When a Tanker Crashes, You May Face Worse Hazards

Any large truck wreck can have catastrophic consequences for all the people (and vehicles) involved. When the truck is a tanker trunk, however, there are unique hazards that can cause worse injuries to the victims.

The Science Behind Tanker Trucks

Tanker trunks can be spotted easily on Arizona’s highways. Their “trailers” are cylindrical in shape and sit lower to the ground than those of ordinary transport trucks. Tankers are designed this way for many reasons.

The first is that cylindrical containers don’t have the same weak spots rectangular containers do. Sharp corners are not as capable of handling immense pressure as rounded corners. (This is also why commercial airplane windows are round and not square.) In a collision, the container of a tanker truck may undergo extreme pressures. Many tanks are even pressurized from within. If the container was not cylindrical, it would be more likely to explode.

The cylindrical shape also has a lower center of gravity, which adds to the stability of the container—particularly important when the goods being transported are toxic or hazardous. However, if the container is not full enough, the liquid inside can slosh back and forth, remaining in motion until stopped by an external force. That can unbalance the truck, making it harder to control and more likely to tip over. Cylindrical tanks are equipped with huge sheets of metal to help reduce the surge, but truckers should not be on the road with unsafe loads to begin with.

The cylindrical shape of a tanker’s container is most beneficial when unloading the liquid cargo. The liquid can be funneled to the bottom; and once the cargo is extracted, cylindrical tanks don’t have the nooks and crannies of rectangle trucks, making them easier to clean.

While the shape of tanker trucks may be necessary for the cargo they’re transporting, it can also make them more dangerous. Tanker trucks are more likely to rollover in an accident, which can affect not just those directly involved in the accident, but those in the immediate area as well.

Increased Risks with Tanker Trucks

Tankers often carry dangerous cargo. At times, tanker trucks may carry non-toxic substances such as milk, but in most cases, tanker trucks are transporting gasoline, diesel, ethanol, household and industrial chemicals, pesticides, and even radioactive material.

That was the case in August 2018 when a tanker truck carrying hydrogen peroxide overturned just west of Wilcox in southern Arizona. The freeway had to be shut down, and one person was taken to the hospital. Police arriving on the scene said this spill did not pose a danger to the public, but often, these accidents do. When a toxic chemical is spilled onto a roadway, it can cause chemical burns to anyone who comes in contact with it. Radioactive spills can contaminate a large area, and may require evacuation in the surrounding communities. Tanker trucks also carry flammable liquids such as gas and oil, which can explode in the event of an accident.

What to Do After a Tanker Truck Accident

The injuries people usually suffer after an accident with a tanker truck are enormous. Burns, scarring and disfigurement, traumatic brain injuries, amputations and crush injuries, and internal organ damage are the serious injuries commonly sustained after a tanker truck accident. Victims need to receive medical attention immediately following an accident.

These injuries can be costly and difficult to treat, so if the tanker’s driver was at fault for the accident, the tanker company should be held liable for paying those bills. But going up against truck drivers and big trucking companies can be intimidating and present its own challenges. Trucking companies don’t want to give up driver logs that could indicate negligence, and they have their own team of lawyers who are ready to fight you. This can be difficult for anyone to face, particularly when trying to focus on your recovery.

The experienced Phoenix tanker truck accident attorneys from Breyer Law Offices, P.C., will not be intimidated by these companies and their lawyers. We will conduct our own investigation to determine the cause and liability of the tanker crash, and fight to get accident victims the compensation they’re entitled to. For a free consultation with The Husband and Wife Law Team, call (602) 267-1280 today.

source https://www.breyerlaw.com/blog/truck-accident/tanker-crashes-face-worse-hazards/

Are Attorney Ratings Over-rated?

I attended Clio’s conference, ClioCon, recently in New Orleans. I was curious about the Avvo vendor display after their recent acquisition and recent announcements of a settlement with the New York Attorney General in September 2018. The booth was staffed by a Legal Marketing Specialist, who explained that Avvo was still providing marketing services, including attorney ratings as part of their listings. In fact, right after this conference, Avvo announced a rebranding as Martindale-Avvo, with the latter being for attracting more clients with these listings.

I believe that lawyer ratings used for lead generation or advertising to clients need transparency and some oversight. The legal industry’s goal should be to ensure that consumers fully understand the background of the information displayed on the listing along with a few other principles as I discuss below. Consumer protection is imperative and consumers need real ratings and real reviews of attorneys.

No Pay to Play 

Like sponsors of a conference who sell from the stage, payment for listings with ratings and reviews undermines confidence in the information. A google search for lawyer ratings yields three sponsored advertisements that are clearly marked ‘Ad’ followed by paid companies like Avvo & Martindale. However, the average American will not understand that the lawyer listings that follow are paid for by the attorneys. The confusing information is intentionally deceptive.

The best approach to provide some impartiality is to be sure that paid for advertisements are labeled as an advertisement and make sure that ratings and reviews are based on real customer reviews. The should not be advertising or higher ratings based on paying for a service or based on how much of a profile an attorney may complete.

Customer-Driven

Martindale Hubbell Peer Review Ratings have been around for over a century and describe their system as based on client and peer attorney input. The website talks about ratings, using a one to five scale, by clients on the following:

• Communication
• Responsiveness
• Quality
• Value
• Recommend or not.

The notion that clients provide the input is critical to the usefulness of any rating. The peer review rating is not as relevant because consumers are not interested in what lawyers think of each other. Instead, the focus for any feedback system should be impartial data from actual clients. The recent announcement this week of the Martindale-Avvo legal services and ratings has the potential for consumer confusion and deception.

Sufficient Sample Size

One of the aspects for Avvo and other ratings systems, even Yelp, is that the ratings are only averaged, regardless of the volume of reviews. There should be a minimum number of inputs regardless of the type of measure. One or two reviews is not enough for any meaningful calculations, qualitative information perhaps, but not ratings. Or at a minimum, there should be a note of how many ratings are included for each attorney.

Independence

A recent Twitter chat between lawyers read as follows, “Where AVVO falls down is in the verification and execution of its rating system that leads to gaming of it.” As I outlined above, the public needs transparency with an adequate amount of data as input to arrive at true and meaningful ratings. An overarching requirement is some type of independent validation of the entire system to ensure that the client reviews are genuine.

Use Net Promoter Score (NPS) or Customer Satisfaction Score (CSAT)

To achieve much of the above, a lawyer or firm should be gathering actual reviews based on an appropriate number of Net Promoter Score (NP)S results. I have written before here about how this simple metric can be a powerful indicator of client experience. Although, some of the above companies are using rating systems, those are different from the core principle of NPS; how likely the client is to recommend the firm to others. NPS or CSAT is client driven only.  It is real numbers based on real results from real clients. It is not something an attorney or law firm can pay for.

Also, the feedback from NPS can be used for training and continuous improvement. In the end, the goal of these rating systems should be to improve the profession and the image of attorneys.

The post Are Attorney Ratings Over-rated? appeared first on Law Technology Today.

source http://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2018/11/are-attorney-ratings-over-rated/

Woman Blinded by Unproven Stem Cell Procedure, Lawsuit Claims

All the damage relief in the world won't bring back Doris Tyler's eyesight. Tyler became blind after undergoing a stem cell procedure for Macular Degeneration (MD), a disease that affects about 10 million Americans. Though her vision was fading, she could still function and enjoy life. She wanted her full eyesight back, and was willing to take some chances. She was told by her doctor the worst that could happen was the treatment wouldn't work. He was wrong, and now she is permanently blind, and suing for misrepresentation.

Experimental Procedure Gone Bad

Tyler paid $8,900 for an experimental procedure in which her doctors made a stem cell cocktail from fat tissue taken from her abdomen. This solution was later injected into Doris's eyes by an eye surgeon. Two weeks after the injection, she was totally blind. Her retinas detached from the stem cell injections. She later learned she was the clinic's first MD patient.

Lawsuit Names Clinic and Its Affiliate as Defendants

The Tylers filed a lawsuit against the clinic that performed the eye surgery, as well as its affiliate, the Cell Surgical Network. The suit claims the risk of danger from the procedure "outweighs the non-existent benefits of a therapy with no evidence of therapeutic value." This isn't the first lawsuit Cell Surgical Network has been hit with. The Justice Department sued the Cell Surgical Network and a different provider, accusing them of a "persistent refusal to comply with the law" and seeking to prevent them "from experimenting on patients."

Misleading Stem Cell Claims Abound

Though stem cells have been touted to be a potential cure-all for around a thousand different ailments, clinical trials have only been conducted on a handful of diseases, such as childhood leukemia and Alzheimer's. The FDA even issued a consumer warning in 2017 that the only FDA-approved use of stem cells in the United States consists of blood-forming stem cells from umbilical cords, not from fat cells. Yet there are thousands of stem cell clinics conducting unverified procedures, such as this, leaving people permanently disabled, like Doris Tyler.

If you or someone you love has been injured by a stem cell procedure, contact a local medical malpractice attorney. Numerous patients are being handed false claims about the wonders of stem cell procedures, but unfortunately there is very little scientific data to back these claims. An experienced lawyer can help discuss the specifics of your case, and offer you alternatives to help you get compensation for your injuries.

Related Resources:

• Find a Medical Malpractice Attorney Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• Stemgenex Battles FDA, Its Own Customers Over Unapproved Stem Cell Treatments (FindLaw Injured)
• Can You Sue a Doctor for Lying? (FindLaw Injured)

source http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/11/woman-blinded-by-unproven-stem-cell-procedure-lawsuit-claims.html

Is ICE Liable for Detention Center Sexual Assault?

According to recent investigation into sexual abuse in immigration detention, 1,448 allegations of sexual abuse have been filed against Immigration and Customs Enforcement over the past six years, with 237 allegations of sexual abuse in immigration detention facilities in 2017 alone. One such case in 2014 involved a detention center employee grooming and assaulting a 19-year-old mother in a Pennsylvania ICE facility.

Although any sexual contact between correctional facility staff and people in custody is illegal under federal and state law, the facility is claiming it can't be held liable for the assaults because it is an immigration facility (as opposed to a jail or prison) and that the sexual encounters were consensual.

Prison Predator

As the ACLU points out, state and federal statutes criminalize even consensual sex between staff and prisoners: "These laws recognize that any sexual activity between detainees and detention facility staff, with or without the use of force, is unlawful because of the inherent power imbalance when people are in custody." But what occurred between one detainee (referred to as only E.D. in legal filings) and former Berks County Residential Center-Immigration Family Center worker Daniel Sharkey doesn't even sound consensual.

According to filings in E.D.'s lawsuit against Sharkey, the detention center, and ICE, Sharkey attempted to befriend and groom E.D. shortly after her arrival at the center "by giving her and her son treats, such as chocolate and extra food" and "allowing her to use his cell phone to call her mother and take pictures, and giving her and her son toys and clothes." This escalated to more aggressive sexual overtures, forced sexual intercourse, and threats that if E.D. told anyone about their relationship "she would be deported back to Honduras."

Other staff, however, were well aware of the sexual conduct, and did nothing. Sharkey's employment at the facility ended, according to the lawsuit, "[a]fter an incident in August 2014 where Sharkey unsuccessfully attempted to pull down E.D.'s pants because she refused to submit." He eventually pled guilty to criminal institutional sexual assault under Pennsylvania law.

ICE Immunity

Still, ICE claims it should be granted qualified immunity from civil liability because E.D. was an immigration detainee, not a prisoner; and because she was not physically forced to have sex. Employers have long been held liable for the acts of their employees, and correctional facilities can be held liable for sexual assaults by their staff. While ICE claims its family detention center is not a prison -- and should therefore not be liable under the same state or federal laws -- the ACLU argues otherwise:

Immigrants in family detention are particularly vulnerable to abuse. Various investigations have concluded that ICE family detention facilities fail to meet basic constitutional and human rights standards for access to child care, medical and mental health care, and legal assistance, among other issues

The ACLU also points out that the inherent power inequalities in custodial settings "nullifies confined persons' apparent consent to sexual contact with custodians," meaning that E.D. could not have truly consented to any sexual intercourse. Whether ICE and other immigration detention center staff will be legally liable for the criminal sexual assaults by staff will be up to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and this case could have significant ramifications for other litigation against ICE.

Related Resources:

• Find Personal Injury Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• Civil Lawsuits for Sexual Assault, Harassment: Top 10 Cases and Questions (FindLaw's Injured)
• Student Wins $5M Settlement in Math Teacher Sexual Abuse Case (FindLaw's Injured)
• Uber Sued After Driver's Multiple Sexual Assaults (FindLaw's Injured)

source http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/11/is-ice-liable-for-detention-center-sexual-assault.html

TECHREPORT 2018: Practice Management

The Practice Management report is sponsored by Thomson Reuters.

 

The annual ABA TECHREPORT combines data from the annual Legal Technology Survey Report with expert analysis, observations, and predictions from leaders in the legal technology field. For the first time, we are bringing TECHREPORT to Law Technology Today for you. Every Monday we’ll be posting a new report from one of our experts, so stay tuned!

In last year’s TECHREPORT, we noted that the profession’s adoption of practice management tools had slowed to a crawl. After several years of increasing uptake, this year’s numbers confirm the narrative that a plateau has been reached for now. “Peak legal technology” is the order of the day, barring a sea change in demographics or a disrupting event.

Usage and Adoption of Practice Management Tools

Attorneys continue to use practice management software at a steady rate at firms of all sizes. Attorneys at solos and small law firms report usage at around 30% to 35%, which has held steady for several years. Among law firms larger than 10 lawyers, the high 62% usage among firms with 10-49 attorneys and 51% usage among firms with 100+ attorneys in 2016 were mere blips. The general trend has held steady at 33% and 22% respectively with little change over the last handful of years (disregarding the 2016 blips).

Most attorneys are satisfied with the practice management software they use, as 32% reported “very satisfied” with the features and functions therein and 61% reporting “somewhat satisfied,” for a total of 93% that were somewhat or more satisfied. This is not surprising. Practice management software offers a myriad of advantages over the old ways, including an efficient way to docket, bill, manage timelines, build contacts, and store documents within one application. It is also a gateway to a paperless practice.

With such high satisfaction levels, one can only speculate as to why the adoption of practice management software has plateaued. Is the inertia of the status quo (practicing without this technology) simply too much to overcome? Is the up-front cost in time and effort to change to a new way of practice too daunting? Presumably, given the steady usage numbers, practice management software does offer value for money.

Room for Improvement—and for Disruptors

The true one-stop shop is still missing. Some practice management software includes built-in accounting, some offer built-in timelines from local court rules, some have robust document management systems, and some have great collaboration tools. But not one has everything under one umbrella. There is room for improvement, and integration with other applications can range from smooth to rickety, with no standard for what “integration” truly means nor what levels of integration are appropriate. This leads to a common refrain from attorneys trying to figure out which is best for them: it is difficult to impossible to compare different practice management software given the lack of standards.

In the meantime, the public (“non-lawyers”) are catching up. Apps for legal tasks are made available for free or minimum charge. The market for legal services at the bottom end, previously unmet, are gaining traction to the point where there is likely an invasion into legal services provided at the higher (more expensive) end. This continues to put pressure on attorneys to provide efficient and cost-effective lawyering through technology like practice management software.

Managing Clients and Conflicts

In the absence of the one-size-fits-all solution, dedicated customer relationship management software (“CRM”), document management, and conflicts products are potentially easier to implement and they provide more robust solutions. Following the theme of this report, the use of these systems has remained steady, neither trending significantly up nor down.

Metadata Removal

Bucking the steady-ship trend, metadata removal software availability is slowly rising. This is good news as privacy and confidentiality have become bigger issues. With the implementation of GDPR best practices, it is perhaps only a matter of time before attorneys are expected to take steps like metadata removal to protect the privacy of their clients.

Tablets are Laptops are Tablets are Laptops

The line between tablets and laptops is blurring. The Microsoft Surface has steadily grown in availability at law firms every year since 2015, from 12% to a high of 22% in 2018. Competitors are popping up everywhere with tablets and attachable keyboards. Those not providing the power of a laptop within a tablet are likely going to see market share and usage fall.

Tablet use among attorneys at every firm size spiked in 2016, but it did not stick among solos and small firms (which peaked at 57% in 2016 and fell back down to 47% in 2018). Meanwhile, tablet use has increased markedly among large law firms, from a low of 32% in 2015 to a high of 53% in 2018 for firms of 100-499 attorneys. Firms of 500+ also peaked at 39% usage. The Apple iPad continues to dominate the scene, with 77% of respondents reporting it was available at their firms, followed by the Microsoft Surface (22%), the Samsung Galaxy (6% and falling every year), and the Amazon Kindle Fire (3%).

The usage of tablets among the large firms is interesting. Is it because large firm attorneys travel often and enjoy the portability of tablets? Is it the ease of use of conducting large trials and transactions on a tablet? Is it the growth of legal apps that can be run on a tablet? Is it the rise of tablets becoming the equivalent to laptops such as the Microsoft Surface? It certainly appears as though the trend will hold. The soothsayer here says don’t be surprised when tablets and laptops refer to the same thing, sooner rather than later.

Remote Access On The Rise

Remote access is slowly taking shape among solos and small firms. The anecdotal demand from millennials to be able to telecommute is showing up in the numbers, with usage among solos rising from 38% in 2015 to 46% in 2018, and from 58% in 2015 to 68% in 2018 among firms with 2-9 attorneys. About time!

Curiously, a downward trend in remote access for larger firms is showing, from a high of 87% in 2015 to a low of 79% in 2018 among attorneys of 10-49, and from a high of 94% in 2016 to a low of 88% in 2018. Perhaps while working remotely has high rewards, there is a limit to just how much work one can do outside of the office.

Fees and Time Management

A word on fees. Law firms continue to report hourly fees as the most popular (69%), followed by fixed fees (15%), contingent (11%), retainer (4%), and other (1%). This is almost identical to last year.

Despite the popular discussions surrounding the need and growth of alternative fee arrangements like fixed fees, this does not seem to be borne out by the numbers. Has the alternative fee revolution reached a plateau? Before speculation begins as to why, this is one to watch in the years to come.

In a nod to practicality, electronic billing software continues to trend upward among solos and small firms generally. This is no surprise as the benefits are indisputable. Both law firms and clients like accurate accounting, and electronic billing software allows for regular billing intervals which means happier clients (yes, clients like to know you are working on their file regularly and how much it’s costing them on a regular basis!).

Rules-based docketing has seen increased use among small firms, topping out at 40% in 2018. These are incredibly useful to keep deadlines in check. It is good to see that even amongst the biggest law firms, rules-based docketing remains steady (and has not declined), indicating the value in the software. Will solos step up in the next year?

Conclusion

With few exceptions, the use of technology has not taken any large steps in recent years. Even alternative fee billing has not seen a rise. Law firm technology has been around long enough now that attorneys know what is available. It seems attorneys that wanted to change and upgrade made the change, and those that didn’t have remained behind. Perhaps the onus falls on the producers as much as on the users: an iPad-like user-friendly interface is still sought out, a layman looking at the front page of a practice management or document management software may be more intimidated than impressed, and security and speed remain question marks among the uninitiated. The world keeps turning, though, and one can only assume that those who turn with it, by adapting the technology according to the market, will be less dizzy.

Watch a video from our sponsors!

The post TECHREPORT 2018: Practice Management appeared first on Law Technology Today.

source http://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2018/11/techreport-2018-practice-management/

Microblading -- Hot Trend With Burning Effects

Microblading is one of the hottest trends in the beauty industry, but one woman could barely stand the heat. After her microblading artist botched one of her eyebrows, she attempted to have the error removed, only to exclaim, "it felt like my skin was melting off."

Microblading: The Leading Edge of Beauty

Microblading is a form of semi-permanent eyebrow tattooing that has taken the world by storm the past few years. Microblading artists draw or fill in eyebrows using a free-hand style, and then use special microblading tools to needle in the design. Linda Le, an Ohio resident, found a Groupon offering a good discount on the service with Hanin Hamid, owner of Hanin Artistry in Fairview Park, Ohio, and decided to take the beauty plunge. But she may live to regret that after suffering what might be permanent facial scarring. She's filed suit against the microblading technician for negligence.

Beauty Is in the Eye(Brow) of the Beholder

Le looked at a lot of photos Hamid had in her gallery of microblading. and they talked at great length before starting the procedure. Once the eyebrows were drawn on, Le commented that one of the eyebrows had a funny arch to it. After the needling procedure, the brow on the left was slightly higher and more arched than the one on the right. According to Le, "She kept telling me it's not a big deal; it's a very easy fix."

The "Fix" May Have Been Easy for Artist, but Not the Client

The "fix" turned out to be a very painful removal process, According to Le the process resulted in extreme pain, blistering and crusting. Le said, "I didn't know she was actually putting like an acid on my face. I didn't know it would be so harsh to my skin. It felt like my skin was melting off." According to Le's attorney, Le has seen a plastic surgeon, and was told there's no medical solution for her, and the scarring on her face may never go away.

Microblading removal usually consists of either laser removal, similar to removing a tattoo, or the use of saline solutions. It appears a saline solution was used, but since Le described the feeling as acidic, who knows what was placed on her face. Perhaps we will know soon, as the lawsuit discovery gets under way.

If you feel like you have had a beautician visit go awry, contact a personal injury attorney. Accidents happen, that's why there's a saying for it. But you shouldn't have to bear the entire brunt of an accident that wasn't your fault. Contact a local personal injury lawyer to discuss the facts of your case and see if you can get some legal relief for your beauty mishap.

Related Resources:

• Find a Personal Injury Attorney Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• Nail Salon Injury May Require Finger Amputation, Woman Claims (FindLaw Injured)
• Tattoo (and Tattoo Removal) Fails: Can You Sue? (FindLaw Injured)

source http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/11/microblading-hot-trend-with-burning-effects.html

Are Children With ADHD at Higher Risk of Child Injury?

New Study Links ADHD Diagnosis to Increased Risk of Child Injury

If your child has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), is your son or daughter also at greater risk of sustaining a child injury? According to a recent study published in the journal Child: Care, Health & Development, children and teenagers who suffer from ADHD may be at increased risk of suffering child injuries. More specifically, those kids are “more likely to suffer a broken bone, sustain a burn, or become the victim of an accidental poisoning.” The authors of the study emphasize that pediatricians and other healthcare professionals need to provide parents with more information about how ADHD can increase injury risks at the time a child is diagnosed, as well as to give the parents information about steps to take in order to prevent serious injuries. If your child has experienced an injury that may be due to another person’s negligence, contact a child injury lawyer.

The researchers suggest that, because accidental injuries are a leading cause of death among children, learning more about how these accidents happen and which kids might be at greater risk is important to preventing these accidents altogether. Additionally, it is important to understand what to do after an accident has occurred. If your child was injured as a result of an accident, consult with a child injury attorney.  

In addition to providing parents with information about injury risks at the time of an ADHD diagnosis, the researchers also suggest that there is a responsibility for healthcare providers to follow up with parents and to continue educating families about injury avoidance. Yet, as the article emphasizes, “the American Academy of Pediatrics does not currently recommend counseling parents and caregivers on the risk of injury.” The authors of the study suggest that the AAP should change its position.

Getting the Facts About Child Injuries

To conduct the study on ADHD and child injuries, the researchers examined healthcare and injury data from younger kids and teenagers between the ages of 3 and 17. Then, they looked specifically at information concerning the three types of injuries listed above – fractures, burns, and accidental poisonings. Here is what they found regarding those injuries and kids with ADHD:

• They are four times more likely to suffer injuries from an accidental poisoning;
• They are two times more likely to suffer burn injuries; and
• They have a 25% increased risk of suffering a fracture or broken bone.

What else should parents know about child injuries? The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides some of the following facts and figures:

• Every year more than 12,000 kids in the U.S. die as a result of unintentional injuries, while at least 9.2 million require treatment in emergency departments for nonfatal injuries;
• Males are at higher risk of suffering an unintentional injury than females;
• Transportation-related injuries are the leading cause of fatal injuries in children;
• Suffocation deaths are most common in young children under the age of 1;
• Drowning is the most frequent cause of accidental death among kids aged 1 to 4;
• Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children aged 5 and older; and
• Falls are one of the most common causes of nonfatal injuries among kids of all age groups.

Was your child injured in an accident? You should speak with an experienced child injury lawyer about the possibility of filing a personal injury claim.

The post Are Children With ADHD at Higher Risk of Child Injury? appeared first on The Rothenberg Law Firm LLP - The Rothenberg Law Firm LLP.

source https://www.injurylawyer.com/accidents/are-children-with-adhd-at-higher-risk-of-child-injury/