the defendant goes free.
The presumption of innocence, coupled with the fact that the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see below), makes it difficult for the government to put people behind bars.
Back to top
What does it mean to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
The prosecutor must convince the judge or jury hearing the case that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." This standard is very hard to meet. (By contrast, in non-criminal cases, such as an accident or breach of contract, a plaintiff has to prove her case only by a preponderance of the evidence -- just over 50%.) As a practical matter, the high burden of proof in criminal cases means that judges and jurors are supposed to resolve all doubts about the meaning of the evidence in favor of the defendant. With such a high standard imposed on the prosecutor, a defendant's most common defense is often to argue that there is reasonable doubt-that is, that the prosecutor hasn't done a sufficient job of proving that the defendant is guilty.
Back to top
If I'm accused of a crime, am I guaranteed a trial by a jury?
Yes. The U.S. Constitution gives a person accused of a crime the right to be tried by a jury. This right has long been interpreted to mean a 12-person jury that must arrive at a unanimous decision to convict or acquit. (In most states, a lack of unanimity is called a "hung jury" and the defendant will go free unless the prosecutor decides to retry the case. In Oregon and Louisiana, however, juries may convict or acquit on a vote of ten to two.) The potential jurors must be selected randomly from the community, and the actual jury must be selected by a process which allows the judge and lawyers to screen out biased jurors. In addition, a lawyer may eliminate several potential jurors simply because he feels that these people would not be sympathetic to his side-but these decisions may not be based on the juror's personal characteristics, such as race, sex, religion or national origin.
Back to top
Can a jury acquit me even if I broke the law?
The jury has the ultimate power to decide whether a person is guilty of a crime. As the "conscience of the community," jurors can free a defendant even if they think the defendant actually committed the crime charged. The name for this power is "jury nullification." It has always been a part of our judicial system.
When jurors nullify a law by acquitting a defendant who has obviously broken that law, judges and prosecutors can do nothing about it. A jury's not guilty verdict is final. Jury nullification rarely occurs, but when it does, it most often involves cases that have a political component (such as the refusal to convict draft dodgers during the Vietnam War) or that have harsh punishments the jury does not want to impose on that particular defendant.
Back to top
What is self-defense?
Self-defense is a common defense asserted by someone charged with a crime of violence, such as battery (striking someone), assault with a deadly weapon or murder. The defendant admits that she did in fact commit the crime, but claims that it was justified by the other person's threatening actions. The core issues in most self-defense cases are:
* Who was the aggressor?
* Was the defendant's belief that self-defense was necessary a reasonable one?
* If so, was the force used by the defendant also reasonable?
Self-defense is rooted in the belief that people should be allowed to protect themselves from physical harm. This means that a person does not have to wait until she is actually struck to act in self-defense. If a reasonable person would think that she is about to be physically attacked, she has the right to strike first and prevent the attack. But she cannot use more force than is reasonable-if she does, she may be guilty of a crime.
Back to top
What happens if a defendant is judged "incompetent to stand trial?"
Aside from insanity as a defense to criminal charges, the question may arise as to whether a defendant is mentally capable of facing a trial. Defendants cannot be prosecuted if they suffer from a mental disorder that prevents them from understanding the proceedings and assisting in the preparation of their defense. Based on a defendant's unusual behavior, a judge, prosecutor or defense attorney may ask that trial be delayed until the defendant has been examined and her ability to understand the proceedings has been determined in a court hearing. If a judge finds that a defendant doesn't understand what's going on, the defendant will probably be placed in a mental institution until her competence is re-established. At that time, the trial will be held.
Back to top
Can a defendant go free because he was drunk or high on drugs when he committed a crime?
Defendants who commit crimes under the influence of drugs or alcohol sometimes argue that their mental functioning was so impaired that they cannot be held accountable for their actions. Generally, however, voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal conduct. People know (or should know) that alcohol and drugs affect mental functioning, and thus they should be held legally responsible if they commit crimes as a result of their voluntary use.
Some states allow an exception to this general rule. If the defendant is accused of committing a crime that requires what's known as "specific intent" (intending the precise consequences, as well as intending to do the physical act that leads up to the consequences), the defendant can argue that he was too drunk or high to have formed that intent. This is only a partial defense, however, because it doesn't entirely excuse the defendant's actions. In this situation, the defendant will usually be convicted of another crime that doesn't require proof of a specific intent-for example, assault with a deadly weapon instead of assault with the intent to commit murder.
http://www.ralphbehr.net/lawyer-attorney-F90C5070-580C-4966-8D9185D053BD1F2E.html
Friday, May 18, 2007
Common Defenses to Criminal Charges
Here are a handful of ways in which a defendant might get off the hook.
To convict a criminal defendant, the prosecutor must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As part of this process, the defendant is given an opportunity to present a defense. A defendant may mount a defense by remaining silent, not presenting any witnesses and arguing that the prosecutor failed to prove his or her case. Frequently, this is the best and strongest way to proceed. But there are many other types of defenses, from "I didn't do it" to "I did it, but I was too drunk to know what I was doing."
The Presumption of Innocence
All people accused of a crime are legally presumed to be innocent until they are convicted, either in a trial or as a result of pleading guilty. This presumption means not only that the prosecutor must convince the jury of the defendant's guilt, but also that the defendant need not say or do anything in his own defense. If the prosecutor can't convince the jury that the defendant is guilty, the defendant goes free.
The presumption of innocence, coupled with the fact that the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, makes it difficult for the government to put people behind bars.
Proving Guilt "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"
The prosecutor must convince the judge or jury hearing the case that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." This standard is very hard to meet. (By contrast, in non-criminal cases, such as an accident or breach of contract, a plaintiff has to prove her case only by a preponderance of the evidence -- anything over 50%.) As a practical matter, the high burden of proof in criminal cases means that judges and jurors are supposed to resolve all doubts about the meaning of the evidence in favor of the defendant. With such a high standard imposed on the prosecutor, a defendant's most common defense is often to argue that there is reasonable doubt -- that is, that the prosecutor hasn't done a sufficient job of proving that the defendant is guilty.
Sometimes, however, a defendant can avoid punishment even if the prosecutor shows that that the defendant did, without a doubt, commit the act in question.
Self-Defense
Self-defense is a defense commonly asserted by someone charged with a crime of violence, such as battery (striking someone), assault with a deadly weapon or murder. The defendant admits that she did in fact commit the crime, but claims that it was justified by the other person's threatening actions. The core issues in most self-defense cases are:
* Who was the aggressor?
* Was the defendant's belief that self-defense was necessary a reasonable one?
* If so, was the force used by the defendant also reasonable?
Self-defense is rooted in the belief that people should be allowed to protect themselves from physical harm. This means that a person does not have to wait until she is actually struck to act in self-defense. If a reasonable person in the same circumstances would think that she is about to be physically attacked, she has the right to strike first and prevent the attack. But she cannot use more force than is reasonable -- if she does, she may be guilty of a crime.
The Insanity Defense
The insanity defense is based on the principle that punishment is justified only if the defendant is capable of controlling his or her behavior and understanding that what he or she has done is wrong. Because some people suffering from a mental disorder are not capable of knowing or choosing right from wrong, the insanity defense prevents them from being criminally punished.
Despite its ancient origins (England, 1505), the insanity defense remains controversial. Victim-oriented critics point out that a person killed by an insane person is just as dead as a person killed by someone who is sane, and argue that people should be punished for the harm they cause, regardless of their mental state. Critics also question the ability of psychiatrists, judges and jurors to determine whether a person genuinely suffers from a mental disorder, and to link mental disorders to the commission of crimes.
The insanity defense is an extremely complex topic; many scholarly works are devoted entirely to explaining its nuances. Here are some major points of interest:
* Despite popular perceptions to the contrary, defendants rarely enter pleas of "not guilty by reason of insanity." And when they do, judges and jurors rarely uphold it.
* Various definitions of insanity are in use because neither the legal system nor psychiatrists can agree on a single meaning of insanity in the criminal law context. The most popular definition is the "McNaghten rule," which defines insanity as "the inability to distinguish right from wrong." Another common test is known as "irresistible impulse": a person may know that an act is wrong, but because of mental illness he cannot control his actions (he's described as acting out of an "irresistible impulse").
* Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are not automatically set free. They are usually confined to a mental institution until their sanity is established. These defendants can spend more time in a mental institution than they would have spent in prison had they been convicted.
* An insanity defense normally rests on the testimony of a psychiatrist, who testifies for the defendant after examining him and his past history, and the facts of the case. Courts appoint psychiatrists at government expense to assist poor defendants who cannot afford to hire their own psychiatrists.
* Once a defendant raises his or her sanity as a defense, he or she must submit to psychological tests conducted at the behest of the prosecution//. This can be a very painful and humiliating experience, one that many defendants choose to forego rather than rely on the insanity defense.
The Influence of Drugs or Alcohol
Defendants who commit crimes under the influence of drugs or alcohol sometimes argue that their mental functioning was so impaired that they cannot be held accountable for their actions. Generally, however, voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal conduct. Defendants know (or should know) that alcohol and drugs affect mental functioning, and thus they should be held legally responsible if they commit crimes as a result of their voluntary use.
Some states allow an exception to this general rule. If the defendant is accused of committing a crime that requires "specific intent" (intending the precise consequences, as well as intending to do the physical act that leads up to the consequences), the defendant can argue that he was too drunk or high to have formed that intent. This is only a partial defense, however, because it doesn't entirely excuse the defendant's actions. In this situation, the defendant will usually be convicted of another crime that doesn't require proof of a specific intent. For example, a defendant may be prosecuted for the crime of assault with specific intent to kill but only convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, which doesn't require specific intent.
The Alibi Defense
An alibi defense consists of evidence that a defendant was somewhere other than the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. For example, assume that Freddie is accused of committing a burglary on Elm Street at midnight on Friday, September 13. Freddie's alibi defense might consist of testimony that at the time of the burglary, Freddie was watching Casablanca at the Maple Street Cinema.
Alibi is a perfectly respectable legal defense. Yet to some people the term connotes a phony defense. Defense attorneys usually are careful to remind jurors that alibi is simply a legal term referring to evidence that a defendant was elsewhere at the time a crime was committed, and that it in no way suggests falsity.
Entrapment
Entrapment occurs when the government induces a person to commit a crime and then tries to punish the person for committing it. However, if a judge or jury believes that a suspect was predisposed to commit the crime anyway, the suspect may be found guilty even if a government agent suggested the crime and helped the defendant to commit it. Entrapment defenses are therefore especially difficult for defendants with prior convictions for the same type of crime.
http://www.ralphbehr.net/lawyer-attorney-F7D2015C-DDD4-494B-B7B9D6D6D9FAC218.html
To convict a criminal defendant, the prosecutor must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As part of this process, the defendant is given an opportunity to present a defense. A defendant may mount a defense by remaining silent, not presenting any witnesses and arguing that the prosecutor failed to prove his or her case. Frequently, this is the best and strongest way to proceed. But there are many other types of defenses, from "I didn't do it" to "I did it, but I was too drunk to know what I was doing."
The Presumption of Innocence
All people accused of a crime are legally presumed to be innocent until they are convicted, either in a trial or as a result of pleading guilty. This presumption means not only that the prosecutor must convince the jury of the defendant's guilt, but also that the defendant need not say or do anything in his own defense. If the prosecutor can't convince the jury that the defendant is guilty, the defendant goes free.
The presumption of innocence, coupled with the fact that the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, makes it difficult for the government to put people behind bars.
Proving Guilt "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"
The prosecutor must convince the judge or jury hearing the case that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." This standard is very hard to meet. (By contrast, in non-criminal cases, such as an accident or breach of contract, a plaintiff has to prove her case only by a preponderance of the evidence -- anything over 50%.) As a practical matter, the high burden of proof in criminal cases means that judges and jurors are supposed to resolve all doubts about the meaning of the evidence in favor of the defendant. With such a high standard imposed on the prosecutor, a defendant's most common defense is often to argue that there is reasonable doubt -- that is, that the prosecutor hasn't done a sufficient job of proving that the defendant is guilty.
Sometimes, however, a defendant can avoid punishment even if the prosecutor shows that that the defendant did, without a doubt, commit the act in question.
Self-Defense
Self-defense is a defense commonly asserted by someone charged with a crime of violence, such as battery (striking someone), assault with a deadly weapon or murder. The defendant admits that she did in fact commit the crime, but claims that it was justified by the other person's threatening actions. The core issues in most self-defense cases are:
* Who was the aggressor?
* Was the defendant's belief that self-defense was necessary a reasonable one?
* If so, was the force used by the defendant also reasonable?
Self-defense is rooted in the belief that people should be allowed to protect themselves from physical harm. This means that a person does not have to wait until she is actually struck to act in self-defense. If a reasonable person in the same circumstances would think that she is about to be physically attacked, she has the right to strike first and prevent the attack. But she cannot use more force than is reasonable -- if she does, she may be guilty of a crime.
The Insanity Defense
The insanity defense is based on the principle that punishment is justified only if the defendant is capable of controlling his or her behavior and understanding that what he or she has done is wrong. Because some people suffering from a mental disorder are not capable of knowing or choosing right from wrong, the insanity defense prevents them from being criminally punished.
Despite its ancient origins (England, 1505), the insanity defense remains controversial. Victim-oriented critics point out that a person killed by an insane person is just as dead as a person killed by someone who is sane, and argue that people should be punished for the harm they cause, regardless of their mental state. Critics also question the ability of psychiatrists, judges and jurors to determine whether a person genuinely suffers from a mental disorder, and to link mental disorders to the commission of crimes.
The insanity defense is an extremely complex topic; many scholarly works are devoted entirely to explaining its nuances. Here are some major points of interest:
* Despite popular perceptions to the contrary, defendants rarely enter pleas of "not guilty by reason of insanity." And when they do, judges and jurors rarely uphold it.
* Various definitions of insanity are in use because neither the legal system nor psychiatrists can agree on a single meaning of insanity in the criminal law context. The most popular definition is the "McNaghten rule," which defines insanity as "the inability to distinguish right from wrong." Another common test is known as "irresistible impulse": a person may know that an act is wrong, but because of mental illness he cannot control his actions (he's described as acting out of an "irresistible impulse").
* Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are not automatically set free. They are usually confined to a mental institution until their sanity is established. These defendants can spend more time in a mental institution than they would have spent in prison had they been convicted.
* An insanity defense normally rests on the testimony of a psychiatrist, who testifies for the defendant after examining him and his past history, and the facts of the case. Courts appoint psychiatrists at government expense to assist poor defendants who cannot afford to hire their own psychiatrists.
* Once a defendant raises his or her sanity as a defense, he or she must submit to psychological tests conducted at the behest of the prosecution//. This can be a very painful and humiliating experience, one that many defendants choose to forego rather than rely on the insanity defense.
The Influence of Drugs or Alcohol
Defendants who commit crimes under the influence of drugs or alcohol sometimes argue that their mental functioning was so impaired that they cannot be held accountable for their actions. Generally, however, voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal conduct. Defendants know (or should know) that alcohol and drugs affect mental functioning, and thus they should be held legally responsible if they commit crimes as a result of their voluntary use.
Some states allow an exception to this general rule. If the defendant is accused of committing a crime that requires "specific intent" (intending the precise consequences, as well as intending to do the physical act that leads up to the consequences), the defendant can argue that he was too drunk or high to have formed that intent. This is only a partial defense, however, because it doesn't entirely excuse the defendant's actions. In this situation, the defendant will usually be convicted of another crime that doesn't require proof of a specific intent. For example, a defendant may be prosecuted for the crime of assault with specific intent to kill but only convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, which doesn't require specific intent.
The Alibi Defense
An alibi defense consists of evidence that a defendant was somewhere other than the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. For example, assume that Freddie is accused of committing a burglary on Elm Street at midnight on Friday, September 13. Freddie's alibi defense might consist of testimony that at the time of the burglary, Freddie was watching Casablanca at the Maple Street Cinema.
Alibi is a perfectly respectable legal defense. Yet to some people the term connotes a phony defense. Defense attorneys usually are careful to remind jurors that alibi is simply a legal term referring to evidence that a defendant was elsewhere at the time a crime was committed, and that it in no way suggests falsity.
Entrapment
Entrapment occurs when the government induces a person to commit a crime and then tries to punish the person for committing it. However, if a judge or jury believes that a suspect was predisposed to commit the crime anyway, the suspect may be found guilty even if a government agent suggested the crime and helped the defendant to commit it. Entrapment defenses are therefore especially difficult for defendants with prior convictions for the same type of crime.
http://www.ralphbehr.net/lawyer-attorney-F7D2015C-DDD4-494B-B7B9D6D6D9FAC218.html
Bail: Getting Out of Jail After an Arrest
What you need to know about bail -- what it is, how it's set and how to pay it.
Many people, especially those arrested for minor misdemeanors, are given citations at the scene of an arrest telling them when to appear in court, and are immediately released. Others, however, are put in jail. Often, a person's first thought upon landing in jail is how to get out -- and fast. The usual way to do this to "post bail." Bail is cash or a cash equivalent that an arrested person gives to a court to ensure that he will appear in court when ordered to do so. If the defendant appears in court at the proper time, the court refunds the bail. But if the defendant doesn't show up, the court keeps the bail and issues a warrant for the defendant's arrest.
Bail can take any of the following forms:
* cash or check for the full amount of the bail
* property worth the full amount of the bail
* a bond (that is, a guaranteed payment of the full bail amount), or
* a waiver of payment on the condition that the defendant appear in court at the required time (commonly called "release on one's own recognizance").
How Bail Is Set
Judges are responsible for setting bail. Because many people want to get out of jail immediately (depending on when you are arrested, it can take up to five days to see a judge) most jails have standard bail schedules which specify bail amounts for common crimes. An arrested person can get out of jail quickly by paying the amount set forth in the bail schedule.
The Eighth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution requires that bail not be excessive. This means that bail should not be used to raise money for the government or to punish a person for being suspected of committing a crime. Remember: The purpose of bail is to give an arrested person her freedom until she is convicted of a crime, and the amount of bail must be no more than is reasonably necessary to keep her from fleeing before a case is over.
Some judges set a high bail in particular types of cases (such as those involving drug sales or rape) to keep a suspect in jail until the trial is over. Although bail set for this purpose -- called preventative detention -- is thought by some to violate the Constitution, this practice has continued in many courts (the issue has never been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not constitutional).
If a person can't afford the amount of bail on the bail schedule, he or she can ask a judge to lower it. Depending on the state, this request must be made either in a special bail setting hearing or when the person appears in court for the first time (usually called the arraignment).
Paying Bail
There are two ways to pay bail:
* pay the full amount of the bail or
* buy a bail bond.
A bail bond is like a check held in reserve: it represents the person's promise that he or she will appear in court when required to. The bail bond is purchased by payment of a non-refundable premium (usually about 10% of the face amount of the bond).
A bail bond may sound like a good deal, but buying a bond may cost more in the long run. If the full amount of the bail is paid, it will be refunded (less a small administrative fee) when the case is over and all required appearances have been made. On the other hand, the 10% premium is nonrefundable. In addition, the bond seller may require "collateral." This means that the person who pays for the bail bond must also give the bond seller a financial interest in some of the person's valuable property. The bond seller can cash in on this interest if the suspect fails to appear in court.
Getting Out of Jail Free
Sometimes people are released "on their own recognizance," or "O.R." A defendant released O.R. must simply sign a promise to show up in court. He doesn't have to post bail. A defendant commonly requests release on his own recognizance at his first court appearance. If the judge denies the request, he then asks for low bail.
In general, defendants who are released O.R. have strong ties to a community, making them unlikely to flee. Factors that may convince a judge to grant an O.R. release include the following:
* The defendant has other family members (most likely parents, a spouse or children) living in the community.
* The defendant has resided in the community for many years.
* The defendant has a job.
* The defendant has little or no past criminal record, or any previous criminal problems were minor and occurred many years earlier.
* The defendant has been charged with previous crimes and has always appeared as required.
http://www.ralphbehr.net/lawyer-attorney-EA05D2A8-0746-452F-99D3DEE0765E86E6.html
Many people, especially those arrested for minor misdemeanors, are given citations at the scene of an arrest telling them when to appear in court, and are immediately released. Others, however, are put in jail. Often, a person's first thought upon landing in jail is how to get out -- and fast. The usual way to do this to "post bail." Bail is cash or a cash equivalent that an arrested person gives to a court to ensure that he will appear in court when ordered to do so. If the defendant appears in court at the proper time, the court refunds the bail. But if the defendant doesn't show up, the court keeps the bail and issues a warrant for the defendant's arrest.
Bail can take any of the following forms:
* cash or check for the full amount of the bail
* property worth the full amount of the bail
* a bond (that is, a guaranteed payment of the full bail amount), or
* a waiver of payment on the condition that the defendant appear in court at the required time (commonly called "release on one's own recognizance").
How Bail Is Set
Judges are responsible for setting bail. Because many people want to get out of jail immediately (depending on when you are arrested, it can take up to five days to see a judge) most jails have standard bail schedules which specify bail amounts for common crimes. An arrested person can get out of jail quickly by paying the amount set forth in the bail schedule.
The Eighth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution requires that bail not be excessive. This means that bail should not be used to raise money for the government or to punish a person for being suspected of committing a crime. Remember: The purpose of bail is to give an arrested person her freedom until she is convicted of a crime, and the amount of bail must be no more than is reasonably necessary to keep her from fleeing before a case is over.
Some judges set a high bail in particular types of cases (such as those involving drug sales or rape) to keep a suspect in jail until the trial is over. Although bail set for this purpose -- called preventative detention -- is thought by some to violate the Constitution, this practice has continued in many courts (the issue has never been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not constitutional).
If a person can't afford the amount of bail on the bail schedule, he or she can ask a judge to lower it. Depending on the state, this request must be made either in a special bail setting hearing or when the person appears in court for the first time (usually called the arraignment).
Paying Bail
There are two ways to pay bail:
* pay the full amount of the bail or
* buy a bail bond.
A bail bond is like a check held in reserve: it represents the person's promise that he or she will appear in court when required to. The bail bond is purchased by payment of a non-refundable premium (usually about 10% of the face amount of the bond).
A bail bond may sound like a good deal, but buying a bond may cost more in the long run. If the full amount of the bail is paid, it will be refunded (less a small administrative fee) when the case is over and all required appearances have been made. On the other hand, the 10% premium is nonrefundable. In addition, the bond seller may require "collateral." This means that the person who pays for the bail bond must also give the bond seller a financial interest in some of the person's valuable property. The bond seller can cash in on this interest if the suspect fails to appear in court.
Getting Out of Jail Free
Sometimes people are released "on their own recognizance," or "O.R." A defendant released O.R. must simply sign a promise to show up in court. He doesn't have to post bail. A defendant commonly requests release on his own recognizance at his first court appearance. If the judge denies the request, he then asks for low bail.
In general, defendants who are released O.R. have strong ties to a community, making them unlikely to flee. Factors that may convince a judge to grant an O.R. release include the following:
* The defendant has other family members (most likely parents, a spouse or children) living in the community.
* The defendant has resided in the community for many years.
* The defendant has a job.
* The defendant has little or no past criminal record, or any previous criminal problems were minor and occurred many years earlier.
* The defendant has been charged with previous crimes and has always appeared as required.
http://www.ralphbehr.net/lawyer-attorney-EA05D2A8-0746-452F-99D3DEE0765E86E6.html
Arrests and Interrogations FAQ
An arrest occurs when a police officer armed with an arrest warrant utters the words "you're under arrest," or when a police officer significantly restrains your freedom of motion. The restraint must be more than a mere detention on the street. Although in most situations the police will take you to the police station for booking (photographs and fingerprinting), it is also possible for an officer to arrest and book you at the crime scene, and then release you when you give a written promise to appear in court at a later time. After the police arrest you, they will often question you in order to find out more about the crime, your role in it and whether there may be other suspects. There are several Constitutional protections that you may invoke during police interrogations.
What's Below:
Can a person who is charged with a crime be forced to give bodily samples?
When do the police need a warrant to make an arrest?
How do the police obtain an arrest warrant?
If the police make an illegal arrest, is the arrested person set free?
If I'm arrested, do the police have to "read me my rights?"
Will a judge dismiss my case if I was questioned without a Miranda warning?
What's the best way to assert my right to remain silent if I am being questioned by the police?
How heavy handed can the police get when asking questions?
Can a person who is charged with a crime be forced to give bodily samples?
Yes. You might think that being forced to give bodily samples-such as blood, hair or fingernail clippings-is a violation of the U.S. Constitution's protection against self- incrimination, found in the Fifth Amendment. But the U.S. Supreme Court thinks otherwise. It has ruled that the Fifth Amendment protects communications only, and that bodily samples are physical evidence and therefore not covered by the Constitution.
Back to top
When do the police need a warrant to make an arrest?
As long as the police have good reason (called "probable cause") to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person they want to arrest committed the crime, they can, with just one exception, make an arrest without asking a judge for a warrant.
The exception? There are few places where the adage "a man's home is his castle" still applies, and an arrest at home is one of them. The police must have a warrant to arrest a person at home if the arrest is for a nonserious offense-such as a simple assault-and there is no fear that the person they want to arrest will destroy evidence or cause harm to the public.
Back to top
How do the police obtain an arrest warrant?
An officer must present sworn evidence to a judge that a crime has occurred and that the police have probable cause to believe that the crime was committed by the person they want to arrest. If the judge agrees, she will issue a warrant. The police are then entitled to seize the person wherever they can find him.
Back to top
If the police make an illegal arrest, is the arrested person set free?
No. But if a search of the person or her immediate surroundings is conducted during the arrest and turns up incriminating evidence, the evidence may be kept out of the person's trial on the grounds that it is "fruit of the poisonous tree"-that is, the evidence was found as the result of an improper arrest. Also, if the illegally arrested person makes any statements to the police after being arrested, the statements may not be used as evidence. This is true whether or not the arrested person was "read their rights."
Back to top
If I'm arrested, do the police have to "read me my rights?"
No. However, if they don't read you your rights, they can't use anything you say as evidence against you at trial. What are these rights? Popularly known as the Miranda warning (ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona), your rights consist of the familiar litany invoked by T.V. police immediately upon arresting a suspect:
* You have the right to remain silent.
* If you do say anything, what you say can be used against you in a court of law.
* You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have that lawyer present during any questioning.
* If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you if you so desire.
* If you choose to talk to the police officer, you have the right to stop the interview at any time. (This part of the warning is usually omitted from the screenplay.)
It doesn't matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail or at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street or in the middle of an open field: If you are in custody (deprived of your freedom of action in any significant way), the police must give a Miranda warning if they want to question you and use your answers as evidence at trial. If you are not in police custody, however, no Miranda warning is required. This exception most often comes up when the police stop someone on the street to question them about a recent crime and the person blurts out a confession before the police have an opportunity to deliver the warning.
Back to top
Will a judge dismiss my case if I was questioned without a Miranda warning?
No. Many people mistakenly believe that a case will be thrown out of court if the police fail to give Miranda warnings to the arrested person. What Miranda actually says is that a warning is necessary if the police interrogate a suspect and want to use any of her responses as evidence. If the police fail to give you a Miranda warning, nothing you say in response to the questioning can be used as evidence to convict you. In addition, under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule, if the police find evidence as a result of an interrogation that violates the Miranda rule, that evidence is also inadmissible at trial. For example, if you tell the police where a weapon is hidden and it turns out that you gave this information in response to improper questioning, the police will not be able to use the weapon as evidence unless the police can prove that they would have found the weapon without your statements.
Back to top
What's the best way to assert my right to remain silent if I am being questioned by the police?
If you're taken into custody by the police, you don't have to use any magic words to let police officers know that you want to remain silent. You can simply say nothing in response to police questions. Or, after an officer gives you a Miranda warning, you can stop the questioning by saying something like:
* I want to talk to an attorney.
* I won't say anything until I talk to an attorney.
* I don't have anything to say.
* I don't want to talk to you anymore.
* I claim my Miranda rights.
If the police continue to question you after you have asserted your right to remain silent, they have violated Miranda. As a result, anything you say after that point -- and any evidence gleaned from that conversation-will not be admissible at your trial.
Back to top
How heavy handed can the police get when asking questions?
Information that you voluntarily disclose to a police officer (after you have been properly warned) is generally admissible at trial. The key word is "voluntary." Police officers are not allowed to use physical force or psychological coercion to get you to talk to them. The days of the rubber hose, protracted grilling under bright lights and severe sleep deprivation are pretty much over. If police officers obtain information through any of these illegal means, the information cannot be used by the prosecutor at trial. In addition, under the rule known as "the fruit of the poisonous tree," any evidence that the police obtain as the result of a coerced statement is equally inadmissible.
http://www.ralphbehr.net/lawyer-attorney-5406C99B-C869-42F9-B58B67416343ED64.html
What's Below:
Can a person who is charged with a crime be forced to give bodily samples?
When do the police need a warrant to make an arrest?
How do the police obtain an arrest warrant?
If the police make an illegal arrest, is the arrested person set free?
If I'm arrested, do the police have to "read me my rights?"
Will a judge dismiss my case if I was questioned without a Miranda warning?
What's the best way to assert my right to remain silent if I am being questioned by the police?
How heavy handed can the police get when asking questions?
Can a person who is charged with a crime be forced to give bodily samples?
Yes. You might think that being forced to give bodily samples-such as blood, hair or fingernail clippings-is a violation of the U.S. Constitution's protection against self- incrimination, found in the Fifth Amendment. But the U.S. Supreme Court thinks otherwise. It has ruled that the Fifth Amendment protects communications only, and that bodily samples are physical evidence and therefore not covered by the Constitution.
Back to top
When do the police need a warrant to make an arrest?
As long as the police have good reason (called "probable cause") to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person they want to arrest committed the crime, they can, with just one exception, make an arrest without asking a judge for a warrant.
The exception? There are few places where the adage "a man's home is his castle" still applies, and an arrest at home is one of them. The police must have a warrant to arrest a person at home if the arrest is for a nonserious offense-such as a simple assault-and there is no fear that the person they want to arrest will destroy evidence or cause harm to the public.
Back to top
How do the police obtain an arrest warrant?
An officer must present sworn evidence to a judge that a crime has occurred and that the police have probable cause to believe that the crime was committed by the person they want to arrest. If the judge agrees, she will issue a warrant. The police are then entitled to seize the person wherever they can find him.
Back to top
If the police make an illegal arrest, is the arrested person set free?
No. But if a search of the person or her immediate surroundings is conducted during the arrest and turns up incriminating evidence, the evidence may be kept out of the person's trial on the grounds that it is "fruit of the poisonous tree"-that is, the evidence was found as the result of an improper arrest. Also, if the illegally arrested person makes any statements to the police after being arrested, the statements may not be used as evidence. This is true whether or not the arrested person was "read their rights."
Back to top
If I'm arrested, do the police have to "read me my rights?"
No. However, if they don't read you your rights, they can't use anything you say as evidence against you at trial. What are these rights? Popularly known as the Miranda warning (ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona), your rights consist of the familiar litany invoked by T.V. police immediately upon arresting a suspect:
* You have the right to remain silent.
* If you do say anything, what you say can be used against you in a court of law.
* You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have that lawyer present during any questioning.
* If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you if you so desire.
* If you choose to talk to the police officer, you have the right to stop the interview at any time. (This part of the warning is usually omitted from the screenplay.)
It doesn't matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail or at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street or in the middle of an open field: If you are in custody (deprived of your freedom of action in any significant way), the police must give a Miranda warning if they want to question you and use your answers as evidence at trial. If you are not in police custody, however, no Miranda warning is required. This exception most often comes up when the police stop someone on the street to question them about a recent crime and the person blurts out a confession before the police have an opportunity to deliver the warning.
Back to top
Will a judge dismiss my case if I was questioned without a Miranda warning?
No. Many people mistakenly believe that a case will be thrown out of court if the police fail to give Miranda warnings to the arrested person. What Miranda actually says is that a warning is necessary if the police interrogate a suspect and want to use any of her responses as evidence. If the police fail to give you a Miranda warning, nothing you say in response to the questioning can be used as evidence to convict you. In addition, under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule, if the police find evidence as a result of an interrogation that violates the Miranda rule, that evidence is also inadmissible at trial. For example, if you tell the police where a weapon is hidden and it turns out that you gave this information in response to improper questioning, the police will not be able to use the weapon as evidence unless the police can prove that they would have found the weapon without your statements.
Back to top
What's the best way to assert my right to remain silent if I am being questioned by the police?
If you're taken into custody by the police, you don't have to use any magic words to let police officers know that you want to remain silent. You can simply say nothing in response to police questions. Or, after an officer gives you a Miranda warning, you can stop the questioning by saying something like:
* I want to talk to an attorney.
* I won't say anything until I talk to an attorney.
* I don't have anything to say.
* I don't want to talk to you anymore.
* I claim my Miranda rights.
If the police continue to question you after you have asserted your right to remain silent, they have violated Miranda. As a result, anything you say after that point -- and any evidence gleaned from that conversation-will not be admissible at your trial.
Back to top
How heavy handed can the police get when asking questions?
Information that you voluntarily disclose to a police officer (after you have been properly warned) is generally admissible at trial. The key word is "voluntary." Police officers are not allowed to use physical force or psychological coercion to get you to talk to them. The days of the rubber hose, protracted grilling under bright lights and severe sleep deprivation are pretty much over. If police officers obtain information through any of these illegal means, the information cannot be used by the prosecutor at trial. In addition, under the rule known as "the fruit of the poisonous tree," any evidence that the police obtain as the result of a coerced statement is equally inadmissible.
http://www.ralphbehr.net/lawyer-attorney-5406C99B-C869-42F9-B58B67416343ED64.html
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Social Security Guidelines
If you become disabled and are unable to work, what rights do you have? Is there any governmental assistance to which you are entitled?
The Social Security Administration administers two (2) kinds of disability programs -- which provide monetary assistance for people in different situations. Title II provides disability benefits. Title XVI provides Supplemental Security Income, known as "SSI".
When are you entitled to receive social security disability benefits? What do you have to do to qualify for social security disability payments?
First, you must meet the Social Security Administration's definition of being "disabled". That means that you must have a physical or mental impairment that causes you to be unable to engage in any kind of substantial gainful employment for a continuous period of 12 months or which is expected to result in your death. Being "disabled" is a requirement for both Title II social security disability benefits and SSI.
To be considered "disabled", you must be unable to engage in "any substantial gainful work". Your condition must be severe enough that it prevents you not only from being able to do your normal job, but also prevents you from being able to do any other substantial gainful work. In deciding whether a person is "disabled" or whether they can work, the Social Security Administration considers factors including a person's age, education, training and work experience.
To qualify to receive Title II social security disability benefits, in addition to being disabled, you must be fully insured under the social security program. That means that you must have worked for a certain period of time before you became disabled. Your financial resources are irrelevant. You will not be disqualified from receiving social security disability benefits based upon your financial assets. You do not have to show "financial need" to qualify for these benefits.
To qualify for Title XVI SSI benefits, you must be disabled and your financial resources cannot exceed a certain maximum amount. The asset limitation is $2000.00 per individual and $3000.00 per couple. However, there is no requirement that you had been working for any particular period of time before you became disabled.
If you qualify to receive Title II social security disability benefits or SSI, how much are you entitled to receive and for how long?
There is a formula that is used to calculate the amount of monthly Title II social security disability benefits to which a person is entitled. However, each case is different. The amount of the monthly social security disability benefit varies depending upon how much money the disabled person has paid in to the social security system. That is, it depends upon the disabled person's earnings history.
The amount of the monthly SSI payment to which a person is entitled is set by Congress. The amount of the benefit varies depending upon the disabled person's living arrangement.
How do you apply to begin receiving social security disability or SSI benefits?
You should go to your local Social Security office. A claims representative will help you fill out the form that is necessary to apply for Title II social security disability benefits or SSI. Or, you can call your local Social Security office and ask them to mail you a form which you must then fill out and file at your local social security office. After you have filed your application form, you will receive a letter from the Social Security Administration, telling you whether your application for benefits have been approved or denied.
You have been working all your life and you are now unable to work because of a physical or mental impairment. You would work if you could. Why has your application for Title II social security disability or SSI benefits been denied?
After you file your application for Title II social security disability or Title XVI SSI benefits, the Social Security Administration obtains medical records and reports from your treating doctors. In most cases, when your application is denied, you need additional medical information to support your claim that you are disabled.
Your doctor says that you are disabled and that you are not able to work. How can the Social Security Administration ignore your doctor's opinion?
The fact that your doctor supports your claim and believes that you are disabled is very helpful. However, your doctor's opinion is not binding on the Social Security Administration. Rather, it reviews your medical records and reports and has its own doctors decide whether they think that you are disabled.
What can you do if you apply for Title II social security disability or Title XVI SSI benefits and the Social Security Administration denies your claim?
You have 60 days to file an appeal after the Social Security Administration sends you a letter telling you that your claim has been denied. When your claim is denied for the first time, you ask for a "reconsideration" of the denial of your claim. When you ask for a reconsideration, a different individual at the Social Security Administration, who did not participate in making the decision to deny your initial application for benefits, reviews your entire file, looks at all of the evidence that was considered when the original decision to deny your claim was made, and looks at any additional evidence that has been submitted since the first denial of your claim. Generally, most "reconsiderations" involve a review of your file without you being present and without any kind of hearing.
If, after the "reconsideration" of your claim, the Social Security Administration again denies your claim, you may ask for a hearing. The hearing will be conducted by an administrative law judge. You will attend the hearing, and you may have an attorney present to represent you at the hearing. You and your attorney will have the opportunity to present evidence and explain to the judge why you believe that you are disabled and entitled to receive social security benefits. This is typically the first opportunity that you have to explain your case in person (or have your attorney explain it) to someone acting on behalf of the Social Security Administration. You and your attorney have a right to review all of the documents in your file that the Social Security Administration has created and provide new information and evidence at the hearing. You and any witnesses that you chose to bring to the hearing may testify. The judge will ask you and the other witnesses questions. You or your attorney will also have the opportunity to question the witnesses and to make arguments to the judge about how the evidence should be construed and why the judge should find that you are disabled and entitled to social security benefits.
If you disagree with the hearing decision, you may ask for a review by the Social Security Administration's Appeal's Council. If the Appeal's Council decides to review your case, it will either conduct the review itself or send your file to an administrative law judge for further review.
If you disagree with the decision of the Appeal's Council or if the Appeal's Council decides not to review your case, you may file suit in federal court.
Do you need a lawyer to represent you in order to obtain social security disability or SSI benefits?
Not always. Some people apply for and are awarded Title II social security disability or Title XVI SSI benefits on their own, without hiring a lawyer. However, an attorney who is experienced in handling Title II social security disability and SSI cases can often make a difference. Often, even though the Social Security Administration has denied your claim for social security disability or SSI benefits the first two times you applied, an attorney can look at your file and determine why your claim has been denied and what needs to be done to prove that you are, in fact, disabled, and entitled to the benefits for which you have applied. Many times, you need additional medical documentation from your doctors. An experienced attorney will be able to advise you as to whether you probably are, in fact, entitled to receive social security benefits; and if so, what additional documentation is needed in order to prove that to the Social Security Administration. In addition, the attorney will know how to go about obtaining the additional evidence that you need in order to prove that you are entitled to the social security benefits.
When should you hire an attorney?
Normally, you must go through the process of submitting your initial application for social security benefits, having your first application denied by the Social Security Administration, appealing that first denial, being denied again, and then, filing a request for a hearing. Generally, an attorney will not make a difference in whether the Social Security Administration denies your initial application for social security benefits or your first appeal. However, after your appeal has been denied and it is time for you to have a hearing in front of an administrative law judge at the Social Security Administration, at that stage, an attorney who is experienced in handling social security cases will be able to help you. An attorney will prepare the medical evidence that you need in the form of records and reports from your doctors; will be with you at the hearing and know the questions to ask you to bring out the facts that support your claim for social security benefits; may prepare and bring other witnesses to the hearing to testify about observations that they have made about you which support your claim that you are disabled; and, will cross-examine the doctors and other experts that the Social Security Administration has hired to give opinions as to whether you are disabled and on which the Social Security Administration has relied in denying your claim. In addition, an attorney will be familiar with the Social Security Administration regulations and will know the appropriate arguments to make to the judge about the specific reasons why you qualify to receive social security benefits under the specific sections of the Federal regulations.
How much will you pay an attorney to represent you in a Title II social security disability or SSI claim?
Almost all of our clients prefer a contingent fee arrangement -- which means that they pay us only if we win and obtain social security disability benefits for them. The normal contingent fee is 25% of the back benefits that are awarded to the disabled client -- up to a maximum fee of $5300.00. There is no fee charged out of the current benefits that are awarded. Our total fee never exceeds $5300.00 regardless of the amount of benefits that are awarded. In addition to our attorney fee, the client is responsible for paying the costs that are incurred to pay the doctors and other healthcare providers for copies of medical records, the doctor's charges for writing medical reports, et cetera.
http://www.smithlaw.bz/lawyer-attorney-1181610.html
The Social Security Administration administers two (2) kinds of disability programs -- which provide monetary assistance for people in different situations. Title II provides disability benefits. Title XVI provides Supplemental Security Income, known as "SSI".
When are you entitled to receive social security disability benefits? What do you have to do to qualify for social security disability payments?
First, you must meet the Social Security Administration's definition of being "disabled". That means that you must have a physical or mental impairment that causes you to be unable to engage in any kind of substantial gainful employment for a continuous period of 12 months or which is expected to result in your death. Being "disabled" is a requirement for both Title II social security disability benefits and SSI.
To be considered "disabled", you must be unable to engage in "any substantial gainful work". Your condition must be severe enough that it prevents you not only from being able to do your normal job, but also prevents you from being able to do any other substantial gainful work. In deciding whether a person is "disabled" or whether they can work, the Social Security Administration considers factors including a person's age, education, training and work experience.
To qualify to receive Title II social security disability benefits, in addition to being disabled, you must be fully insured under the social security program. That means that you must have worked for a certain period of time before you became disabled. Your financial resources are irrelevant. You will not be disqualified from receiving social security disability benefits based upon your financial assets. You do not have to show "financial need" to qualify for these benefits.
To qualify for Title XVI SSI benefits, you must be disabled and your financial resources cannot exceed a certain maximum amount. The asset limitation is $2000.00 per individual and $3000.00 per couple. However, there is no requirement that you had been working for any particular period of time before you became disabled.
If you qualify to receive Title II social security disability benefits or SSI, how much are you entitled to receive and for how long?
There is a formula that is used to calculate the amount of monthly Title II social security disability benefits to which a person is entitled. However, each case is different. The amount of the monthly social security disability benefit varies depending upon how much money the disabled person has paid in to the social security system. That is, it depends upon the disabled person's earnings history.
The amount of the monthly SSI payment to which a person is entitled is set by Congress. The amount of the benefit varies depending upon the disabled person's living arrangement.
How do you apply to begin receiving social security disability or SSI benefits?
You should go to your local Social Security office. A claims representative will help you fill out the form that is necessary to apply for Title II social security disability benefits or SSI. Or, you can call your local Social Security office and ask them to mail you a form which you must then fill out and file at your local social security office. After you have filed your application form, you will receive a letter from the Social Security Administration, telling you whether your application for benefits have been approved or denied.
You have been working all your life and you are now unable to work because of a physical or mental impairment. You would work if you could. Why has your application for Title II social security disability or SSI benefits been denied?
After you file your application for Title II social security disability or Title XVI SSI benefits, the Social Security Administration obtains medical records and reports from your treating doctors. In most cases, when your application is denied, you need additional medical information to support your claim that you are disabled.
Your doctor says that you are disabled and that you are not able to work. How can the Social Security Administration ignore your doctor's opinion?
The fact that your doctor supports your claim and believes that you are disabled is very helpful. However, your doctor's opinion is not binding on the Social Security Administration. Rather, it reviews your medical records and reports and has its own doctors decide whether they think that you are disabled.
What can you do if you apply for Title II social security disability or Title XVI SSI benefits and the Social Security Administration denies your claim?
You have 60 days to file an appeal after the Social Security Administration sends you a letter telling you that your claim has been denied. When your claim is denied for the first time, you ask for a "reconsideration" of the denial of your claim. When you ask for a reconsideration, a different individual at the Social Security Administration, who did not participate in making the decision to deny your initial application for benefits, reviews your entire file, looks at all of the evidence that was considered when the original decision to deny your claim was made, and looks at any additional evidence that has been submitted since the first denial of your claim. Generally, most "reconsiderations" involve a review of your file without you being present and without any kind of hearing.
If, after the "reconsideration" of your claim, the Social Security Administration again denies your claim, you may ask for a hearing. The hearing will be conducted by an administrative law judge. You will attend the hearing, and you may have an attorney present to represent you at the hearing. You and your attorney will have the opportunity to present evidence and explain to the judge why you believe that you are disabled and entitled to receive social security benefits. This is typically the first opportunity that you have to explain your case in person (or have your attorney explain it) to someone acting on behalf of the Social Security Administration. You and your attorney have a right to review all of the documents in your file that the Social Security Administration has created and provide new information and evidence at the hearing. You and any witnesses that you chose to bring to the hearing may testify. The judge will ask you and the other witnesses questions. You or your attorney will also have the opportunity to question the witnesses and to make arguments to the judge about how the evidence should be construed and why the judge should find that you are disabled and entitled to social security benefits.
If you disagree with the hearing decision, you may ask for a review by the Social Security Administration's Appeal's Council. If the Appeal's Council decides to review your case, it will either conduct the review itself or send your file to an administrative law judge for further review.
If you disagree with the decision of the Appeal's Council or if the Appeal's Council decides not to review your case, you may file suit in federal court.
Do you need a lawyer to represent you in order to obtain social security disability or SSI benefits?
Not always. Some people apply for and are awarded Title II social security disability or Title XVI SSI benefits on their own, without hiring a lawyer. However, an attorney who is experienced in handling Title II social security disability and SSI cases can often make a difference. Often, even though the Social Security Administration has denied your claim for social security disability or SSI benefits the first two times you applied, an attorney can look at your file and determine why your claim has been denied and what needs to be done to prove that you are, in fact, disabled, and entitled to the benefits for which you have applied. Many times, you need additional medical documentation from your doctors. An experienced attorney will be able to advise you as to whether you probably are, in fact, entitled to receive social security benefits; and if so, what additional documentation is needed in order to prove that to the Social Security Administration. In addition, the attorney will know how to go about obtaining the additional evidence that you need in order to prove that you are entitled to the social security benefits.
When should you hire an attorney?
Normally, you must go through the process of submitting your initial application for social security benefits, having your first application denied by the Social Security Administration, appealing that first denial, being denied again, and then, filing a request for a hearing. Generally, an attorney will not make a difference in whether the Social Security Administration denies your initial application for social security benefits or your first appeal. However, after your appeal has been denied and it is time for you to have a hearing in front of an administrative law judge at the Social Security Administration, at that stage, an attorney who is experienced in handling social security cases will be able to help you. An attorney will prepare the medical evidence that you need in the form of records and reports from your doctors; will be with you at the hearing and know the questions to ask you to bring out the facts that support your claim for social security benefits; may prepare and bring other witnesses to the hearing to testify about observations that they have made about you which support your claim that you are disabled; and, will cross-examine the doctors and other experts that the Social Security Administration has hired to give opinions as to whether you are disabled and on which the Social Security Administration has relied in denying your claim. In addition, an attorney will be familiar with the Social Security Administration regulations and will know the appropriate arguments to make to the judge about the specific reasons why you qualify to receive social security benefits under the specific sections of the Federal regulations.
How much will you pay an attorney to represent you in a Title II social security disability or SSI claim?
Almost all of our clients prefer a contingent fee arrangement -- which means that they pay us only if we win and obtain social security disability benefits for them. The normal contingent fee is 25% of the back benefits that are awarded to the disabled client -- up to a maximum fee of $5300.00. There is no fee charged out of the current benefits that are awarded. Our total fee never exceeds $5300.00 regardless of the amount of benefits that are awarded. In addition to our attorney fee, the client is responsible for paying the costs that are incurred to pay the doctors and other healthcare providers for copies of medical records, the doctor's charges for writing medical reports, et cetera.
http://www.smithlaw.bz/lawyer-attorney-1181610.html
Your guide to finding a Bextra Lawyer
The Basics of Bextra.
Bextra, the trade name of the generic drug valdecoxib, is used to relieve symptoms of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis in adults and to relieve painful menstrual cycles. However, on April 7, 2005, the FDA asked Pfizer, Inc. to withdraw Bextra (valdecoxib) from the market because the drug’s benefits did not outweigh the drug’s potential side effects. Pfizer decided to suspend marketing of Bextra, but Pfizer has not yet recalled it, disagreeing with FDA’s decision on Bextra’s benefit vs. risk analysis.
Unusual Symptoms while taking Bextra.
If you have used Bextra in the past, and you have had a heart attack, a stroke, a serious skin disorder, (or other serious unusual symptom), you should seriously consider using the “help me find a lawyer page” to find a lawyer experienced in product liability cases, especially one familiar with Bextra. The following serious side effects occurred in less than .1% of patients taking Bextra:
* Autonomic nervous system disorders: Hypertensive encephalopathy, vasospasm
* Cardiovascular: Abnormal ECG, aortic stenosis, atrial fibrillation, carotid stenosis, coronary thrombosis, heart block, heart valve disorders, mitral insufficiency, myocardial infarction, myocardial ischemia, pericarditis, syncope, thrombophlbitis, unstable angina, ventricular fibrillation
* Central, peripheral nervous system: Convulsions
* Endocrine: Hyperparathyroidism
* Female reproductive: Cervical dysplasia
* Gastrointestinal: Appendicitis, colitis with bleeding, dysphagia, esophageal perforation, gastrointestinal bleeding, ileus, intestinal obstruction, peritonitits, pancreatitis
* Hemi: Lymphoma-like disorder, pancytopenia
* Liver and biliary system: Cholelithiasis
* Metabolic: Dehydration
* Musculoskeletal: Pahtological fracture, osteomyelitis
* Neoplasm: Benign brain meoplasm, bladder carcinoma, carcinoma, gastric carcinoma, prostate carcinoma, pulmonary carcinoma
* Platelets: Embolism, pulmonary embolism, thrombosis
* Psychiatric: Manic reaction, psychosis
* Renal: Acute renal failure
* Resistance mechanism disorders: Sepsis
* Respiratory; Apnea, pleural effusion, pulmonary edema, pulmonary fibrosis, pulmonary infarction, pulmonary hemorrhage, respiratory insufficiency
* Skin: Basal cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, erythema multiforme, exfoliative dermatitis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis
* Urinary system: Pyelophritis, renal calculus
* Vision: Retinal detachment.
Considering a Bextra Lawyer?
You will most likely need to give the following additional information to the lawyer you plan on contacting.
1. When you were prescribed Bextra.
2. What was your Bextra dosage.
3. Did you quit taking Bextra before FDA asked Pfizer to recall it and why.
4. What serious side effects or unusual symptoms do you believe Bextra caused. It is very important to link serious effects to Bextra.
5. As a result of these serious side effects, were you admitted to a hospital? How long were you under the hospital’s care? Were there medical bills or other medical expenses due to any care received at the hospital?
6. As a result of these serious side effects, did you lose income, and are you now on disability?
7. The names of the doctors that helped you and the names of the hospitals you received care at.
8. General medical info, such as date of birth, current health conditions, family history of heart disease or cardiac diseases, smoking history, other medical problems, etc.
Legal Action against Bextra providers.
To prove a case against Baxtra, plaintiffs use a legal theory call Strict Liability. Strict Liability says that:
* the manufacturer or supplier of Bextra had a responsibility to make a safe product.
* the manufacturer or supplier of Bextra supplied a product even though the product was not safe, thus breaking their responsibility.
* the manufacturer or supplier’s product caused you to incur injuries, physical or mental.
Strict Liability does not apply to certain, anticipated side effects. The product must state these side effects. However, under Strict Liability theory, if a patient takes a drug and is injured due to inadequate warnings or dangerous side effects of the drug, the manufacturer or supplier is possibly at fault.
Who is at fault?
This information may be found in the personal injury info page here.
How much can I collect?
This information may also be found in the personal injury info page here.
Important: Can I still file a Bextra claim?
Most people who have suffered/or suffer from injuries related to toxic substances (Bextra in this case) did not know that the toxic substance was a health risk when they were exposed to the substance. To counter this, several states have created statutes that allow people to still file a claim for a predetermined time after the injury due to a toxic substance was detected. For more information on this topic, talk to your lawyer.
Anticipated Side Effects of Bextra,
as stated by Pfizer, the maker of Bextra. The following side effects occurred in 1.9% of patients taking Bextra. (See the PDF file here)
* Application site disorders: Cellulitis, dermatitis contact
* Cardiovascular: Aggravated hypertension, aneurysm, angina pectoris, arrhythmia, cardiomyopathy, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disorder, heart murmur, hypotension
* Central, peripheral nervous system: Cerebrovascular disorder, hypertonia, hypoesthesia, migraine, neuralgia, neuropathy, paresthesia, tremor, twitching, vertigo
* Endocrine: Goiter
* Female reproductive: Amenorrhea, dysmenorrhea, leukorrhea, mastitis, menstrual disorder, menorrhagia, menstrual bloating, vaginal hemorrhage
* Gastrointestinal: Abnormal stools, constipation, diverticulosis, dry mouth, duodenal ulcer, duodenitis, eructation, esophagitis, fecal incontinence, gastric ulcer, gastritis, gastroenteritis, gastroesophageal reflux, hematemesis, hematochezia, hemorrhoids, hemorrhoids bleeding, hiatal hernia, melena, stomatitis, stool frequency increased, tenesmus, tooth disorder, vomiting
* General: Allergy aggravated, allergic reaction, asthenia, chest pain, chills, cyst NOS, edema generalized, face edema, fatigue, fever, hot flushes, halitosis, malaise, pain, periorbital swelling, peripheral pain
* Hearing and vestibular: Ear abnormality, earache, tinnitus
* Heart rate and rhythm: Bradycardia, palpitation, tachycardia
* Hemic: Anemia
* Liver and biliary system: Hepatic function abnormal, hepatitis, ALT increased, AST increased
* Male reproductive: Impotence, prostatic disorder
* Metabolic and nutritional: Alkaline phosphatase increased, BUN increased, CPK increased, creatinine increased, diabetes mellitus, glycosuria, gout, hypercholesterolemia, hyperglycemia, hyperkalemia, hyperlipemia, hyperuricemia, hypocalcemia, hypokalemia, LDH increased, thirst increased, weight decrease, weight increase, xerophthalmia
* Musculoskeletal: Arthralgia, fracture accidental, neck stiffness, osteoporosis, synovitis, tendonitis
* Neoplasm: Breast neoplasm, lipoma, malignant ovarian cyst
* Platelets (bleeding or clotting): Ecchymosis, epistaxis, hematoma NOS, thrombocytopenia
* Psychiatric: Anorexia, anxiety, appetite increased, confusion, depression, depression aggravated, insomnia, nervousness, morbid dreaming, somnolence
* Resistance mechanism disorders: Herpes simplex, herpes zoster, infection fungal, infection soft tissue, infection viral, moniliasis, moniliasis genital, otitis media
* Respiratory: Abnormal breath sounds, bronchitis, bronchospasm, coughing, dyspnea, emphysema, laryngitis, pneumonia, pharyngitis, pleurisy, rhinitis
* Skin and appendages: Acne, alopecia, dermatitis, dermatitis fungal, eczema, photosensitivity allergic reaction, pruritus, rash erythematous, rash maculopapular, rash psoriaform, skin dry, skin hypertrophy, skin ulceration, sweating increased, urticaria
* Special senses: Taste perversion
* Urinary system: Albuminuria, cystitis, dysuria, hematuria, micturition frequency increased, pyuria, urinary incontinence, urinary tract infection
* Vascular: Claudication intermittent, hemangioma acquired, varicose vein
* Vision: Blurred vision, cataract, conjunctival hemorrhage, conjunctivitis, eye pain, keratitis, vision abnormal
* White cell and RES disorders: Eosinophilia, leukopenia, leukocytosis, lymphadenopathy, lymphangitis, lymphopenia
http://www.helpmefinda.org/display.cfm/seqnumber_content/54.htm
Bextra, the trade name of the generic drug valdecoxib, is used to relieve symptoms of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis in adults and to relieve painful menstrual cycles. However, on April 7, 2005, the FDA asked Pfizer, Inc. to withdraw Bextra (valdecoxib) from the market because the drug’s benefits did not outweigh the drug’s potential side effects. Pfizer decided to suspend marketing of Bextra, but Pfizer has not yet recalled it, disagreeing with FDA’s decision on Bextra’s benefit vs. risk analysis.
Unusual Symptoms while taking Bextra.
If you have used Bextra in the past, and you have had a heart attack, a stroke, a serious skin disorder, (or other serious unusual symptom), you should seriously consider using the “help me find a lawyer page” to find a lawyer experienced in product liability cases, especially one familiar with Bextra. The following serious side effects occurred in less than .1% of patients taking Bextra:
* Autonomic nervous system disorders: Hypertensive encephalopathy, vasospasm
* Cardiovascular: Abnormal ECG, aortic stenosis, atrial fibrillation, carotid stenosis, coronary thrombosis, heart block, heart valve disorders, mitral insufficiency, myocardial infarction, myocardial ischemia, pericarditis, syncope, thrombophlbitis, unstable angina, ventricular fibrillation
* Central, peripheral nervous system: Convulsions
* Endocrine: Hyperparathyroidism
* Female reproductive: Cervical dysplasia
* Gastrointestinal: Appendicitis, colitis with bleeding, dysphagia, esophageal perforation, gastrointestinal bleeding, ileus, intestinal obstruction, peritonitits, pancreatitis
* Hemi: Lymphoma-like disorder, pancytopenia
* Liver and biliary system: Cholelithiasis
* Metabolic: Dehydration
* Musculoskeletal: Pahtological fracture, osteomyelitis
* Neoplasm: Benign brain meoplasm, bladder carcinoma, carcinoma, gastric carcinoma, prostate carcinoma, pulmonary carcinoma
* Platelets: Embolism, pulmonary embolism, thrombosis
* Psychiatric: Manic reaction, psychosis
* Renal: Acute renal failure
* Resistance mechanism disorders: Sepsis
* Respiratory; Apnea, pleural effusion, pulmonary edema, pulmonary fibrosis, pulmonary infarction, pulmonary hemorrhage, respiratory insufficiency
* Skin: Basal cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, erythema multiforme, exfoliative dermatitis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis
* Urinary system: Pyelophritis, renal calculus
* Vision: Retinal detachment.
Considering a Bextra Lawyer?
You will most likely need to give the following additional information to the lawyer you plan on contacting.
1. When you were prescribed Bextra.
2. What was your Bextra dosage.
3. Did you quit taking Bextra before FDA asked Pfizer to recall it and why.
4. What serious side effects or unusual symptoms do you believe Bextra caused. It is very important to link serious effects to Bextra.
5. As a result of these serious side effects, were you admitted to a hospital? How long were you under the hospital’s care? Were there medical bills or other medical expenses due to any care received at the hospital?
6. As a result of these serious side effects, did you lose income, and are you now on disability?
7. The names of the doctors that helped you and the names of the hospitals you received care at.
8. General medical info, such as date of birth, current health conditions, family history of heart disease or cardiac diseases, smoking history, other medical problems, etc.
Legal Action against Bextra providers.
To prove a case against Baxtra, plaintiffs use a legal theory call Strict Liability. Strict Liability says that:
* the manufacturer or supplier of Bextra had a responsibility to make a safe product.
* the manufacturer or supplier of Bextra supplied a product even though the product was not safe, thus breaking their responsibility.
* the manufacturer or supplier’s product caused you to incur injuries, physical or mental.
Strict Liability does not apply to certain, anticipated side effects. The product must state these side effects. However, under Strict Liability theory, if a patient takes a drug and is injured due to inadequate warnings or dangerous side effects of the drug, the manufacturer or supplier is possibly at fault.
Who is at fault?
This information may be found in the personal injury info page here.
How much can I collect?
This information may also be found in the personal injury info page here.
Important: Can I still file a Bextra claim?
Most people who have suffered/or suffer from injuries related to toxic substances (Bextra in this case) did not know that the toxic substance was a health risk when they were exposed to the substance. To counter this, several states have created statutes that allow people to still file a claim for a predetermined time after the injury due to a toxic substance was detected. For more information on this topic, talk to your lawyer.
Anticipated Side Effects of Bextra,
as stated by Pfizer, the maker of Bextra. The following side effects occurred in 1.9% of patients taking Bextra. (See the PDF file here)
* Application site disorders: Cellulitis, dermatitis contact
* Cardiovascular: Aggravated hypertension, aneurysm, angina pectoris, arrhythmia, cardiomyopathy, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disorder, heart murmur, hypotension
* Central, peripheral nervous system: Cerebrovascular disorder, hypertonia, hypoesthesia, migraine, neuralgia, neuropathy, paresthesia, tremor, twitching, vertigo
* Endocrine: Goiter
* Female reproductive: Amenorrhea, dysmenorrhea, leukorrhea, mastitis, menstrual disorder, menorrhagia, menstrual bloating, vaginal hemorrhage
* Gastrointestinal: Abnormal stools, constipation, diverticulosis, dry mouth, duodenal ulcer, duodenitis, eructation, esophagitis, fecal incontinence, gastric ulcer, gastritis, gastroenteritis, gastroesophageal reflux, hematemesis, hematochezia, hemorrhoids, hemorrhoids bleeding, hiatal hernia, melena, stomatitis, stool frequency increased, tenesmus, tooth disorder, vomiting
* General: Allergy aggravated, allergic reaction, asthenia, chest pain, chills, cyst NOS, edema generalized, face edema, fatigue, fever, hot flushes, halitosis, malaise, pain, periorbital swelling, peripheral pain
* Hearing and vestibular: Ear abnormality, earache, tinnitus
* Heart rate and rhythm: Bradycardia, palpitation, tachycardia
* Hemic: Anemia
* Liver and biliary system: Hepatic function abnormal, hepatitis, ALT increased, AST increased
* Male reproductive: Impotence, prostatic disorder
* Metabolic and nutritional: Alkaline phosphatase increased, BUN increased, CPK increased, creatinine increased, diabetes mellitus, glycosuria, gout, hypercholesterolemia, hyperglycemia, hyperkalemia, hyperlipemia, hyperuricemia, hypocalcemia, hypokalemia, LDH increased, thirst increased, weight decrease, weight increase, xerophthalmia
* Musculoskeletal: Arthralgia, fracture accidental, neck stiffness, osteoporosis, synovitis, tendonitis
* Neoplasm: Breast neoplasm, lipoma, malignant ovarian cyst
* Platelets (bleeding or clotting): Ecchymosis, epistaxis, hematoma NOS, thrombocytopenia
* Psychiatric: Anorexia, anxiety, appetite increased, confusion, depression, depression aggravated, insomnia, nervousness, morbid dreaming, somnolence
* Resistance mechanism disorders: Herpes simplex, herpes zoster, infection fungal, infection soft tissue, infection viral, moniliasis, moniliasis genital, otitis media
* Respiratory: Abnormal breath sounds, bronchitis, bronchospasm, coughing, dyspnea, emphysema, laryngitis, pneumonia, pharyngitis, pleurisy, rhinitis
* Skin and appendages: Acne, alopecia, dermatitis, dermatitis fungal, eczema, photosensitivity allergic reaction, pruritus, rash erythematous, rash maculopapular, rash psoriaform, skin dry, skin hypertrophy, skin ulceration, sweating increased, urticaria
* Special senses: Taste perversion
* Urinary system: Albuminuria, cystitis, dysuria, hematuria, micturition frequency increased, pyuria, urinary incontinence, urinary tract infection
* Vascular: Claudication intermittent, hemangioma acquired, varicose vein
* Vision: Blurred vision, cataract, conjunctival hemorrhage, conjunctivitis, eye pain, keratitis, vision abnormal
* White cell and RES disorders: Eosinophilia, leukopenia, leukocytosis, lymphadenopathy, lymphangitis, lymphopenia
http://www.helpmefinda.org/display.cfm/seqnumber_content/54.htm
Asbestos Information
Basics.
Asbestos is a type of mineral that has been used in insulation because of its natural resistance to fire. Over the years, however, asbestos leaks from the insulation as dust, which, when inhaled, deposits itself in the lungs. Acting as a carcinogen, asbestos can cause or be related to several illnesses, including lung cancer, asbestosis (a fibrous scaring of the lungs), and mesothelioma (a malignant cancer that forms in the chest or abdomen).
Am I at risk?
Asbestos, like all carcinogens, is usually harmless when inhaled in small amounts; however, people directly working with Asbestos on a regular basis or people working in an area containing concentrated amounts of Asbestos in the environment are at a high risk. High risk jobs include/included shipbuilding trades, asbestos mining and milling, manufacturing of asbestos textiles and other asbestos products, insulation work in the construction and building trades, brake repair, and a variety of other trades. Demolition workers, drywall removers, and firefighters also may be exposed to asbestos dust. Walls insulated with Asbestos, however, will not leak Asbestos dust unless the insulation is disturbed through say construction.
There have been cases were people have reacted violently to small dosages of Asbestos, but the risk of developing an Asbestos related disease is usually secluded to people who have had a long exposure to high levels of asbestos. Asbestos levels vary depending on the concentration of fibers in the air, the duration of exposure, the person's breathing rate (workers doing manual labor breathe more air), weather conditions, and protective devices the person might be wearing (an air mask would decrease inhalation of asbestos). These worker’s families may also be at risk because Asbestos may have traveled into the family home through the clothes of the worker.
Thankfully, many people who were in contact with Asbestos will not experience any effects. The important point to remember is that generally Asbestos related injuries occur in workers who were exposed to high levels of Asbestos. On top of this, workers working with Asbestos currently follow strict rules set forth by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency's "Worker Protection Rule".
Smokers are 90 times more likely to develop lung cancer if they are exposed to Asbestos. Please, for the sake of your life, if you are/or have been in contact with Asbestos, quit smoking now.
What illnesses are attributed to Asbestos?
* Mesothelioma is a rare, malignant form of cancer found in the membranes of the lungs, chest, and abdomen. Mesothelioma is primarily caused by Asbestos exposure, and a person who has developed Mesothelioma should seriously consider filing a personal injury suit. Studies show that workers who have worked in/or work in Asbestos mines or mills, shipyards or factories that use Asbestos, or those who have manufactured or installed Asbestos insulation are at an increased risk for Mesothelioma. Studies have also shown that children who have been in contact with Asbestos have a higher chance of developing Mesothelioma.
* Lung Cancer has also been attributed to Asbestos. Again, people who have worked in/or work in Asbestos mines or mills, shipyards or factories that use Asbestos, or those who have manufactured or installed Asbestos insulation are at an increased risk for Lung Cancer. On top of this Smokers are almost 90 times more likely to develop lung cancer if they are exposed to Asbestos. Please, for the sake of your life, if you are/or have been in contact with Asbestos, quit smoking now.
* Asbestosis is a life threatening, chronic, non-cancerous respiratory disease. Asbestosis is caused when Asbestos dust lodges in the lungs, eventually creating scar tissue. People who suffer from Asbestosis may experience shortness of breath or a dry crackling sound while breathing. Sadly, there is no treatment for Asbestosis, and it is almost always disabling or fatal. People at highest risk for Asbestosis are those who are/or were in high contact with Asbestos dust, such as construction workers.
Who is at fault?
This information may be found in the personal injury info page here.
How much can I collect?
This information may also be found in the personal injury info page here.
Important: Can I still file a claim?
Most people who have suffered/or suffer from injuries related to toxic substances (Asbestos in this case) did not know that the toxic substance was a health risk when they were exposed to the substance. To counter this, several states have created statutes that allow people to still file a claim for a predetermined time after the injury due to a toxic substance was detected. For more information on this topic, talk to your lawyer.
http://www.helpmefinda.org/display.cfm/seqnumber_content/52.htm
Asbestos is a type of mineral that has been used in insulation because of its natural resistance to fire. Over the years, however, asbestos leaks from the insulation as dust, which, when inhaled, deposits itself in the lungs. Acting as a carcinogen, asbestos can cause or be related to several illnesses, including lung cancer, asbestosis (a fibrous scaring of the lungs), and mesothelioma (a malignant cancer that forms in the chest or abdomen).
Am I at risk?
Asbestos, like all carcinogens, is usually harmless when inhaled in small amounts; however, people directly working with Asbestos on a regular basis or people working in an area containing concentrated amounts of Asbestos in the environment are at a high risk. High risk jobs include/included shipbuilding trades, asbestos mining and milling, manufacturing of asbestos textiles and other asbestos products, insulation work in the construction and building trades, brake repair, and a variety of other trades. Demolition workers, drywall removers, and firefighters also may be exposed to asbestos dust. Walls insulated with Asbestos, however, will not leak Asbestos dust unless the insulation is disturbed through say construction.
There have been cases were people have reacted violently to small dosages of Asbestos, but the risk of developing an Asbestos related disease is usually secluded to people who have had a long exposure to high levels of asbestos. Asbestos levels vary depending on the concentration of fibers in the air, the duration of exposure, the person's breathing rate (workers doing manual labor breathe more air), weather conditions, and protective devices the person might be wearing (an air mask would decrease inhalation of asbestos). These worker’s families may also be at risk because Asbestos may have traveled into the family home through the clothes of the worker.
Thankfully, many people who were in contact with Asbestos will not experience any effects. The important point to remember is that generally Asbestos related injuries occur in workers who were exposed to high levels of Asbestos. On top of this, workers working with Asbestos currently follow strict rules set forth by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency's "Worker Protection Rule".
Smokers are 90 times more likely to develop lung cancer if they are exposed to Asbestos. Please, for the sake of your life, if you are/or have been in contact with Asbestos, quit smoking now.
What illnesses are attributed to Asbestos?
* Mesothelioma is a rare, malignant form of cancer found in the membranes of the lungs, chest, and abdomen. Mesothelioma is primarily caused by Asbestos exposure, and a person who has developed Mesothelioma should seriously consider filing a personal injury suit. Studies show that workers who have worked in/or work in Asbestos mines or mills, shipyards or factories that use Asbestos, or those who have manufactured or installed Asbestos insulation are at an increased risk for Mesothelioma. Studies have also shown that children who have been in contact with Asbestos have a higher chance of developing Mesothelioma.
* Lung Cancer has also been attributed to Asbestos. Again, people who have worked in/or work in Asbestos mines or mills, shipyards or factories that use Asbestos, or those who have manufactured or installed Asbestos insulation are at an increased risk for Lung Cancer. On top of this Smokers are almost 90 times more likely to develop lung cancer if they are exposed to Asbestos. Please, for the sake of your life, if you are/or have been in contact with Asbestos, quit smoking now.
* Asbestosis is a life threatening, chronic, non-cancerous respiratory disease. Asbestosis is caused when Asbestos dust lodges in the lungs, eventually creating scar tissue. People who suffer from Asbestosis may experience shortness of breath or a dry crackling sound while breathing. Sadly, there is no treatment for Asbestosis, and it is almost always disabling or fatal. People at highest risk for Asbestosis are those who are/or were in high contact with Asbestos dust, such as construction workers.
Who is at fault?
This information may be found in the personal injury info page here.
How much can I collect?
This information may also be found in the personal injury info page here.
Important: Can I still file a claim?
Most people who have suffered/or suffer from injuries related to toxic substances (Asbestos in this case) did not know that the toxic substance was a health risk when they were exposed to the substance. To counter this, several states have created statutes that allow people to still file a claim for a predetermined time after the injury due to a toxic substance was detected. For more information on this topic, talk to your lawyer.
http://www.helpmefinda.org/display.cfm/seqnumber_content/52.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)