Jan 15, 2012 | Brain Injury/Head Trauma, Car Accidents, Personal Injury, Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation
Symptoms of Brain Injury
Any brain function can be disrupted by brain trauma: excessive sleepiness, inattention, difficulty concentrating, impaired memory, faulty judgment, depression, irritability, emotional outbursts, disturbed sleep, diminished libido, difficulty switching between two tasks, and slowed thinking. Sorting out bonafide brain damage from the effects of migraine headaches, pain elsewhere in the body, medications, depression, preoccupation with financial loss, job status, loss of status in the community, loss of status in the family, and any ongoing litigation can be a formibable task.
The extent and the severity of cognitive neurologic dysfunction can be measured with the aid of neuropsychological testing. Neuropsychologists use their tests to localize dysfunction to specific areas of the brain. For example, the frontal lobes play an essential role in drive, mood, personality, judgment, interpersonal behavior, attention, foresight, and inhibition of inappropriate behavior. The ability to plan properly and execute those plans is known as “executive function.” Frontal lobe injury is often associated with damage to the olfactory bulbs beneath the frontal lobes. Patients may note reduced or altered sense of smell. One recent study (Varney 1993) showed that 92% of brain injured patient suffering anosmia (loss of smell) had ongoing problems with employment, even though their neuropsychological testing was relatively normal.
The effects of brain injury on the patient may be equaled or even surpassed by the effect on the patient’s family. Brain injuries are known for causing extreme stressors in family and interpersonal relationships.
In general, symptoms of traumatic brain injury should lessen over time as the brain heals but sometimes the symptoms worsen because of the patient’s inability to adapt to the brain injury. For this and other reasons, it is not uncommon for psychological problems to arise and worsen after brain injury.
SYMPTOM CHECKLIST
A wide variety of symptoms can occur after “brain injury.” The nature of the symptoms depends, in large part, on where the brain has been injured. Below find a list of possible physical and cognitive symptoms which can arise from damage to specific areas of the brain:
Frontal Lobe: Forehead
Loss of simple movement of various body parts (Paralysis).
Inability to plan a sequence of complex movements needed to complete multi-stepped tasks, such as making coffee (Sequencing).
Loss of spontaneity in interacting with others.
Loss of flexibility in thinking.
Persistence of a single thought (Perseveration).
Inability to focus on task (Attending).
Mood changes (Emotionally Labile).
Changes in social behavior.
Changes in personality.
Difficulty with problem solving.
Inability to express language (Broca’s Aphasia).
Parietal Lobe: near the back and top of the head
Inability to attend to more than one object at a time.
Inability to name an object (Anomia).
Inability to locate the words for writing (Agraphia).
Problems with reading (Alexia).
Difficulty with drawing objects.
Difficulty in distinguishing left from right.
Difficulty with doing mathematics (Dyscalculia).
Lack of awareness of certain body parts and/or surrounding space (Apraxia) that leads to difficulties in self-care.
Inability to focus visual attention.
Difficulties with eye and hand coordination.
Occipital Lobes: most posterior, at the back of the head
Defects in vision (Visual Field Cuts).
Difficulty with locating objects in environment.
Difficulty with identifying colors (Color Agnosia).
Production of hallucinations.
Visual illusions – inaccurately seeing objects.
Word blindness – inability to recognize words.
Difficulty in recognizing drawn objects.
Inability to recognize the movement of object (Movement Agnosia).
Difficulties with reading and writing.
Temporal Lobes: side of head above ears
Difficulty in recognizing faces (Prosopagnosia).
Difficulty in understanding spoken words (Wernicke’s Aphasia).
Disturbance with selective attention to what we see and hear.
Difficulty with identification of, and verbalization about objects.
Short term memory loss.
Interference with long term memory.
Increased and decreased interest in sexual behavior.
Inability to catagorize objects (Categorization).
Right lobe damage can cause persistent talking.
Increased aggressive behavior.
Brain Stem: deep within the brain
Decreased vital capacity in breathing, important for speech.
Swallowing food and water (Dysphagia).
Difficulty with organization/perception of the environment.
Problems with balance and movement.
Dizziness and nausea (Vertigo).
Sleeping difficulties (Insomnia, sleep apnea).
Cerebellum: base of the skull
Loss of ability to coordinate fine movements.
Loss of ability to walk.
Inability to reach out and grab objects.
Tremors.
Dizziness (Vertigo).
Slurred Speech (Scanning Speech).
Inability to make rapid movements.
This is one of the most effective presentations of latent brain injury I have found. It is located at the website “BrainInjury.com” As a former ICU Registered Nurse (RN), I was impressed with the graphics and list of symptoms depending on which part of the brain was injured. The trial attorneys at Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP, are experienced serious injury lawyers and are uniquely familiar with brain injury cases. Closed head or traumatic brain injury (TBI) sadly occurs more often than earlier realized and can result from even relatively minor trauma during automobile accidents, large truck accidents, motorcycle accidents (even with a helmet), and work-related accidents (workers’ compensation). We welcome the opportunity to sit down and personally discuss your particular case. Compare our attorneys’ credentials to any other firm. Then call us for a private consultation. www.rjrlaw.com
Jan 14, 2012 | Car Accidents, Personal Injury, Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation
Workers’ Comp Mediation is Just Around the Corner (by Stanford E. Lacy, Founding Partner, Collins & Lacy, P.C.)
The South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission’s Mediation Committee has finished its work, and the wheels are in motion to adopt regulations to govern mediations in workers’ compensation. Led by a determined Commissioner Derrick Williams, the Committee only needed to meet twice to hammer out regulations and forms consistent with the committee’s vision of a mediation system that will work in South Carolina. Here’s what came out of the Committee’s efforts:
Regulation 67-1801. Mediation.
It provides:
1 Commissioners have the discretion to order mediation and to name the mediator. The Commissioner must retain jurisdiction of the case until the issues are resolved.
2. Mediation is mandatory prior to a hearing for claims arising under §42-9-10, §42-9-30(21), occupational disease cases, third-party reduction claims, contested death claims, mental/mental injury claims, and cases of concurrent jurisdiction under the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act and the Federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Claims involving multiple workers arising out of employment with the same employer also must be mediated prior to hearing.
3. The parties may mutually select the mediator.
4. The parties must select a mediator within 10 days of the filing of a Form 51 or a response to a Form 21, and the mediation must be completed within 60 days.
5. Representatives may attend the mediation by telephone.
6. Rules of confidentiality, decorum, and good faith are the same as in mediations generally.
Modifications to existing forms.
1 Form 50.
The Form 50 will be modified to add Paragraph 15 in which the claimant can request mediation, reject mediation or indicate whether the case is one that requires mediation.
2. Form 51 and Form 21.
The Form 51 and Form 21 will similarly be modified to add Paragraph 13 and Paragraph VI, respectively, in which the defense will indicate whether it wants mediation, rejects mediation or mediation is required.
3 Form 70.
The Form 70 will be created for the mediator to report the outcome of the mediation to the Commission. Was the case resolved? If so, what result? If not, why not? Is a hearing requested? The Form 70 will not become part of the Commission’s file.
Commissioner Williams is presenting the regulation and forms at the Commission’s January business meeting. If approved, the new regulation will go through the process of publication in the State Register, public hearings and submission to the legislature. We will keep you posted on new developments as they happen. It is very likely mediation will become an integral part of the workers’ compensation process this year. -Stan Lacy
This is a welcomed evolution in workers’ compensation. Mediation has become commonplace in civil litigation cases and has been instrumental in resolving complex cases. Both parties, injured workers and insurance carriers, will benefit from this coming change. It also reinforces the need for claimants to retain experienced workers’ compensation attorneys who can effectively present their cases at mediation and obtain the best possible outcome.
At Reeves, Aiken & Hightower LLP, our lawyers are experienced workers’ compensation attorneys. Robert J. Reeves is a former Registered Nurse (RN) who has actually treated patients with the same type of serious injuries he now represents in workers’ compensation cases. Both Robert J. Reeves and Arthur K. Aiken are former insurance defense attorneys who know how to anticipate and prepare for defenses and insurance company tactics. During our twenty-two (22) years each of practicing law, we have successfully handled virtually every type of workers’ compensation injury, including neck, back, shoulder, knee accidents, closed head / brain injury, herniated disks, bulging disks, diskectomy surgery, fusion procedures, arthroscopy, automobile accidents on the job, psychological / post traumatic stress, permanent and total disability claims, and wrongful death. We welcome the opportunity to sit down and personally discuss your case. Compare our attorneys’ credentials to any other firm. Then call us for a private consultation.
Jan 14, 2012 | DUI & DWI, Uncategorized
DUI Case Backlog Reduced After S.C. Supreme Court Issues Order
A large backlog of DUI cases has been sigmificantly reduced after South Carolina Chief Justice Jean Toal ordered magistrate and municipal courts to clear thousands of lingering alcohol related cases.
According to a report in the Charleston Post and Courier, Chief Justice Jean Toal issued an Order requiring all non-jury cases older than 60 days and jury cases older than 120 days to be closed by July 2011.
The order cleared 11,000 cases, but thousands of old cases remained. During the four-month period, new cases were constantly being added, so by the end of July, 14,000 cases still awaited hearings. Those cases are being processed under the framework of the original Order. Cases where no jury trial has been demanded are being scheduled for disposition within 60 days of the initial court date, while cases that are moved to the jury trial docket are being scheduled for trial within 120 days.
Various factors had contributed to the growth of the backlog. Chief Justice Toal pointed to one source as a shortage of judges statewide. The article mentioned that party-requested continuances have delayed cases, sometimes going back years.
The reality is that a number of factors contributed to the backlog. Many law enforcement agencies developed their own special DUI Task Force. Such task forces operate with a mission to make more arrests for DUI. The penalties for being convicted of DUI in South Carolina increased dramatically effective February 2009, prompting most arrestees to retain legal counsel to defend them, rather than simply plead guilty because it was less costly.
Old Cases Out First
It was reported that after the order, 42 percent of the cases that had been pending were dropped or dismissed; in the four months before the order, only 30 percent had been dropped.
These numbers are misleading in that they suggest that the Order caused prosecutors to simply drop cases with no regard to the merits. The 12 percent difference can also be explained by the approach some prosecutors have taken historically where they hold a weak case rather than dismiss it in order to use the pending charge as a type of individualized deterrent.
Another area of confusion stems from how one might interpret what actually happens when a charge is dismissed. There is no lesser included offense to DUI, therefore in cases where negotiations result in a plea to Reckless Driving, Leaving the Scene of an Accident or even Driving With An Unlawful Alcohol Concentration, the DUI charge must be dismissed when the new traffic ticket is issued to the defendant.
Not A Priority
Despite the fact that the Defense, the Prosecution and the Court approach the disposition of DUI cases with the same level of commitment as other types of criminal cases; many of the DUI and DUAC cases have languished because the municipal and magistrate courts are at the “the bottom of the food chain” in terms of forum priority. This means that lawyers are often required, by rule, to attend to cases in higher-level courts, leaving the DUI cases to be pushed back to a later date on the courts’ calendar.
Resources Also An Issue
In most of DUI 1st offense cases made by the South Carolina Highway Patrol, the state trooper represents the state as prosecutor of these DUI cases. If the trooper appears at the courthouse and the case is delayed or continued, they will have to return later, again taking them away from their patrol.
In a story by WPSA-TV, Chief Justice Toal commented that the troopers should not be required to prosecute the case. She called for “a lot more resources” to prosecute the cases, using attorneys for the state instead of the troopers, as they would be able to more accurately gauge the strength of the case.
David Ross, director of South Carolina’s Prosecution Commission agreed. He noted the increasing complexity of the DUI laws, and that even if the troopers had the time, an attorney should prosecute the case.
Prosecutors are generally more up to date on developments in the law, and understand legal procedure and the rules of evidence. Thus they are in a better position to assess the best course of action in a given case. Law enforcement officers serve a different function in the system and the people of South Carolina are best served when these roles are not combined.
This, of course, is problematic with ever-tighter state budgets, which offer little flexibility for increases in resources, and often require cuts in staffing. Part of the backlog is due to the ending of grants from the state to the counties. Several Circuit Solicitors around the state have obtained grant funds and have used the same to employ prosecutors for the purpose of prosecuting DUI cases in Magistrates Courts. But this solution may be temporary as it is unknown if these grants will be renewed.
Many municipalities have taken a different approach by hiring lawyers to serve as part-time prosecutors. This type approach is only as good as the commitment made by part-time prosecutor. In jurisdictions where the part-time lawyer accesses the case and manages the movement of the case on the docket; this approach is very effective. In situations where the part-time prosecutor simply parrots the position of an interested witness, this approach can be very inefficient.
Simpler Law?
Laura Hudson, the Public Policy Liaison for South Carolina Mothers Against Drunk Driving’s, spoke with WSPA-TV about the backlog, and was quoted as saying, “If you never get a conviction for that first one, and it’s dismissed, the second on[e] you get is treated as a first, the third one you get is treated as a [second], so you’re masking … that very dangerous driver,” Hudson said.
Her basic complaint was while it may have helped clear the backlog, it may have “let off” many drivers who received lower-level plea agreements, for charges like reckless driving. Hudson noted, “The only real solutions are more prosecutors, more courts or a less complicated law, like “per se” laws that many states have.” According to the story, some of these laws have been ruled unconstitutional in some states.
In states where 0.08 BAC is “per se” intoxicated, the accuracy of the test, the calibration of the equipment and the training of the operator can all be questioned and complicate the case.
Given the fallibilities and inexact nature of testing breath for accurate blood alcohol values, reliance on the number reported by a machine, as the only relevant evidence of impairment, is a major step backward, not forward. Such an approach nullifies each of the most fundamental protections afforded in America; trial by jury, presumption of innocence and the demand of proof beyond all reasonable doubt before a criminal conviction.
Notwithstanding Mrs. Hudson’s complaint, a review of the statute confirms that South Carolina has one of the most straight forward DUI laws in the country. Like everywhere else in the USA, an officer can conduct a traffic stop as long as he has articulable suspicion or probable cause of a violation of the law. The legal standard which defines DUI is “material and appreciable impairment.”
The complaints about the law being complex or complicated often arise due to the officer’s lack of compliance with the video recording law. Opinions on any subject often vary. The issue of whether a driver is impaired as defined by the law is a matter of opinion.
Fairness is ensured by the requirement that the investigation be video and audio recorded. Activating the recording equipment is not complicated; recording systems installed by DPS are set up so that the camera comes on automatically once the blue lights are activated.
Every law enforcement officer in the state has been given a card which lists Miranda rights and been taught when to read it. Everything else is a question of whether the citizen’s conduct as recorded on video is consistent with the officer’s conclusion and written report.
Rather than contributing to a backlog, the proper use of tools like video recording make it much easier to distinguish a bad case from a good one; thus eliminating the need or desire for many jury trials.
At Reeves, Aiken & Hightower LLP, our attorneys have over 70 years of combined trial experience in both civil and criminal courts. We focus our criminal practice on DUI and DWI cases in both South Carolina and North Carolina and are available by mobile phone in the evenings, on weekends, and even holidays. Our lawyers are licensed in both states and are effective criminal trial attorneys. We are not afraid to go to Court and often do. Don’t settle for a lawyer who only wants to reduce your DUI charge to reckless driving. Call us today for an attorney case review of your particular situation. We are here to help.
Article provided by the Carroll Law Firm of Charleston, South Carolina
Jan 13, 2012 | Car Accidents, Personal Injury, Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation
The following case reaffirms that hiring an experienced workers’ compensation attorney really can make all the difference. In this matter, the attorney was just two (2) days late filing a notice of appeal. Even though the Commission made an exception to allow the appeal, the SC Supreme Court held that the Commission did not have proper jurisdiction once the deadline had passed. The case was ended. Nothing further could be done. The claimant lost because her lawyer was just 2 days late. Experience counts, especially in law.
At Reeves, Aiken & Hightower LLP, our lawyers are experienced workers’ compensation attorneys. Robert J. Reeves is a former Registered Nurse (RN) who has actually treated patients with the same type of serious injuries he now represents in workers’ compensation cases. Both Robert J. Reeves and Arthur K. Aiken are former insurance defense attorneys who know how to anticipate and prepare for defenses and insurance company tactics. During our twenty-two (22) years each of practicing law, we have successfully handled virtually every type of workers’ compensation injuries, including neck, back, shoulder, knee accidents, closed head / brain injury, herniated disks, bulging disks, diskectomy surgery, fusion procedures, arthroscopy, chemical and fire burns, automobile accidents on the job, psychological / post traumatic stress, permanent and total disability claims, and wrongful death. We welcome the opportunity to sit down and personally discuss your case. Compare our attorneys’ credentials to any other firm. Then call us for a private consultation. www.rjrlaw.com
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
Betty Ann Allison, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Benjamin Allison, Respondent,
v.
W. L. Gore & Associates, Appellant.
Appeal from Beaufort County Marvin Dukes, Master-in-Equity
Opinion No. 27031
Heard June 9, 2011 – Filed August 22, 2011
VACATED
Carmelo B. Sammataro, of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, of Columbia, and O. Shayne Williams, of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney of Greenville, for Appellant.
Marion Clyde Fairey, Jr., of Hampton, for Respondent.
JUSTICE PLEICONES: This is a direct appeal in a workers’ compensation case from a master’s order reversing the Full Commission and finding respondent’s decedent is totally disabled as the result of an occupational disease. On appeal, appellant (Employer) contends this matter should have been dismissed because respondent’s admittedly untimely appeal to the Commission deprived the Commission of jurisdiction. We agree that the untimely appeal to the Commission requires that we vacate both the master’s order and the decision of the Full Commission.
ISSUE
Did respondent’s failure to file a Form 30 with the Commission within fourteen days of receiving notice of the single commissioner’s order deprive that body of appellate jurisdiction?
ANALYSIS
South Carolina Code Ann. § 42-17-50 (Supp. 2010) provides for an appeal to the Commission from the decision of a single commissioner if the “application for review is made to the Commission within fourteen days from the date when notice of the award shall have been given. . . .” 25A S.C. Reg. 67-701 (Supp. 2010) provides that such review shall be done by a Form 30, and that “the fourteen day period is jurisdictional.” Reg. 67-701 A. Here, respondent did not file his Form 30 within fourteen days of receiving notice of the single commissioner’s order, and Employer moved before the Commission to dismiss the appeal arguing the Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The Commission denied the motion, emphasizing the appeal was only two days late and that it resulted from respondent’s attorney’s error. The Commission upheld the single commissioner’s denial of benefits.
Employer took no immediate appeal from the interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss, but raised the denial in respondent’s appeal to the circuit court. The master determined that by Employer’s failure to take an immediate appeal, the ruling that the Commission had “subject matter” jurisdiction over respondent’s appeal was rendered the law of the case. This was error.
Employer argues, and we agree, that it could not immediately appeal the order denying the motion to dismiss. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 42-17-60 (1990), an appeal from the Commission may be taken to circuit court “under the same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil actions.” This statutory language has been interpreted to allow an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order of the Commission only where the order “affects the merits.” Chastain v. Spartan Mills, 228 S.C. 61, 88 S.E.2d 836 (1955); see also King v. Singer Co. Power Tool Div., 276 S.C. 419, 279 S.E.2d 367 (1981); Brunson v. Am. Koyo Bearings, 367 S.C. 161, 623 S.E.2d 870 (Ct. App. 2005). A circuit court order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not directly appealable because, among other things, it does not affect the merits. Woodward v. Westvaco Corp., 319 S.C. 240, 460 S.E.2d 392 (1995) overruled in part on other grounds Sabb v. South Carolina State Univ., 350 S.C. 416, 567 S.E.2d 231 (2002). The master erred in holding that the Commission’s denial of Employer’s motion to dismiss was immediately appealable.
The master also held that the Commission had “subject matter” jurisdiction to hear respondent’s appeal despite the untimeliness of the Form 30. We now clarify that this issue is properly couched as one of appellate jurisdiction rather than subject matter jurisdiction. See Great Games, Inc. v. S.C. Dep’t of Rev., 339 S.C. 79, 529 S.E.2d 6 (2000). A court’s subject matter jurisdiction is determined by whether it has the authority to hear the type of case in question. E.g., Dove v. Gold Kist, Inc., 314 S.C. 235, 442 S.E.2d 598 (1994). This same principle applies to administrative agencies. The Commission has the authority to review decisions of a single commissioner, and under the Gold Kist standard, there is no subject matter jurisdiction issue here. We now clarify that the question of compliance with rules, regulations, and statutes governing an appeal is one of appellate jurisdiction, see In re November 8, 2008 Bluffton County Election, 385 S.C. 632, 686 S.E.2d 685 (2009), and overrule prior decisions to the extent they pose the question of an executive agency’s authority to hear an appeal as one of subject matter jurisdiction. E.g., Bursey v. S.C. Dep’t of Health and Envtl. Control, 369 S.C. 176, 631 S.E.2d 899 (2006); S.C. Dep’t of Corrections v. Tomlin, 387 S.C. 652, 694 S.E.2d 25 (Ct. App. 2010); Hamilton v. Bob Bennett Ford, 336 S.C. 72, 518 S.E.2d 599 (Ct. App. 1999) modified on other grounds 339 S.C. 68, 528 S.E.2d 667 (2000).
On the merits, we hold that the Commission lacks the authority to extend the fourteen days permitted for the filing of an appeal from the decision of a single commissioner. See Goodman v. City of Columbia, 318 S.C. 488, 458 S.E.2d 531 (1995) (construing a pro se letter sent within fourteen days as satisfying the notice requirements of § 42-17-50 and Reg. 67-701). This holding is consistent with the general rule that an appellate body may not extend the time to appeal. E.g., Rule 263(b), SCACR; S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(1) (Supp. 2010); S.C. Coastal Conservation League v. S.C. Dep’t of Health and Envtl. Control, 380 S.C. 349, 669 S.E.2d 849 (Ct. App. 2008) overruled on other grounds 390 S.C. 418, 702 S.E.2d 246 (2010); Sadisco of Greenville, Inc. v. Greenville County Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 340 S.C. 57, 530 S.E.2d 383 (2000).
CONCLUSION
Since the Full Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear respondent’s appeal, the decision of that Commission as well as the master’s order are VACATED.
TOAL, C.J., BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.
Jan 13, 2012 | Brain Injury/Head Trauma, Car Accidents, Personal Injury, Uncategorized, Wrongful Death
The following article is another tragic example of the tremendous killing potential of large commercial trucks when they impact with regular vehicles on our South Carolina highways. In this case, a group of teenagers was involved. One did not come home. And her parents received the phone call all of us fear when our children are young.
At Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP, all of our attorneys are seasoned trial lawyers with over 70 years combined experience. Whether it is criminal or civil, our litigators are regularly in Court fighting for our clients. Two of our firm’s partners, Art Aiken and Robert Reeves, are lifetime members of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum. Mr. Reeves has also been named one of the Top 100 lawyers for South Carolina in 2012 by the National Trial Lawyers Organization. Our attorneys include a former SC prosecutor, a former public defender, a former NC District Attorney intern, a former Registered Nurse (RN), and former insurance defense attorneys. As a result of their varied backgrounds, they understand the criminal, insurance defense, and medical aspects of complex cases. We welcome an opportunity to sit down and personally review your case. Call us today for a private consultation. www.rjrlaw.com
PELZER, SC – A 14 year old teenager was killed in a fatal tanker truck accident in Pelzer, SC on Friday, November 4, 2011.
Tanker trailer with over 8,000 gallons of gas laying upside down after a fatal accident where a local teenager was killed in Pelzer, SC on November 4, 2011.
Jaela Kelley, 14 years old, from Williamston, SC was killed when the passenger car she was in collided with a semi tanker truck filled with over 8,000 gallons of gas. The accident occurred shortly after 9:30 p.m. in Pelzer on Highway 29 at Ballard Road. A 2003 two-door Honda with 3 teenage occupants was traveling eastbound on Ballard Rd. and was stopped at a stop sign. The Honda pulled out in front of the semi tanker that was traveling northbound on Highway 29 when the crash occurred.
Map showing location of fatal tanker truck accident in Pelzer, SC on November 4, 2011 on Highway 29 at Ballard Rd. The force of the collision spun the car around and Kelley, who was not wearing a seat belt, was ejected from the vehicle and was fatally injured.
The IndependentMail.com website reports:
Jaela Kelley, 17, of Williamston, died Friday night at Greenville Memorial Hospital as the result of multiple trauma that she suffered in a two-vehicle wreck shortly after 9:30 p.m., said Anderson County Chief Deputy Coroner Charlie Boseman. Kelley was taken by helicopter to the hospital after the accident that happened at U.S. 29 and Ballard Road in Pelzer.
After the collision, the Honda went down an embankment and the tanker trailer separated from the semi cab and flipped over on its back. The cab landed in a wooded area. Christopher Jennings, 51 years old from Pauline, SC was the truck driver. He was reportedly not injured in the accident. The 1996 Kenworth tanker truck began leaking gas afterwards so a Hazmat team was called in and spent several hours cleaning up the spill. There was no evacuation ordered as a result of the spill.
The two other teens in the Honda were Cody Bradley Hendrey, 18 years old, from Williamston, and Haley Brett Ragsdale, 17 years old, from Pelzer. They were both transported to nearby hospitals. Ragsdale was treated and released, but there are no details on Hendrey’s condition.
Due to the ongoing investigation, officials do not know who was driving the Honda. What is known is that none of the occupants in the Honda were wearing seat belts at the time of the accident. They were attending a bonfire before the accident happened.
Jaela Kelley was a student at Palmetto High School. The school district was deeply saddened at the news of her death.
The attorneys at Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP encourage all drivers, both young and old, to drive defensively on the road. Anticipate bad situations and always have an escape plan. Be Safe. Get Home.
Jan 7, 2012 | DUI & DWI, Uncategorized
In South Carolina, all police vehicles are required to have video recording in their cars. Police like video because it offers additional protection for them at the scene. Criminals may be less likely to assault them if they realize they are being recorded. Additionally, claims of undue force or excessive force can be reviewed objectively.
As a criminal defense attorney, I like video recording because it protects my clients and shows what really happens at the roadside. Everyone knows what “drunk” looks like. The testimony by the officer will be remarkably similar to every other case, and any testimony by a defendant will be viewed as self-serving. Video “keeps everyone honest.” A jury can see for themselves every aspect of the stop and arrest. How does the defendant appear? Is his speech slurred? Does she talk coherently? Are they steady on their feet? Do they stumble or fall? How do they perform the roadside “field sobriety tests”? In short, do they appear “intoxicated”?
The following is the relevant portion of the actual statuory law:
SECTION 56-5-2953. Incident site and breath test site video recording.
(A) A person who violates Section 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or 56-5-2945 must have his conduct at the incident site and the breath test site video recorded.
(1)(a) The video recording at the incident site must:
(i) not begin later than the activation of the officer’s blue lights;
(ii) include any field sobriety tests administered; and
(iii) include the arrest of a person for a violation of Section 56-5-2930 or Section 56-5-2933, or a probable cause determination in that the person violated Section 56-5-2945, and show the person being advised of his Miranda rights.
(b) A refusal to take a field sobriety test does not constitute disobeying a police command.
(2) The video recording at the breath test site must:
(a) include the entire breath test procedure, the person being informed that he is being video recorded, and that he has the right to refuse the test;
(b) include the person taking or refusing the breath test and the actions of the breath test operator while conducting the test; and
(c) also include the person’s conduct during the required twenty-minute pre-test waiting period, unless the officer submits a sworn affidavit certifying that it was physically impossible to video record this waiting period.
(3) The video recordings of the incident site and of the breath test site are admissible pursuant to the South Carolina Rules of Evidence in a criminal, administrative, or civil proceeding by any party to the action.
At Reeves, Aiken & Hightower LLP, our attorneys have over 60 years of combined trial experience in both civil and criminal courts. We focus our criminal practice on DUI and DWI cases in both South Carolina and North Carolina and are available by mobile phone in the evenings, on weekends, and even holidays. Our lawyers are licensed in both states and are effective criminal trial attorneys. We are not afraid to go to Court and often do. Don’t settle for a lawyer who only wants to reduce your DUI charge to reckless driving. Call us today for a free attorney case review of your particular situation. We are here to help. www.rjrlaw.com
