There is a longstanding crisis of extreme medical neglect in New Mexico prisons and jails. Unfortunately, the crisis is not improving but growing worse.

Albuquerque, NM -- (ReleaseWire) -- 02/21/2022 -- Extreme medical neglect in New Mexico prisons and jails is the rule rather than the exception. This has long been the case. Unfortunately, although the patterns have been perfectly clear to anybody paying attention, the patterns were not sufficiently clear to overcome dismissal in federal court. This is changing for New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD), the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) and their medical contractors.

Press Coverage of Extreme Medical Neglect

The local press in Albuquerque and Santa Fe have chronicled the abuses of NMCD and MDC. Over the course of the last 4 years, a number of the articles in the New Mexico press have addressed the prison medical neglect cases filed by the Albuquerque law firm Collins & Collins, P.C. The firm has filed over 30 lawsuits against New Mexico prisons, jails and their prison medical contractors with many more to come. The bulk of these have been against NMCD. However, the medical conditions, based upon local reporting and statements by a former MDC nurse who worked for the current medical provider and the prior medical provider, illustrate shockingly deficient medical care at MDC. Due to the medical conditions at MDC, it should be expected that there will be growing numbers of lawsuits filed against MDC and Bernalillo County. Parrish Collins of Collins & Collins reports that the call volume and the case intake for MDC inmates has gone up dramatically over the last year or so reflecting the precisely what the press and the former nurse have reported.

Clear Patterns of Extreme Medical Neglect of Infections

The 30 plus lawsuits filed by Collins & Collins, P.C. alone show patterns and practices of deliberate and pervasive medical neglect by NMCD and its medical contractors. Many of the lawsuits involve emergent infections that are ignored by the prison medical contractors for days, weeks and months. The inmates complain of severe pain. Other inmates intervene on their behalf attempting to get medical attention. Many of the inmates become completely immobilized unable to walk and some unable to get out of bed. Yet, according to the lawsuits, the easily treated and managed infections are ignored until the inmate is near death at which point the patient inmate is finally sent to the hospital. The end result is weeks or even months of hospitalizations, permanent and severe physical injuries, and in far too many cases death. Inmates report that the only way to get serious attention to an emergent infection is to claim IV drug use even when the inmate is not an IV drug user. Inmates then are forced to face disciplinary issues for IV drug use in order to get attention for emergent and potentially deadly infections. The infections invade the spines, hearts, bones, and even brains of inmates causing severe harm and/or death.

Clear Patterns of Extreme Neglect of Severe Mental Health Issues

Other suits involve complete neglect of severe mental health issues. The neglect is the result of indifference, incompetence and severely deficient mental health services staffing. Rather than provide proper treatment, inmates have reported to Collins & Collins, P.C. that they are ridiculed and even encouraged to attempt to take their own lives. Numerous inmates have reported that guards tell them the only way the inmate will be seen by a mental health provider is to attempt suicide. Even then, judging by the lawsuits filed by Collins & Collins, P.C., it is as likely as not that the inmate will not receive mental health services but instead be placed in solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is considered psychological torture in most societies and the United Nations, yet it is used routinely by NMCD for inmates suffering severe mental health crisis. Resulting suicides are perfectly predictable. In fact, if anything, its is surprising that there are not more.

Clear Patterns of Chronic Understaffing
NMCD and MDC are chronically understaffed. This includes severe understaffing of correctional staff, medical staff and mental health staff. Staffing shortages are and have been the rule for years. It is not due to lack of funding. NMCD and MDC are very well funded. In particular, the medical contracts are extremely generous to the contractors representing among the largest budget line items for counties and the State of New Mexico. The lawsuits filed by Collins & Collins, P.C. illustrate a clear pattern of indifference to the health and safety of inmates. This is true of NMCD, MDC and their medical contractors. It is not getting better. It is getting worse by the day.

Patterns of Recklessly Negligent and Deliberately Indifferent Refusal of Proper Medical Care

The many lawsuits filed and to be filed by Collins & Collins, P.C. along with other lawsuits filed in New Mexico will be used to illustrate pervasive and persistent patterns of extreme medical neglect at NMCD and MDC. These cases along with cases around the country against the same shamelessly profit driven medical contractors should go a long way toward avoiding dismissal in federal court and likewise for cases to be filed under the New Mexico Civil Rights Act.

No matter how many suits are filed, NMCD and MDC refuse to change their ways or to exert even minimal control over their prison contractors. The refusal represents reckless indifference to the health, safety and lives of inmates. "Deliberate indifference" is the standard for federal court. Taking just the cases filed by Collins & Collins, P.C, the presence of deliberate indifference is hardly disputable at this point.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

Victims of police and jail abuse no longer forced to bring lawsuits on home-court of counties or other local governmental entities.

Albuquerque, NM -- (ReleaseWire) -- 08/05/2021 -- One of the biggest challenges in claims against counties under the Tort Claims Act has always been the venue requirements. The venue requirements have forced plaintiffs in personal injury and wrongful death claims against counties to file their lawsuits in the county itself. This has too often resulted in home-town justice.

Fortunately, this often harsh venue requirement is absent from the New Mexico Civil Rights Act.

New Mexico Tort Claims Act Venue Requirement

It should be noted that there are different venue requirements for lawsuits against the State of New Mexico and its agencies, and the venue requirements for claims against a county. Venue for lawsuits against the State of New Mexico is always proper in Santa Fe. However, for lawsuits against New Mexico counites, the suits must be brought in the county itself as stated by N.M. Stat. Ann. § 41-4-18: "Venue for all other claims pursuant to the Tort Claims Act, shall be in the county in which the principal offices of the governing body of the local public body are located."

As one might imagine, and for good reason, filing suit against a county in the county itself can and does result in what some might call home-town advantage to the county. The problem is particularly problematic in some of the counties that border Texas which seem at times to have adopted Texas style justice which is not at all friendly to personal injury and wrongful death victims or their families. These courts can be particularly unfair to victims of police and jail abuse.

Venue Under the New Mexico Civil Rights Act

There is no such home-town advantage for counties under the New Mexico Civil Rights Act. Under House Bill 4 (not yet been codified into a New Mexico statute), the venue for a civil rights lawsuit under the New Mexico Civil Rights Act (H.B. 4) against any public entity is proper in any New Mexico District Court:

"B. A person who claims to have suffered a deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities pursuant to the bill of rights of the constitution of New Mexico due to acts or omissions of a public body or person acting on behalf of, under color of or within the course and scope of the authority of a public body may maintain an action to establish liability and recover actual damages and equitable or injunctive relief in any New Mexico district court." NM LEGIS 119 (2021), 2021 New Mexico Laws Ch. 119 (H.B. 4)

The language in H.B. 4, Paragraph B means that these cases can be brought anywhere in the State. Plaintiffs need no longer subject themselves to Texas style justice on the Texas border or anywhere else.

Unanswered Liability Caps Questions Regarding Venue

One interesting as of yet unanswered question regarding venue is the question of liability caps on these cases. Liability caps set a limit on the amount that a personal injury or wrongful death victim can obtain through court. Under the Tort Claims Act, the cap is $700,000 for personal injury claims but only $400,000 for wrongful death claims. This is due to the allowance of up to $300,000 past and future medical expenses that may not be present in a wrongful death lawsuit. Either way, the Tort Claims Act cap on liability for governmental entities is obscenely low.

The New Mexico Civil Rights Act raised the cap to $2 million per occurrence. In addition, the $2 million is not exclusive of other remedies or damages. In other words, a person injured by a governmental entity for civil rights abuses such as a police misconduct or jail misconduct can still seek the full cap under the Tort Claims Act above and beyond the $2 million caps under the Civil Rights Act.

The question that has yet to be answered is whether a plaintiff will be forced to file the Tort Claims separately in the subject county or whether the plaintiff will be able to file both the civil rights claims and tort claims in a county where home-court biases of local jurors and judges can be avoided and justice for the victim is possible.

Risks Associated with Filing Suit in Unfavorable Venues

Like the federal courts, police and jail misconduct lawsuits are viewed with disfavor in some counties. There is a very real risk of getting home-towned in some counties if civil rights lawsuits under the New Mexico Civil Rights Act are filed there. It would be perhaps unwise to do so when an alternative more favorable venue is available. This is particularly so given the $2 million caps under the Civil Rights Act. The $400,000 cap on wrongful death claims under the Tort Claims Act would make it exceedingly unwise to proceed in a county unfriendly to victims of police or jail abuse unless this was the only possible venue. Fortunately, this is no longer the case. Filing in a court more prone to do justice in these cases is now allowed and will soon become the norm.

It is a new day in New Mexico for civil rights claims for victims of governmental abuse, including those perpetrated by county jails and local police.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

The doctrine of negligent entrustment has been extended by the New Mexico Supreme court to cover the sale of gasoline to a drunk drivers.

Albuquerque, NM -- (ReleaseWire) -- 08/02/2021 -- The question presented to the New Mexico Supreme Court was simple yet had not been addressed in the past: Does a gas station have a duty of care to third parties to refrain from selling gas to obviously intoxicated drivers? The New Mexico Supreme Court drawing on prior law and what would seem to be basic common sense to find that indeed there is such a duty.

The basic facts are as follows. Two intoxicated patrons entered a gas station. They arrived at the gas station without a vehicle or even a gas can to fill. Instead, in the presence of the clerk, they emptied a gallon of water so they could fill it with gas. Initially, knowing the two were intoxicated, the clerk refused to sell them anything but later relented selling them the gallon of gas with which they returned to their vehicle on foot. The two intoxicated individuals then returned to the same gas station and purchased additional gasoline. After dropping off his passenger, the driver then had a head-on collision with another vehicle killing the driver of that vehicle.

A lawsuit was filed in federal court because the defendant was a tribally owned entity. The federal court recognized New Mexico's doctrine on negligent entrustment of chattel property. Chattel property is simply property that is not land or real estate. Under negligent entrustment, an owner or controller of chattel has "a duty to others not to give control of a dangerous instrumentality to a person incapable of using it carefully." The federal court recognized also that there was no clear New Mexico law on whether the sell of gasoline fell under the doctrine and sent the case to the New Mexico Supreme Court for a ruling on the issue.

New Mexico has long recognized the doctrine of negligent entrustment of chattel as a viable legal claim. Thus, the key element is negligence, and it is clearly negligent to allow someone to use your property knowing that the person will use it negligently or recklessly creating an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

There is a general doctrine of reasonable care which places a duty on individuals, entities and groups to exercise reasonable care in dealings and activities with the public. Until Morris v. Giant, there was no specific law or case-law finding a duty not to sell gasoline to intoxicated drivers. The Court In Morris v. Giant reiterated prior case-law recognizing that a duty of care should be found only when public policy considerations suggest the necessity of the duty. Moreover, the existence of a duty is not determined by foreseeability of harm which is a question for the jury. Instead, the existence of the duty must be determined as a matter of law which in turn is a matter of public policy.

There are numerous cases expressing public policy on the matter of negligent entrustment. In automobile cases, it is negligent, and one may be held liable for any automobile accident allowing someone that the owner of the vehicle knows to be drunk, reckless or otherwise incompetent to operate a vehicle. Dram shop laws prohibit bar and restaurant staff from serving obviously intoxicated patrons. These same laws apply to homeowners hosting parties with alcohol. In fact, the cases go so far as to provide for claims by the drunk patron or guest himself if he gets in a car accident. New Mexico has clearly expressed a public policy of reducing DWI accidents in the State. In fact, dram shop laws are extremely broad allowing for numerous possible claims for service of drunk patron or guest.

It is important to note that there is no duty to investigate whether a customer or patron is intoxicated. In other words, neither bar, restaurant, homeowners nor gas station attendants must test the customer's blood alcohol or conduct field sobriety tests on the customer. However, it is pretty well established both by common sense and law that one need not be police officer or other professional to tell when someone is showing signs intoxication. Whether or not the gas station attendant, just like bartenders, wait staff or homeowners, knew or should have known the person was intoxicated will be a fact question for the jury. If a person is drunk and gets behind the wheel, it is beyond debate that this would present a foreseeable risks of harm to others.

There has already been a bit of an uproar over the decision. Basic common sense and law suggests the outcome of the case is proper and justified. With the law as stated, it seems clear that the entrustment of gasoline which is chattel would be covered. Why should gas stations be immune from the doctrine of negligent entrustment? The burden is not great. It simply requires that an attendant not sell gasoline to an obviously drunk driver. The pushback will come primarily from the oil and gas industry along with its retail gasoline outlets. So perhaps, it is the sale of gasoline that is sacred and somehow immune from the rules that the rest of society must follow. In the case of gasoline, would it not be negligent and actionable to sell gasoline to a known arsonist? So too is it negligent to sell gasoline to someone who is clearly intoxicated as the risks are equally grave.

Morris v. Giant is a good and long overdue decision. It should in some measure lead to safer roads for everyone in New Mexico.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

Albuquerque, NM -- (ReleaseWire) -- 07/29/2021 -- A report from the Albuquerque Journal indicates that nine inmates died while in the custody of the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) during the prior August 2020 to January 2021. At least 72 inmates died in the custody of NMCD from June 2016 to November 2019.

What is the common denominator in all these deaths? Centurion Correctional Healthcare of New Mexico (Centurion) was the medical contractor providing medical care to those deceased inmates. The question is whether or not this is purely coincidental?

Centurion Lawsuits
As of the writing of this article, Collins & Collins, P.C. has filed 18 lawsuits against Centurion. The most recent lawsuit filed by the firm, Estate of Samuel Bryant v. Centurion, Bernalillo County, et al, involved a detox death at MDC. Sadly, again according to the Albuquerque Journal, Samuel was one of six MDC inmates that died during detox.  One detox death is inexcusable.  Six approaches criminality.  Until that lawsuit, the firm had not filed any lawsuits against MDC. Rather, the lawsuits were limited to New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD).

Centurion according to the contract with MDC took over medical care at the facility on January 1, 2020 with a first year compensation base of $13 million. These 18 lawsuits will by no means be the last. It is expected that there will be additional lawsuits arising out of Centurion's medical services at MDC. Likewise, there will likely be additional lawsuits arising out of NMCD medical care despite the fact that Centurion vacated the contract in November 2019.

Centurion Vacated NMCD Contract Early
The original contract between NMCD and Centurion was for 3 years. The term had been extended for one year so the contract should have ended around June of 2020. However, Centurion as mentioned above vacated early in November 2019.

Centurion Vacating MDC Contract Early
According to press reports, Centurion will be vacating the MDC early as well.  The contract with MDC was for 4 years. Assuming the press reports are accurate, Centurion will be leaving about 2.5 years early on its 4 year contract. It is not known yet why Centurion is leaving but that is certainly something that Collins & Collins, P.C. will be exploring in its most recent lawsuit against MDC and Centurion.

Centurion Cannot Exit New Mexico Soon Enough
Centurion's performance in New Mexico prisons and jails is appalling to say the least. This can be judged purely on the basis of the number of deaths at NMCD and MDC under Centurion's medical watch. However, it is much worse than that. The clients of Collins & Collins, P.C. have suffered severe and permanent injuries at best while a number have died under the care of Centurion. Keep in mind that Collins & Collins, P.C. is a small firm among many law firms in New Mexico. There have been many other suits filed by other firms with equally devastating and avoidable injuries arising out of the callous medical neglect of New Mexico inmates.  Likewise, there have been other deaths.  Worse still, the true toll of Centurion's tenure in New Mexico is not known as few inmates actually file suits for many reasons which are beyond the scope of this article.  In addition, NMCD deaths resulting from Centurion's gross incompetence are likely far higher than the 72 identified since deaths that occur outside NMCD premises do not show up in Office the Medical Investigator reports.

The toll on inmates and their families is incomprehensible.  The toll on New Mexico taxpayers has not been measured but the costs associated with medical neglect in NMCD facilities is enormous.

Prison and Jail Medical Care Unlikely to Improve

Even if Centurion leaves the state completely, the medical care for New Mexico prison and jail inmates will not improve as things stand now. With regard to the state's prisons, the big problem is NMCD itself. NMCD is a renegade agency, chocked full of corruption, incompetence, and deliberate cruelty. NMCD simply does not care about constitutionally adequate medical care. If it did, why would it keep the same medical providers as the medical contractors come and go. That's right, the individual medical providers, including doctors, physicians assistant, nurses and others, remain the same after one contractor leaves and the next takes over. It is not a change in medical care, it is simply a change in payee on the checks written by the taxpayers of New Mexico. Even worse, the contractors are on a revolving plan. One contractor gets fired or leaves, the next one steps in. This would not be so bad, but NMCD simply fills the slot with medical contractors that had already failed in the State. This will likely be the same with MDC which is illustrated by the fact that MDC hired Centurion to begin with despite the large number of suits filed against Centurion both in New Mexico and other states.

Centurion Involvement Coincidental?
Perhaps coincidental is not the right word. Centurion just happens to be the payee on the checks now written by MDC and formerly the checks written by NMCD. It is not coincidence. It is standard operating procedure on the part of New Mexico prison and jails. They rotate the same bad actor medical contractors from one contract term to the next.  At the same time, the same incompetent and too often deliberately cruel individual medical providers stay in place from one medical contractor to the next.

This is unfortunately the state of prison and jail medical care in New Mexico for the foreseeable future.  This is certainly the case at the present with the successor to Centurion, Wexford, performing as poorly and arguably worse than Centurion.  The beat goes on and this will continue until NMCD is completely overhauled beginning with its contracting practices.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

NMCD Medical Grievance System Has One Goal: Keep Inmates Out of Court.

Albuquerque, NM -- (ReleaseWire) -- 06/28/2021 -- The state of medical care for New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD) inmates is horrendous at best, horrifying at times. The prison medical grievance system is supposed to protect inmates who are not getting constitutionally adequate medical care. It does no such thing. In fact, the medical grievance system itself encourages and perpetuates grossly deficient medical care that is often recklessly incompetent, far too often seemingly intentionally cruel and generally deliberately indifferent to the serious and even life-threatening illnesses.

In short, the NMCD medical grievance system is corrupt and unconstitutional.

Many Lawsuits Filed Against NMCD and Its Medical Providers

Collins & Collins, P.C. has filed numerous lawsuits against NMCD and its medical providers alleging grossly negligent, deliberately indifferent and intentionally cruel failure to provide medical care. Evidence gathered through these lawsuits indicate that not a single inmate medical grievance was found in favor of an inmate by NMCD from June 2016 to November 2019. The firm has been unable to obtain more recent data from NMCD. It is fully expected that the same level of absolute indifference to the medical neglect of NMCD inmates will be found. NMCD simply does not seem to care one way or the other whether inmates are provided constitutionally adequate healthcare.

Purpose of Abuse of Medical Grievance Process is to Deny Inmates Access to Courts

Under both federal and New Mexico law, inmates must exhaust all administrative remedies prior to filing suit in either federal or state court. This is called exhaustion of administrative remedies (exhaustion). In the context of the prison medical grievance process, this means that the inmate must fully complete the medical grievance process. This in turn means filing the right paperwork within the deadlines set by NMCD. The prison medical grievance system is a maze of confusion and obfuscation. It is intentionally so. The point is to set traps for inmates who are rarely educated to the degree necessary to follow the byzantine and often contradictory grievance procedures. If an inmate fails to file all the right paperwork within the deadlines in the form mandated by NMCD, the inmate cannot file suit in court now matter how horrible the medical neglect and consequent injuries to the inmate.

The deliberately confusing and often contradictory grievance procedure requirements are alone sufficient to hold the medical grievance system unconstitutional. However, there is far more to it than that.

Retaliation for Filing Medical Grievance Process

The abuses and obstructions of the medical grievance process are far too numerous to enumerate here. However, they have been enumerated in a lawsuit filed against NMCD by Collins & Collins, P.C. attacking the constitutionality of the medical grievance process. The list of abuses and obstruction is very lengthy though certainly not exhaustive. To view the full magnitude of NMCD abuses in the medical grievance process, view the ETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND TEMPORARY RESTARINING ORDER (PETITION) filed by Collins & Collins, P.C. on May 20, 2021.

NMCD inmates have reported directly to Collins & Collins, P.C. the many abuses and obstructions of the grievance process. One of the most frequently reported abuses is retaliation for filing grievances. It seems that NMCD grievance officers often also serve as disciplinary officers. This is most definitely the case at a number of facilities including Central New Mexico Corrections Facility in Los Lunas, New Mexico. This fact alone suggests that the medical grievance process and procedures are unconstitutional.

Retaliation for Questioning the Constitutionality of NMCD Medical Grievance Process

Collins & Collins, P.C. has significant direct experience with its own clients being retaliated for filing grievances (or for talking to Collins & Collins, P.C. generally). This is in fact what precipitated the PETITION. In fact, the high probability of retaliation for joining in the PETITION is conveyed to the inmates before allowing them to join in the lawsuit. This was done as a matter of both professional ethics and concern for inmates getting into something more than they expected. The inmates are extremely brave in joining the suit, each fully understanding the almost certain retaliation against them for doing so.

In fact, many of the inmates were retaliated against prior to the suit even being filed. Inmates lost privileges, have lost good time and at least one was placed in solitary confinement after her legal mail from Collins & Collins, P.C. was opened and read. This in turn resulted in numerous meetings involving inmates, NMCD and its prison management contractors warning inmates against contacting Collins & Collins, P.C. Surprisingly, these meetings were held in open prison pods with numerous witnesses. NMCD and its contractor have taken to individual interrogation of inmates about their relationship and conversations with Collins & Collins, P.C. The end result of one such interrogation was transfer from Western New Mexico Correctional Facility to Spring Correctional Facility which is facing closure due to its abhorrent conditions. Even more shocking the inmate was placed in solitary confinement upon arrival at Springer.

NMCD Fraud on the Courts

In every case filed by Collins & Collins, P.C., NMCD has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of the lawsuits due to alleged failure of the inmates to exhaust administrative remedies. According to NMCD it seems, no inmate ever files a proper medical grievance. The allegations are clearly fraudulent and in fact NMCD has been caught in its attempted fraud on the courts. However, this is not enough. NMCD should be stopped in its tracks to prevent it from filing these fraudulent Motions for Summary Judgment against inmates. Failure to dismantle the NMCD medical grievance system will allow NMCD to continue its frauds on the court in every inmate lawsuit. Beyond its unconstitutionality, the medical grievance system along with the legal exhaustion requirements places an enormous and unnecessary burden on the Court.

Toss NMCD Medical Grievance System Completely

The entire NMCD medical grievance system must be thrown out. It is a case of the fox guarding the hen house. The entire system is geared toward denying NMCD inmates adequate medical care and then access to the courts when disaster strikes with permanently disabling injuries or death to the inmates. NMCD simply cannot be allowed to continue to control and manage the prison medical grievance process. NMCD's control and management of the prison medical grievance system is an ongoing affront to the New Mexico Constitution, an embarrassment to the State, and an extraordinary burden on New Mexico taxpayers.

This is in fact the goal of the PETITION filed by Collins & Collins, P.C.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

The New Mexico Civil Rights Act is historic and will have profound consequences for the rights New Mexico prison and jail inmates. The Act does not seem terribly complicated but the more you dig down, the more complicated it can become.

Albuquerque, NM -- (ReleaseWire) -- 04/19/2021 -- House Bill 4, the New Mexico Civil Rights Act, was signed into law last week on April 7, 2021. The importance of its passage to the rights of New Mexico prison and jail inmates cannot be overstated. The Act does not go into effect until July 1, 2021. After July 1, it is a whole new ball game for prison and jail inmate medical malpractice lawsuits.

There will be a series of articles following this initial summary to address each individual section and how it will benefit the rights of New Mexico inmates and their families. The article below will provide a quick overview of the most important provisions of the Act so that inmates and their loved ones will know that help is on the way.

Act Applies to Medical Negligence Occurring After July 1, 2021

The Civil Rights Act applies only to actions or inactions in violation of inmate civil rights occurring after July 1, 2021. This is perhaps the most disappointing provision. Collins & Collins, P.C. is evaluating many cases of extreme medical neglect by New Mexico Corrections Department and its contractors. Unfortunately, none of those cases will benefit from the Civil Rights Act.

On the other hand, it is highly doubtful that either NMCD or its medical contractors are capable of improving medical care in NMCD facilities. Nor is NMCD inclined to improve medical care in its facilities even were it capable. The incompetence, cruelty and callousness of NMCD medical care has no bounds. Sadly, it is fully expected that the same extreme medical neglect will continue until NMCD is overhauled at the top which brings us to the last important and disappointing provisions of the Civil Rights Act.

Definition of Public Body

The New Mexico Civil Rights Act allows claims against "public bodies". "Public Body" is defined very much like the definition of public body in the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. Under the Civil Rights Act, public body is defined as:

"state or local government, an advisory board, a commission, an agency or an entity created by the constitution of New Mexico or any branch of government that receives public funding, including political Subdivisions,…"

What this means to New Mexico inmates is that the Civil Rights Act applies to all New Mexico prisons and jails.

New Civil Rights Claims Under New Mexico Constitution

Many would be surprised to learn that until passage of the Civil Rights Act, there was no possibility for a New Mexico inmate to bring civil rights claims under the New Mexico Constitution. This was the case despite the fact that the New Mexico constitution, like the United States Constitution, provides for a basic bill of rights.

For purposes of inmate medical malpractice claims against prisons, jails and their medical contractors, the New Mexico Bill of Rights provides rights against cruel and unusual punishment (Article 13) and due process rights (Article 18). Prior to passage of the New Mexico Civil Rights Act, Articles 13 and 18 were mere words. There was no possibility of enforcing those rights in New Mexico Courts.

Instead, New Mexico inmates suffering extreme medical neglect, were forced to federal court to pursue constitutional claims. Inmate medical neglect claims no matter how extreme face virtually certain dismissal in federal courts due to the impossible burden of overcoming qualified immunity. After July 1, 2021, the New Mexico Constitution will finally have meaning for New Mexico inmates.

Ban on Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity is the greatest abomination in the courts and is largely responsible for the horrendous violations of civil rights that we all routinely see on the nightly news. An end to qualified immunity is perhaps the most important aspect of the New Mexico Civil Rights Act. As mentioned, inmates suffering what may aptly be referred to as medical torture, have never had constitutional rights in state courts. Inmates were forced to federal court where qualified immunity would completely shut down their lawsuits no matter how horrible the medical neglect.

Qualified immunity has literally been a license to kill for prisons, jails, their employees, staff and contractors. This has allowed the daily atrocities committed against New Mexico inmates to go on unabated. There simply was no accountability. The Civil Rights Act will take one big step toward accountability. It is not perfect, but It should make prisons, jails and their medical contractors rethink their approach to inmate medical care. If it doesn't, they will pay a price they have largely escaped in the past.

Recovery of Attorney Fees and Costs

Recovery of attorney fees and costs is very important. in civil rights claims. The recovery of attorney fees and costs is not so important for big cases against the New Mexico prisons and jails. It is far more important to those cases where gross medical neglect has occurred but somehow the inmate managed to avoid severe and permanent harm, or death.

Unfortunately, without severe harm or death, the potential financial recovery under state law for simple medical malpractice was often too small to justify attorney involvement. This is because most attorneys, including Collins & Collins, P.C., take inmate medical negligence cases on contingency meaning they take a percentage of a settlement or judgment.

Inmate medical negligence claims are very expensive to pursue. In addition to the costs of the litigation, these cases take enormous attorney and staff time. Simply put, attorneys could not take on state court medical malpractice cases nor would the cases survive in federal court where attorney fees and costs could theoretically be recovered.

Increase in Caps on Liability

The increase in potential financial liability to public bodies is extremely important for inmate rights. Prior to passage of the Civil Rights Act, the New Mexico Tort Claims Act's limits on recovery in state court for medical malpractice was $400,000 for wrongful death and $700.000 for severe, permanent harm requiring future medical care.

The new limits (caps) are $2 million. In addition, recovery under the Civil Rights Act is not exclusive of other remedies. This means that recovery under the Tort Claims Act is still available allowing up to $2.7 million recovery per "occurrence". Occurrence is not defined, and this will be very hotly contested in future court cases. The other caps issue that will be disputed is whether the caps apply to each defendant meaning that a separate cap would apply to NMCD and to its medical provider, and other NMCD contractors.

3 Year Statute of Limitations

The new 3-year statute of limitations is also very important. The New Mexico Tort Claims Act had a 2-year statute of limitations. However, there was also a Tort Claims Notice Requirement. The Tort Claims Act required a notice to an offending public body within 90 days of the medical negligence for personal injuries and 180 days for wrongful death.

The new 3-year statute of limitations merits additional discussion:

1. There is no Tort Claims Notice requirement for civil rights violations. under the New Mexico Civil Rights Act. There is simply a 3-year statute of limitations.

2. A Tort Claims Notice should still be sent if possible, however, because without it, an inmate cannot gain the potential additional $700,000 recovery under the Tort Claims Act.

3. Inmates must still file medical grievances under New Mexico law. Failure to do so could result in dismissal of medical negligence claims even in state court for civil rights violations.

4. The Civil Rights Act has its own notice provisions.

Required Notice of Claims

Although the 60- or 90-day Tort Claims Notice requirement will no longer be required under the Civil Rights Act, there is a notice requirement. The new requirement is one year from the date of the civil rights violation for personal injury claims and 18 months for wrongful death claims.

There are a couple of exceptions to the notice requirement. First, no notice is required if the public body had "actual knowledge" of the occurrence. Second, the one-year requirement is tolled for up to one year while the injured inmate is incapacitated.

Actual knowledge will be another point of contention that will be hotly litigated in the future. For instance, does a Tort Claims Notice suffice? How about a medial grievance?

Waiver of Sovereign Immunity

The New Mexico Tort Claims Act provided for immunity for lawsuits against public bodies. There were very limited exceptions to sovereign immunity under which inmates could file lawsuits. There is no sovereign immunity under the Civil Rights Act.

Collins & Collins, P.C. has filed many lawsuits against NMCD and its medical contractors that included claims that ended up getting dismissed due to sovereign immunity under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. The gloves are off as of July 1, 2021. For any acts of reckless disregard and deliberate indifference to inmate medical needs occurring after July 1, all of those claims will be added back in.

Indemnification of Bad Actors Limits Full Accountability

This brings us to the next big disappointment under the Civil Rights Act is that public bodies will indemnify the individual bad actors committing the atrocities against New Mexico inmates. This is not so much a problem for most public bodies. It is a huge problem when referring to the New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD).

Real change will not occur until these individuals are held individually accountable without taxpayers bailing them out in the end.

Civil Rights Act is Game Changer for Inmate Medical Malpractice Claims

The medical malpractice lawsuits filed by Collins & Collins, P.C. against New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD) and its medical contractors involve extreme medical neglect, intentional cruelty, absolute callousness toward the illnesses of inmates, and deliberate indifference to inmate medical needs. They all involve violations of the New Mexico Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In most cases, they also involved violations of due process.

In short, the medical negligence in NMCD facilities is so extreme that cases occurring after July 1, 2021 will almost certainly be actionable under the Civil Rights Act in New Mexico state courts. This will change everything for inmates and their families. Collins & Collins, P.C. intends to do everything it can to insure that it does.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

Neglect of inmate mental health is the rule, not the exception in New Mexico Prisons as evidenced by pervasive understaffing of mental health professionals.

Albuquerque, NM -- (ReleaseWire) -- 04/22/2019 -- Prison Suicide Prevention Standards, Policies and Procedures

New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD) policies for the prevention of suicide presumably follow the policies and standards set forth by the American Corrections Association (ACA) and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC). It is not clear from at all from a review of NMCD ACA and NCCHC accreditation that this is in fact the case.

ACA and NCCHC Accreditation Very Important Until June 2016

A casual stroll through NMCD inmate health policies shows countless references to the ACA and NCCHC (NCCHC references have either been deleted are in the process of deletion which will be discussed below). However, the General Services Contract (the Contract) entered in June 2016 between NMCD and its current health care provider, the importance of the ACA and NCCHC was stressed repeatedly. That hasn't changed.

In fact, compliance with the ACA and NCCHC is stated in the opening paragraphs as part of the "goals and requirement" of the contract:

"The goal and requirement of this Agreement is to provide comprehensive health care services, within a secure environment, within available funds, and in accordance with the standards of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC), the American Correctional Association (ACA), current community standards of care, and NMCD procedures contained herein."

Lack of ACA and NCCHC Accreditation Closely Related to Medical and Mental Health Negligence

As we noted in a previous article at least one prison, the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility (CNMCF) was not accredited by the ACA from 2015 forward and did not obtain accreditation until the beginning of 2019. Thus, for nearly four years this facility lacked ACA accreditation. It is no coincidence that this is the same facility where two recent suicides occurred on the same day within hours of each other.

As for accreditation from the NCCHC, Collins & Collins, P.C. has submitted dozens of records requests under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) and as of March 1, 2019 not a single NMCD correctional institution has been accredited by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) since the date of the new contract in June 2016.

In fact, it has been determined through IPRA requests that NMCD decided at some point after June 2016 to cease even seeking NCCHC accreditation. This is remarkable on many counts not the least of which are the repeated provisions of the Contract that mandate NCCHC accreditation.

The lack of respect or concern for the relatively moderate standards of medical and mental health care for inmates established by the ACA and NCCHC is most certainly related to widespread medical negligence and neglect of mental health care in NMCD facilities.

Recent Suicides in NMCD Facilities

On December 2, 2018 two inmates committed suicide in the same correctional facility—on the same day. In a previous article, we began looking at what happened in those two cases. Collins & Collins, P.C. represents the families in both cases and during the initial stages of our investigation and representation there have been multiple red flags. The first item of concern was the notification of designated points of contact in both deaths. Secondly, the fact that the facility, Central New Mexico Correctional Facility, lacked accreditation by both the American Corrections Association (ACA) and National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) raised additional concerns. A third area that caused alarm revolved around the issue of staffing—or, rather, gross understaffing.

Pervasive Mental Health Understaffing in New Mexico Prisons

According to a report from the New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee published on October 23, 2018 and entitled, "Program Evaluation: Corrections Department – Status of Programs to Reduce Recidivism and Oversight of Medical Services" the vacancy rate for Behavioral Health Providers at the CNMCF was 50%.

The Central New Mexico Correctional Facility (CNMCF), where both of the suicides occurred, provides—or is supposed to provide—heightened levels of medical care to inmates with serious medical and mental health needs. Two glaring problems arise here. CNMCF was not ACA accredited from June 2016 until January 2019. CNMCF, along with all other NMCD facilities, has decided not to even seek NCCHC accreditation since June 2016.

It is no coincidence that the legislative finance report referenced above indicates 100% vacancy rate for mental health providers and behavioral health providers at CNMCF as of the date of the report. The problem of gross understaffing goes to the heart of NMCD's indifference to the mental health needs of the state's inmates. This is reflected in NMCD's system-wide understaffing as indicated in the Legislative Report:

"The Corrections Department's Office of the Medical Director, state employees who are responsible for overseeing the care, opportunities and education necessary for patients to improve their health…had a 25 percent vacancy rate as of October 2018. Two vacancies were for nurse auditors to oversee medical service provision. The Mental Health Bureau, responsible for providing services to inmates in state prisons, had a 40 percent total vacancy rate, of which most were behavioral and mental health therapists."

The Costs of Neglect of Inmate Mental Health

The costs of neglecting the mental health of New Mexico prison inmates are many. First and foremost, it is inhumane and barbaric to lock away mentally ill people with no regard to their illnesses or their treatment. This is perhaps most pronounced in the case of solitary confinement (or segregation as those folks who trivialize the inhumanity of the practice like to call it). Fortunately, this issue has been addressed in part by recent legislation signed by Governor Lujan Grisham.

Second, and related to the first, the purpose of criminal punishment in New Mexico is suppose to be rehabilitative. In New Mexico, imprisonment is anything but rehabilitative. The problem is particularly pronounced among mentally ill inmates. Many inmates are in prison chiefly because of their mental illnesses. Rather than address this reality, New Mexico prisons amplify the mental illness through the gross medical neglect of mentally ill inmates.

Lets say finally, but there are many other costs which would require a treatise to address, there is the costs to taxpayers. What is the costs of taking a mentally ill person and making the illness exponentially worse? What is the costs to the inmate? What is the costs to the families? What is the costs to the communities to which inmates almost invariably return? What are the costs to New Mexico taxpayers to address these folks in emergency rooms, future arrests, future incarcerations and future treatment to repair the harm done to them while in prison.

The answers to these questions are fairly apparent and if they do not move the prisons to reform, there is the costs of lawsuits the payouts on any one of which could entirely cover the costs of the understaffing. Yet the cycle continues.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

Albuquerque, NM -- (ReleaseWire) -- 04/15/2019 -- Reporting of Inmate Deaths to Family

The New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD) provides policies regarding what is to happen when an inmate dies, is injured or becomes seriously ill while in custody. Those policies may be referenced on the NMCD web-site under the health services policy section, CD-172100 Notification of Serious Illness, Injury or Death of an Inmate and Procedure in the Event of an Inmate Death. One of the first steps involves providing notification to next of kin or designated contact of the inmate's condition or that he or she has died. Inmates, upon admission to a correctional facility, are required to list an emergency point of contact. NMCD Policy regarding notification of the next of kin reads as follows;

"Whenever possible, NMCD shall immediately notify the next of kin or other person regarding the serious illness, injury or death of an inmate. In notifying these person(s), the warden/ designee is responsible for informing the relative in a manner that is respectful, courteous, compassionate and objective."

It further stipulates that the staff member charged with providing the family with the news shall first consult with appropriate medical staff at the facility before disclosing what has happened. In the event of death, the warden or designee shall inform the family that the inmate has died and that funeral arrangements will be made. The specific form that is to be completed is the Next of Kin Notification CD-172101.1. Despite clear policy direction regarding immediate notification of the next of kin in the event of the death of an inmate, long delays or complete failures in the notification of the designated parties seems to be a frequent occurrence.

Standards, Policies and Procedures

The aforementioned departmental policy on notification and procedure in the event of an inmate death is further shaped by standards set forth by the American Corrections Association (ACA) and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC). The current contractual agreement between the New Mexico Corrections Department and its current private healthcare contractor took effect on June 1, 2016. The contract clearly states the obligations of the private health care services contractor in relation to ACA and NCCHC standards;

"The goal and requirement of this Agreement is to provide comprehensive health care services, within a secure environment, within available funds, and in accordance with the standards of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC), the American Correctional Association (ACA), current community standards of care, and NMCD procedures contained herein."

As we noted in a previous article at least one prison, the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility (CNMCF) was not accredited by the ACA from 2015 forward and did not obtain accreditation until the beginning of 2019. Thus, for nearly four years this facility lacked ACA accreditation. As for accreditation from the NCCHC, Collins & Collins, P.C. has submitted dozens of records requests under the parameters of the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) and as of March 1, 2019 not a single state correctional institution, public or private, has been accredited by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) since the date of the new contract in June 2016.

NMCD Standards and Policies Derive from ACA

In the aforementioned NMCD policy section on the procedures relating to the death of an inmate, the applicable ACA Standards are drawn from the ACA Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions, 4th Edition; 4-4395, 4- 4410 and 4-4425. The first of these specifies that a process for the notification of designated individuals must be in place, paralleling NMCD policy. ACA Mandatory Standard 4-4410 "Internal Review and Quality Assurance" provides a number of very specific elements that should be in place at facilities and notes that, "A system of well-documented internal review will be developed and implemented by the health authority".

Policy and Procedure in the Event of an Inmate Suicide

In the event of an inmate suicide, there are a couple of levels of review. The first is the Suicide Review Committee. The second is the Joint Mortality Review Committee (JMRC). The requirements of both are set forth below.

NMCD Suicide Review Committee (SRC)

In the event of a suicide, NMCD policy stipulates that a Suicide Review Committee (SRC) shall be convened within 30 days of the inmate's death and the committee will be comprised of the following members; "NMCD Psychologist, Contract Facility Health Administrator, Warden or designee and other selected staff as needed."

The Suicide Review Committee (SRC), according to policy, is to complete the following steps in its review:

Review the medical records and the mental health section of the medical record, including autopsy and toxicology reports, if available.

(1) Review any reports, including information reports, investigation reports, and any NMCD documents relevant to the incident.

(2) Make recommendation concerning disciplinary actions, policy and procedural changes, as necessary.

(3) The regional director of psychiatry of the medical vendor will consolidate the above information and provide a psychology autopsy final report within 14 days of an inmate suicide

Joint Mortality Review Committee (JMRC).

In addition to the review and subsequent report to be completed by the Suicide Review Committee, all inmate deaths are also to be reviewed by the Joint Mortality Review Committee (JMRC). The issues to be reviewed by the JMRC include;

(1) Review the appropriateness of health care provided;

(2) Make recommendations concerning staff or discipline and policy or procedures changes, if any;

(3) Review the autopsy and toxicology report;

(4) Publish a final JMRC report on the inmate death utilizing the mortality review committee final report form.

Investigate the Death Yourself, Do Not Rely on the Word of NMCD

The designated contact that the inmate lists during the intake process should receive a copy of the report completed by the Office of the Medical Investigator (OMI), but this may be after a considerable period of time has elapsed. The delays in notification and waiting for additional information or reports can hazard any potential claim you might have. Due to short deadlines on claims against NMCD, it is important to keep track of the investigation and autopsy. Surviving loved ones should not place any reliance at all on what is conveyed to them by NMCD. To do so is to risk any possible legal claims in the event of wrongdoing.

Unfortunately, it is not easy to get the information you need from NMCD. NMCD will do all that it can to avoid legal claims. NMCD will not freely release damaging information. The bottom line is that surviving loved ones will likely need to seek legal assistance if they are to get any answers to what happened to their loved one.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

There appears to be an epidemic of osteomyelitis in the New Mexico prison system. It is ongoing despite numerous lawsuits and the rather straightforward diagnosis, treatment and prevention possible to contain it.

Albuquerque, NM -- (ReleaseWire) -- 03/25/2019 -- Many people look at a topic such the medical care of prison inmates with measured indifference or outright disdain. The underlying subtext reads, "they deserve what they get". This broad social indifference to the health of inmates offers a bad guide for policy with dire repercussions in a broader social context.

An article in the Oxford University Press on clinical infectious diseases, published in 2007, noted that one in thirty-three adults in the United States was either in prison, jail, or on probation or parole—a total of 7 million people. Regarding infections in prisons, the article states,

"Compared with the general public, newly incarcerated inmates have an increased prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus infection, hepatitis B virus infection, hepatitis C virus infection, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. While incarcerated, inmates are at an increased risk for the acquisition of blood-borne pathogens, sexually transmitted diseases, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection, and infection with airborne organisms, such as M. tuberculosis, influenza virus, and varicella-zoster virus."

Prison inmates are not only exposed to one another, they are also exposed to prison staff and guards and, who upon exiting the correctional settings in which they work return each day to their communities and families and if their medical conditions are not dealt with they go on to propagate them in the general population. Thus, the recognition and treatment of infectious disease among prisoners is something that should concern us all. In 2010, an article in The Atlantic notes, "of more than 10 million incarcerated people in the U.S. alone, 4 percent have HIV, 15 percent have hepatitis C, and 3 percent have active tuberculosis."

Infectious Disease in New Mexico's Jails and Prisons
As bad as the statistics above are, the picture in the State of New Mexico is far worse. According to an article published in the Albuquerque Journal in December 2015 approximately half of the inmates in the State's prison system have Hepatitis C. Similarly high rates of Hepatitis B have also persisted among New Mexico jail and prison inmates. New Mexico in Depth published an article entitled, "An Ignored Epidemic in New Mexico's Prisons" which further highlighted the problem-and the indifference:

"…although the state's inmates have the highest prevalence of hepatitis C of any group in New Mexico — more than four in 10 are infected — the prisons are hardly treating any of them: Out of some 3,000 prisoners diagnosed with the disease, just 46 received treatment for hepatitis C during the 2018 fiscal year. They are locked in for their crimes, but the life-saving medications they need have been largely locked out."

The article goes on to note, "Whether or not the prisons are prepared for change, it may be forced upon them" in reference to the mounting lawsuits filed against the New Mexico Corrections Department and its private medical contractors entrusted with the healthcare of those in New Mexico's penal system and by extension the State of New Mexico.

Other types of infectious disease also tend to have a much higher incidence in prisons and jails as noted above. But of particular interest here is Staphylococcus A and B infections such as Osteomyelitis and related spinal sepsis which are the product of the gross neglect of prison infections.

Staphylococcus A and B infections: Osteomyelitis
Osteomyelitis is an infection in the bone. While it is considered rare, it nevertheless is occurring at incredibly high rates in the State of New Mexico's prison system. Such infections get into the bone when they occur in neighboring tissues or spread through the bloodstream. Osteomyelitis is more likely to occur in settings where people are packed together such as jails and prisons. People who have other health conditions are also at higher risk again pointing toward inmates in correctional facilities given the statistics above. However, osteomyelitis is readily controlled even in vulnerable populations. It is a lack of appropriate medical care and lack of adherence to accepted standards of infection control in New Mexico prisons that has led to the current epidemic.

Epidemic? Do the Math
Rates of incidence for osteomyelitis vary, depending on the source. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgeons of America published an authoritative article in 2010 which looked at occurrence of osteomyelitis in a population-based study from 1969-2009 placed the number at 21.8 per 100,000 people.

Given that there are a total of about 7000 New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD) inmates, simple math illustrates the epidemic of osteomyelitis in the New Mexico prisons. Collins & Collins, P.C. alone has filed or will in the near future have 10 or more lawsuits involving prison osteomyelitis and/or spinal sepsis. If the math is not already apparent, that is about five times the national average.

Prison Osteomyelitis Epidemic is the Result of Medical and NMCD Institutional Negligence

At Collins & Collins over the course of the past two years, we have had many calls and have taken on numerous cases involving inmates who have contracted osteomyelitis and/or spinal sepsis while incarcerated in one or more of New Mexico's correctional facilities.

Osteomyelitis is not difficult to diagnose. It is not expensive to diagnose. It is predictable in a prison environment. If it is properly diagnosed, it can be easily and inexpensively treated. It is very dangerous if it is not . It can lead to lengthy hospitalizations and death if not diagnosed and treated properly. Unfortunately it is not being properly diagnosed and treated in New Mexico Prisons leading to grave harm to inmates and their families.

This is ongoing. It is allowed to continue as a result of what seems to be utter indifference on the part of the State of New Mexico and NMCD to the health and safety of the state's inmates. It seems the only way to get anybody's attention on these matters is through the courts and this is precisely what Collins & Collins, P.C. intends to do.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

Profits not patient safety or preservation of the medical care system drives medical malpractice "reform" and the myths surrounding it. The trends in patient deaths from preventable hospital acquired conditions illustrate the reality of both motivations along with the harm to patients, families and the medical care system overall.

Albuquerque, NM -- (ReleaseWire) -- 04/30/2015 -- The myths of medical malpractice are not based in reality. Instead, they are based in and motivated by profits. The medical industry like every other industry is governed by the profit motive. Unfortunately, in the case of medical care unlike other industries, innocent patients and families are harmed, often harmed very seriously and far too often killed.

One need only look at the realities of medical malpractice and its toll on patients, families, taxpayers and the medical care system overall to see that the constant drumbeat for reform is at best illogical, at worst it is based on outright deliberate deceit driven by profit over patient safety.

Caps on "Awards" Serve Only to Shift Responsibility from Medical Providers and Insurance Companies

It is estimated by the Journal of Patient Safety that there as as many as 440,000 patient deaths each year by preventable medical error. The Office of the Inspector General estimated in a 2010 report that Medicare patients alone suffer 15,000 deaths per month (180,000/year). It may reasonably be expected that exponentially higher numbers are seriously harmed every year.

Despite these numbers, there ae continuing calls to maintain and/or lower the caps on compensation to injured patients. They do not stop at caps.

They push for further protections such as recent US House Bill that erodes medical care standards. Fortunately, it has not yet passed and hopefully will not. The bill reads in relevant part states:

"… The development, recognition, or implementation of any guideline or other standard under any Federal health care provision shall not be construed to establish the standard of care or duty of care owed by a health care provider to a patient in any medical malpractice or medical product liability action or claim."

It is pretty remarkable that "guidelines and standards under any Federal health care provision" would not be established duties of a medical care provider to the patients.

The caps and other protections that shield medical providers and their insurance carriers from their own negligence effectively and intentionally shift the burdens of medical malpractice to patients and families. Caps simply put allow medical providers and their insurers to escape full responsibility for medical negligence.

Caps Are Detrimental Patient Care

Most states have caps (limits) on the amount of compensation that a judge and jury can provide to an injured patient or the surviving family and loved ones. These eliminate in many cases the possibility of any meaningful or fair compensation.

Caps create disincentives for improvement in medical care and patient safety. The trends are clear. As continued protections for medical providers at the expense of patients have increased over the years, so too have the deaths of patients from preventable medical error:

-1999 Report from the Institute of Medicine: Remarkable at the time, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) estimated up to 98,000 annual deaths by preventable medical error.

-2010 Report from the Office of Inspector General for Health and Human Services: The OIG estimates eclipsed that of the IOM. The OIG estimated 180,000 deaths each year (15,000/month) from Medicare related medical care alone.

-2013 Report from Journal of Patient Safety: The OIG report certainly pointed to a much more serious problem across the medical care system than the IOM had estimated and this was confirmed by the Journal of Public Safety's estimated 210,000 to 440,000 annul deaths.

The 1999 report was met with shock by those who learned of the 98,000 deaths per year. Those estimates' now seem quaint. In light of the current numbers, most would welcome a return to the 1999 estimates.

Increasing Deaths Met with Ever Present Calls for More Protections of Medical Providers

Most folks would look at these trends and say perhaps loudly that something needs to be done to protect patients. Insurance companies and medical industry are not among those folks.

Instead, they push for increased protections of medical providers including more caps on "awards" for patients and families. Most folks, again not including the medical industry or its insurers, would find this response not just odd but shocking. Yet that is the reality of the situation.

The Public Has Bought into the Myths at Its Peril

As more and more patients die each year, the push for more protections for medical providers and insurers is unrelenting. The myths are so pervasive and constant that most Americans, including juries, have bought into the mythical crisis of frivolous medical malpractice claims and the threat they present to doctors, medical providers and the medical care system overall.

What is most tragic, and that is perhaps not a strong enough word, is the fact that most patients accept these myths as fact. This includes the hundreds of thousands of patients that may be expected to die next year due to preventable medical error.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

New anti-texting law is a step in the right direction, but more will need to be done. The penalties, as is, may have little deterrent effect.

Albuquerque, NM -- (SBWIRE) -- 03/03/2014 -- New Mexico Governor Susanna Martinez has signed into law a bill that prohibits texting on New Mexico roads. The new law is a good step in the right direction in addressing what has become a very serious problem on New Mexico roads, which is reflective of a wider national problem. This behavior leads to an unacceptable number of automobile accidents resulting in injury or death.

Texting and driving has become an epidemic with disastrous consequences on our roads. Statistics from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) indicate that 31% of drivers report that they have read or sent a text while driving in 30 days prior to their survey. Estimates on the Department of Transportation, www.distraction.gov, indicate that 660,000 drivers are using mobile phones or devices at any given time on American roadways.

Albeit not all from texting and driving, the CDC also estimates that 3,331 were killed on U.S. roads in 2011 in automobile accidents involving a distracted driver, and 387,000 were injured. These numbers include other types of distracted driving and it is actually a small improvement over 2010 but still reflects unacceptable dangers on our roads.

So clearly laws such as these are needed to protect innocent drivers and pedestrians. The law is interesting for a number of reasons. One interesting aspect is the deterrent effect. The the fines are relatively low at $25 for a first offense and $50 for a second. They are in fact lower than the municipalities such as Albuquerque and Santa Fe that have passed comparable city ordinances. It remains to be seen how much of a deterrent effect the new law will have with this level of fines.

The law prohibits not just sending messages but reading or viewing them. There is an exception for calling for medical or emergency assistance. Specifically, the bill states: "a person shall not read or view a text message or type on a handheld mobile communication device for any purpose while driving a motor vehicle, except to summon medical or other emergency help."

Interestingly, the bill defines "driving" to include sitting at an intersection or any temporary stop on the roadways. Again, there are a few exceptions. The bill excludes situations where the driver has pulled off the roadway or is stopped at a location where the vehicle can remain safely stationary. The language reads as follows:

"Driving" means being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle on a highway or street and includes being temporarily stopped because of traffic or at a traffic light, but "driving" excludes operating a motor vehicle when the vehicle has pulled over to the side of or off of an active roadway and has stopped at a location in which it can safely remain stationary.

There are a number of other important exclusions as well. First, GPS navigational devices are excluded. Second, the bill specifically excludes voice and/or hands-free devices. These exclusions make perfect sense and were perhaps necessary since these are now built into many vehicles. Finally, the bill defines "text message" fairly expansively to include any "digital communication transmitted or intended to be transmitted between communication devices." This includes not just texting, but email and Internet inquires also.

The exclusions and inclusions make clear that the essence of the bill is to prohibit any use of a mobile phone or other device with the use of the hands. The bill is a good start toward addressing this safety issue.

As with all laws, the application of the law will likely lead to a host of problems in interpretation. The most obvious issue that will arise is whether the driver has safely pulled off the roadway or "has stopped at a location in which it can safely remain stationary." This will no doubt be subject to varied (both sincere and not) interpretations.

Texting and driving is extremely dangerous. Just casual observation on the roads and at intersections suggests that the behavior is pretty widespread. Studies have suggested that texting and driving is just as, if not more, dangerous than drinking and driving. Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive with some drivers doing both.

Enforcement of the bill will likely hit a few bumps and turns, but it is clearly a needed law. One look around on the road to see just how necessary it has become. Hopefully, the law will begin to change the culture that has led to such a widespread practice of very dangerous driving behavior. However, much more will need to be done in light of the pervasiveness of the practice.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

Homelessness need not be accepted as the new normal in America. In Albuquerque, there is one group, Noon Day Ministries, that takes on the challenge each and every day. One way they do this is by enlisting help from local business and volunteer communities. They give a voice to each and every business and volunteer who, like Noon Day, says homelessness is not normal and should never be accepted as such.

Albuquerque, NM -- (ReleaseWire) -- 06/07/2013 -- Homelessness has become such a huge problem throughout the country that many simply accept it as the new normal. Like many cities throughout the country, Albuquerque has a significant and persistent problem with homelessness. And there are many that refuse to accept homelessness as normal or acceptable.

Over 100,00 Meals a Year

Noon Day Ministries in Albuquerque is one such group that doesn't simply lament the problem. Noon Day strives each day to address the most basic needs of Albuquerque's homeless population. To that end, Noon Day served over 108,000 meals last year to the homeless. They are on pace to surpass that number this year.

Though Noon Day takes pride in its service to the homeless and the reach of its services, it takes little comfort in seeing its mission grow each year. As Noon Day's mission statement says, "Unlike most organizations, our goal is to go out of business." However, that goal does not seem to be anywhere in sight. Instead, the goal seems to be retreating from reach as the problem of homelessness seems to be getting worse each day. So until that goal has been reached, Noon Day relies entirely on the generosity of private donors. Noon Day receives no governmental support, and the needs are great!

Much More Than A Meal

Noon Day does much more than feed the homeless. Noon Day provides clothing, rental assistance, utility assistance, transportation assistance, school supplies for the many children at Noon Day, legal aid, toiletries, grocery provisions and even bicycle repair and haircuts.

These services are provided through both private individual donors and also the many partners of Noon Day. These donors and partners find numerous ways to support Noon Day and its guests. There are countless ways to help and cash is but one.

Cash is Not the Only Solution and Small Businesses Can Find a Way

There are many ways to lend a hand, cash is only one of them. In particular, small business has a lot to offer and a lot of different ways to do it. One small business, Collins & Collins, P.C., an Albuquerque based law firm, has found a number of ways to help. Primarily, they have tried to leverage their existing business relationships and vendors to help garner support for Noon Day.

Parrish Collins, of Collins & Collins, first came to Noon Day in an effort to reach out to homeless disabled veterans. Parrish was surprised by what he found at Noon Day. He found that the homeless population is not at all what he had learned to expect. In addition to the many Veterans that he has met at Noon Day, he has met folks that look like they might be neighbors, he has met young people that look like they should be in college and could have very well been friends of his own children not too long ago. Worse yet, there are small children with families that slipped into homelessness after only a short period of financial hardship that was beyond their control. In short, Parrish reminds himself each day, "there but by the grace of God go I."

One visit to Noon Day and he knew, like many that have had the same experience, that he wanted and needed to help. Like many small businesses, he had much more than cash that he could contribute. In short, he was able to draw upon some of his own business relationships to contribute toward Noon Day's mission.

Here are a few ways he has been able to help. Hopefully, other businesses will see similar opportunities and reach out to Noon Day and its homeless guests. Parrish was able to help Noon Day get a completely new website up and running. He has been able to get a PSA campaign with the local radio station. That same station will be hosting the director of Noon Day and Parrish on a Saturday radio show later this month. He is working with his phone vendor to get a commitment for the contribution of a fairly costly VOIP phone system to replace the antiquated phone system that they now have. There are a few other projects as well that he is working on.

Every Contribution Big or Small Says Homelessness Is Not Normal

Each of these efforts will hopefully benefit Noon Day. Though each is perhaps small in its own right, they add up to something significant. Multiply this across many business partners such as Collins & Collins, P.C. and the results could be impressive. Parrish does not accept homelessness as normal. With the efforts of small business partners like Collins & Collins, P.C., homelessness need not be normal or acceptable. Instead, it is a challenge that Albuquerque will both meet and overcome.

Learn More and Give Them a Pat on the Back

Every contribution helps, even if it just a pat on the back to show your support. To learn more about Noon Day, you can find them on their website at www.NoonDayMinistries.org. To really get a flavor for Noon Day and its people, check them out on Facebook . If nothing else just give them that pat on the back by "Liking" them on Facebook at Facebook.com/NoonDayMinistries. www.facebook.com/noondayministries. You can do the same for Collins & Collins, P.C at Facebook.com/CollinsAttorneys and Noon Day's other supporters which can be found on their Facebook page.

Every gesture large and small has meaning and gives voice to all those who share the vision of Noon Day Ministries where homelessness is not a fact of life for far too many in Albuquerque.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

Social media has opened up a new world of discovery in the litigation process. The fact is that there is little if any privacy on social media no matter what your "privacy" settings.

Albuquerque, NM -- (ReleaseWire) -- 05/13/2013 -- Few recent technological advancements have affected the legal process the way that social media has. Social media is often a gold mine of information on the parties to a lawsuit. Though the issues apply across the board in all litigation, the focus here will be primarily on personal injury claims. More specifically, it will apply to the discovery process in a personal injury case.

To begin, let's start with those folks, surprisingly large in numbers that have yet to recognize the lack of privacy on social media. Amazingly, there are many in the midst of all varieties of litigation that have no privacy settings on their social media accounts. In other words, the world is free to browse around on their account. There is little to be said here since the social media histories may be readily obtainable with or without court involvement.

However, even for those who have set their security settings at their highest, there are still very real risks that those posts will end up in discovery, and if possible, used against them in court. For those that have no privacy settings, it is often possible to get all that is needed or available through informal discovery (i.e. just looking around). For those who think that their posts are protected from prying eyes due to their high privacy settings, they need to think again.

Simply put, for litigation purposes, these posts are public no matter what the privacy settings. There simply is no Facebook-client privilege. Worse yet, the attorney-client privilege can be waived by posting information about discussions with one's attorney. No kidding, it happens! So even though the posts are private (i.e. shared only with your closets 1000 friends), the information may be obtained through the discovery process during litigation. This means that the court can order you to turn over this information.

The Courts have taken various positions on the discoverability of this information. There have been cases where judges have simply required parties to turn over their passwords to their accounts (including Facebook) to the other side. This is the most extreme position since it has the potential of revealing very embarrassing but irrelevant information to the other side.

Other courts have required a party to provide archives from their social media accounts. Though this might seem somewhat less invasive since passwords are not turned over, it is no less intrusive and no less prone to abuse by hostile opposition parties.

Other more thoughtful judges have instead requested the information for in camera review. This means that the judge review the information in order to determine the scope of the discoverability limiting the information to that which is relevant to the case. This same objective might be achieved through the appointment of a Special Master that works to manage and supervise the discovery process.

There are numerous variations on these approaches. Moreover, discovery in the age of social media will continues to evolve quite rapidly. However, there is one thing that should be kept in mind and that is that no matter how the courts evolve on this issue, your social media to a large degree will be discoverable.

The rule on discovery is "relevance" not admissibility. Relevance allows discovery of anything that might lead to admissible evidence and this is a very broad swath across your social media universe. The evidence revealed on social media need not be admissible itself. It just has to be relevant and relevance is a fairly broad concept. Moreover, the rules of discovery dictate that courts err on the side of discoverability.

In a nutshell, whatever you post can and will be used against you! So think before you post. Once posted, it is too late. Social media is permanent. And attempts to delete or hide it give rise to all kinds of other problems (think sanctions, adverse inferences, contempt, obstruction…).

If you find yourself in this situation and you have a personal injury claim, it is important to speak with an experienced personal injury attorney before taking any rash and potentially irreversibly harmful action on your own.

Disclaimer: This article is not meant as legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Every case is different and requires individualized legal analysis by an experienced attorney licensed in your state. Collins & Collins, P.C. practices solely within New Mexico. If you are in New Mexico and have a possible personal injury claim, feel free to contact us directly for a free case reviews at www.CollinsAttorneys.com.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

The recent United States Supreme Court case of Missouri v. McNeely addressed the legality of a warrantless non-consensual blood draw in a DWI case. The State of Missouri argued for a per se (blanket) exception to the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement for cases in which a DWI suspect refused a breath alcohol test. The Court refused the per se exception. But the opinion was quite limited in its scope and it would be unwise for DWI suspects to read to much into the opinion. More to the point, the opinion will maintain the status quo at least in New Mexico and will have a negligible effect on the rights of New Mexico DWI suspects.

Albuquerque, NM -- (ReleaseWire) -- 04/29/2013 -- The recent United States Supreme Court case of Missouri v. McNeely addressed the legality of a forced warrantless non-consensual blood draw in a DWI case. Though the Court headed off what would have surely resulted in wholesale violation of individual rights in DWI investigations, the ruling was quite limited in scope and will have a negligible effect on the rights of New Mexico DWI suspects.

The case involved the State of Missouri's proposed blanket exception to the 4th Amendment's warrant requirements in cases where a DWI suspect refuses a breath alcohol test. Specifically Missouri argued that there should be a per se or blanket exception in such cases based upon the "exigent circumstances" exception. Briefly, though volumes have been written on the subject, exigent circumstances exist when the needs of law enforcement are "so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable."

The U.S. Supreme Court held that such refusals of the breath alcohol exam did not necessarily invoke the exigent circumstances exception. Instead each case had to be analyzed individually. The Court would not allow a per se exception. Nor did the court suggest a blanket prohibition.

The Court noted that this case in particular amounted to no more than a routine DWI investigation. There were no exceptional circumstances suggesting the need for a warrantless blood draw. The Court specifically mentioned the ease and speed at which a warrant can be obtained. There simply appeared to be no reason in this case for the failure to obtain a warrant.

The ruling was specific to the facts. The Court noted that there have been and will continue to be situations where such a warrantless non-consensual blood draw would be legal under the 4th Amendment. This case simply did not fit the bill which in and of itself weighs against Missouri's argument for a per se warrant exception for DWI refusals.

For those in New Mexico, it is important to understand the limitations of the opinion. It would be unwise to read too much into the opinion with potentially serious consequences for your rights.

First, as suggested, the Court stated that these cases must be analyzed on a case by case basis. In short, there may be a situation where a warrantless, non-consensual blood draw is allowable. The Court discussed a number of such past cases.

Second, the Court in no way suggested that a non-consensual blood draw would be disallowed where a warrant was properly secured and executed. In fact, the Court explicitly recognized the ease and speed with which a lawful warrant for a blood draw may be obtained. In those situations where the warrant is legally obtained, then there simply is no prohibition against a non-consensual blood draw.

Perhaps, most importantly for New Mexico drivers, it must be recognized that there are consequences for a refusal to consent to a blood and/or breath alcohol examination that are independent of the criminal charges. Under the New Mexico Implied Consent Act, a refusal has several automatic and quite serious consequences.

First, a refusal will result in the automatic revocation of your driver's license. Under New Mexico law, a refusal carries a mandatory and automatic 1 year license revocation. In addition, the license revocation is independent of the criminal charges. In other words, even if you are successful in excluding the illegal blood draw as in the case of McNeely and you thereby are acquitted of the DWI charges, the license revocation still stands. Your guilt or innocence in the DWI criminal proceedings in no way affects the Motor Vehicle Division's revocation of your license.

Second, refusal of a breath and/or blood alcohol test will result in the aggravation of your charges. In other words, you will be charged with Aggravated DWI instead of simple DWI. Aggravated DWI carries mandatory jail time. In cases of repeat DWI offenders, conviction for aggravated DWI carries increasingly severe mandatory jail time.

Finally, a blood and/or breath test is not necessary for a conviction. The test could be excluded and you could still be convicted under New Mexico's "impaired to the slightest degree" standard. The rule originated to deal specifically with refusals. The impaired to the slightest degree standard is a fairly easy standard to meet and a blood/breath alcohol test is by no means necessary to meet it.

In short, there are consequences for refusal to provide a blood or breath sample in New Mexico. Though the McNeely case certainly provides important 4th Amendment privacy protections for DWI suspects and most assuredly will head off many potential abuses, it is by no means a get out of jail free card. In fact, there is no such get out of free jail card in DWI cases. And if you can't get out of jail free then you might want to avoid jail altogether and this can be done only by not drinking and driving.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

The use of social media such as Facebook can be disastrous for a divorce case (and other legal cases). Some folks just cannot resist the urge to share with the world. These same folks are shocked when they find that there is no Facebook/User privilege and that there posts are considered public for evidentiary purposes.

Albuquerque, NM -- (SBWIRE) -- 04/09/2013 -- The lure of social media is just too strong to resist for some. Some feel compelled to share their every thought and moment throughout the day. Not only do they share, but they do so in the most artful ways with photos, video, links, diary style entries, and the like. Remarkably, these same folks are often shocked to find that all of this is admissible in court against them in their divorce proceedings (or other legal or other legal proceedings for that matter).

For a lawyer, it's great to have such a giving and sharing individual on the other side of a court case. It is not as pleasant when it is the lawyer's own client who has basically prepared the trial notebook complete with exhibits for the other side.

Unfortunately, once all of this information is posted, there is little to do to fix it. It is a permanent record. It will always be there to be recovered by your soon to be ex and his or her attorneys (or other authorities) if they want to retrieve it. In fact, most courts will issue a court order requiring disclosure. Some courts have gone so far as to require parties to a divorce or other lawsuit to turn over passwords.

Though you cannot erase your social media (Facebook, Twitter, Google+...) history, and there could be serious consequences for even trying such as spoliation of evidence, adverse inferences, and contempt in divorce and family law court. In criminal prosectuions which come up far too often in divorce and family law cases, there might even be criminal charges for obstruction of justice for the attempted destruction of evidence.

Though the record is permanent, you can take a few simple steps to protect what little remains your privacy. Likewise, though some damage may already be done, you can stop the carnage and/or minimize the damages to your case.

Step Number 1 - Ramp Up Your Privacy Settings
There are numerous possible settings to set who all can view your page and equally important who can post to your page. This second aspect is often quite important since it is your friends (some well-meaning, others not so much) who will often post the most damaging comments, photos, videos and the like. In a divorce or other legal case, the privacy settings should be set very high.

Step number 2 - Cull Your List of Friends
Just because you have your privacy settings set high, does not mean your friends will not share your information from their own pages. If you must share with some friends, choose those friends carefully. This goes back to the beginning thought which is that once shared, social media is permanent. No matter what happens to your own account, your information is out there somewhere and trust that it can be found. Assume the worst when dealing with social media in a divorce.

Step Number 3 - Stop Posting
If you cannot stop posting completely, at least stop posting anything that might come back to bite you. Preferably, you would stop posting at all. There are actually studies showing that people would rather lose their sense of smell than the use of Facebook. So perhaps, this is asking too much. But is it asking too much to counsel against self-destruction?

Rest assured, if you cannot resist the urge to share your thoughts with the world, those thoughts will also be shared with the judge. Not only might this be humiliating in court, it can be quite damaging to the outcome of your case.

Step Number 4 - Discuss Your Sharing History with Your Attorney
This is perhaps the most important step for those who find themselves vulnerable from their liberal sharing tendencies. In short, discuss the problems candidly with your attorney. Hiding it from your attorney is the worst thing you can do. Assume that it will be found and who would you rather find it first, your attorney or your ex's?

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

The courts have often had a difficult time keeping up with technology. The explosion of social media usage and technology has created numerous unique issues that the courts will be forced to address. This is especially true and rapidly evolving in litigation. As it stands, the courts are having a difficult time keeping pace.

Albuquerque, NM -- (SBWIRE) -- 04/01/2013 -- Social media has created all kinds of new challenges and opportunities in litigation. It also creates a number of possible avenues for abuse. In nutshell, the courts are having a hard time keeping up with social media technology. Some issues are old in today's terms (a few years). One interesting issue than will have far reaching implications in litigation involves service of process issues.

Let's start with the "old" issues. One issue that has come back to bite many unwary social media enthusiast is the discoverability of social media accounts. Discovery in litigation is basically the collection of documents and records from the other side during the litigation process. The courts have had a hard time circumscribing allowable discovery of social media.

For those on both sides of the equation, there are many hazards. First, those snowboarding vacation photos do little to bolster your personal injury claims for a hurt back. Insurance companies are certainly on the lookout for such evidence. Surprisingly, many people even in the midst of litigation leave their social media accounts visible to all. Many more post the most inadvisable content. More than just goofy pictures, some will information about their case risking attorney client privilege.

It is also quite hazardous for those seeking to clean up their social media mishaps. In fact, litigants on both sides have faced severe sanctions for missteps. There are the normal sanctions for failure to turn over requested discovery. There are sanctions for destruction/spoliation of evidence by the deletion of accounts. Litigants have been sanctioned and lawyers have been disbarred for counseling it. Most severe are potential obstruction of justice charges in criminal cases for intentional destruction of evidence.

On the flip side, lawyers have been severely reprimanded for posing as a friend in order to gain access. This would include having investigators or the attorney's staff do the same. This constitutes very serious ethical violations for misrepresentation of identity. When the person has an attorney, it is considered unauthorized and unethical communication with a legally represented party.

This is all relatively old news. One fairly important wrinkle that has come up with social media is the legality of service of process via Facebook. A recent New York case involved a lawsuit by the FTC against a number of defendants in India. The facts are rather unique in that the defendants had been served by a variety of methods, acknowledged the lawsuit and hired an attorney to who entered an appearance on their behalf in the federal lawsuit. The subsequent service was for service of motions for violation of temporary injunctions issued by the court.

Though the facts of this case seem somewhat restrictive, the court set forth criteria for sufficiency of service via Facebook and/or email which would seem to allow broader application to service by Facebook, email and/or other social media.

The basic requirements of service is to put the defendant on notice of the suit. It has been suggested that the ruling leaves open the possibility of a fairly minimal showing of reliability of notice through these various media. According to some, It may be that it need only be shown that the defendant owns the account and is active on the account to meet the required indicia of reliability of notice of the lawsuit. It takes little imagination to come up with all manner of disputes over the each of these elements.

This like all the other social media issues will open a host of potential abuses by overzealous parties, attorneys, investigators and the like. It will also put the courts once again behind the technology curve as they try to define the scope of allowable service of process through social media. Unfortunately, this article does not come close to addressing all the potential technological issues and possible abuses. The courts will be left to that task.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

A story getting a lot of attention in New Mexico lately concerns a man convicted of DWI homicide who has now brought a suit against the bars and restaurants that served him as well as his drinking companion/ passenger in the vehicle. Many of the articles suggest a sense of outrage. However, under New Mexico law, the suit may have some merit depending on the facts. And in the end, a suit such as this may be another tool to fight the rather daunting issue of DWI in New Mexico

Albuquerque, NM -- (SBWIRE) -- 03/18/2013 -- A New Mexico news story has been getting a lot of press of late. A man convicted in 2010 of vehicular homicide for a DWI fatality has now filed suit against the bars and restaurants that served him. The man has also filed suit against his drinking buddy on the night of the fatal DWI auto accident.

As evidenced by all the press the story is getting, this obviously does not sit well with the public and will likely lead to a chorus of protests. Cases like this are easy fodder for tort reform advocates who argue that there is rampant frivolous lawsuit abuse. However, it is a little early to draw any such conclusions from the filing of this case.

In fact, there are a number of precedents set by both the New Mexico civil and criminal courts that lend some credence to the suit. Let's start with the suit against the buddy. Then we can move on to the claims against the bars and restaurants that served the man.

Passenger Criminal Liability for DWI Accidents

Though this is not exactly pivotal to the outcome of the case, it is interesting to note that it was established in the 2009 New Mexico Court of Appeals case of State v. Marquez that a passenger could be charged with vehicular homicide. That case was pretty remarkable on the facts. The two friends had gone on quite a bender being cut off at several bars whereupon they took their show to the roads purchasing alcohol at several retail outlets along the way. Tragically, in the end, 2 people were killed and 5 injured in a devastating DWI auto accident. With this precedent in place, why would there not be civil liability as well? After all, the standard for civil liability is much less stringent than for a criminal conviction.

Certainly, the person killed would have a claim potentially against those that served the man as well as his buddy. It is not a stretch to get to civil liability for the consequences to the driver no matter how repugnant this may on a gut level. The facts remain to be seen about the buddy's role in the accident and the drinking that led up to it. Once this is heard, and it should be heard, it may well be that the drinking buddy bears responsibility to both the innocent victims and his drunk driving friend.

To read more on criminal liability for DWI passenger in New Mexico, click here:

Dram Shop Liability for the Bars & Restaurants

Civil liability for a drinking buddy to a DWI friend has as far as I can tell yet to go before the higher courts of New Mexico. The liability for the bars and restaurants to the DWI driver/patron has been addressed by the New Mexico Supreme Court in the 2011 case of Mendoza v. Tamaya.

That case involved a suit by estates of two patrons of a resort who were killed in a DWI accident following a wedding reception. The Court in that case clearly established that the estates of the deceased patrons, including the driver, could sue for negligent over-service of alcohol. Therefore, it is clear that the DWI offender could sue for his own physical injuries and wrongful death under a dram shop patron claim.

If that is the case, why should the same patron be prevented from filing suit for other damages for that same negligent over-service of alcohol, namely 42 years in prison in the case at hand? The fact is that there is appears to be no good legal basis for that position.

To read more on dram shop and patron claims in New Mexico click here.

Liability is Possible Though Perhaps Not in This Particular Case

The facts in State v. Marquez and Mendoza v. Tamaya both involved exceptional facts. Perhaps, the facts of the most recently publicized case will not meet those same standards. Perhaps this is not the case that will establish liability for the DWI driver's own damages under the patron dram shop claim or a DWI buddy claim. But it does not take a great deal of imagination to envision a situation where such liability on both counts would be perfectly in order.

In light of the countless tragic DWI accidents, the outcome of this case could prove to be one more useful tool for fighting DWI in New Mexico. This is one possibility that does not seem to have been addressed yet by the press.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

Databases of nursing home evaluations are important for those contemplating placing a loved one in a nursing home. Making an uninformed decision could be disastrous.

Albuquerque, NM -- (SBWIRE) -- 03/04/2013 -- US News and World Report maintains a database of the nation's nursing homes, ranking them from best to worst with numerous evaluation criteria. The database was created in conjunction with Nursing Home Compare. The report and others like it are very important for anyone faced with the need or possibility of placing a loved one in one of these facilities.

It is estimated that there are over 3.3 million Americans who currently reside in nursing homes. This is a staggering number. The sheer number of nursing home residents suggest the need for these kinds of reports. However, there is much more to it than that. There are simply some nursing homes that you would never want to place a loved one. And these should be identified in no uncertain terms.

The scope of nursing home abuse and neglect is startling. By no means do all nursing homes abuse and/or neglect their residents. However, without reports such as these, families would never know which they are about to enter. Sadly, this is found out way too late, often after permanent and serious injuries and even wrongful death have resulted from an uninformed choice.

The report from US News and World Report is not the first nor the only available such study. But it is remarkable for a couple of reasons. First, the report covers many different evaluation criteria. Second, the publishers have made it very easy to search for nursing homes in your area by zip code search. You can readily see how the nursing homes you are contemplating stack up in terms of these criteria.

The criteria address 4 different categories: health inspection issues, nurse staffing, quality measures, and fire safety. Each of these measures is broken down further so that you can see exactly what is measured for each of the each of these categories. For instance, the quality category is evaluated on 18 different measures.

Each of the overall categories receive a rating. In addition, each of the individual measures within the category are rated. This allows families to mark off the facilities that simply should not be considered. It allows families to further cull their search with those criteria that are most important to them and their loved ones.

Finally, the site allows users to determine if the facilities have suffered any penalties. It is not clear how thorough the penalty category is since clicking on some facilitates with pretty abysmal ratings do not provide much detail. Perhaps, it is not the report that is deficient but the enforcement of the laws and regulations in the states.

One thing that might be helpful that I could not find on the site was an indication of how many times a facility was sued and what the outcome was for each suit. Fortunately, this information can be found elsewhere such as at www.nmcourts.com for cases filed in New Mexico. Other states presumably have similar such sites. It is worth checking these as well.

In summary, these types of resources are critical when making such an important decision as where to place your loved ones. Use them. Perhaps it will not come back to haunt you, but if it does the harm is often irreparable to you, your family and your loved one.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

As previously announced, the Albuquerque law firm of Collins & Collins, P.C. will be reaching out to homeless veterans. The firm will be available to veterans from 1 PM to 3 PM every Thursday (until further notice) at Noon Day Ministries located at 101 Broadway NE in downtown Albuquerque. The first weekly meeting will be today at 1 to 3 PM. The information below will describe the purpose of the meetings along with a few threshold criteria for the firm to be able to provide some assistance.

Albuquerque, NM -- (SBWIRE) -- 02/28/2013 -- Collins & Collins, P.C., an Albuquerque based law firm, will be meeting with homeless veterans at Noon Day Ministries at 101 Broadway NE weekly on Thursdays from 1 PM to 3 PM.

The original plan was to meet just once monthly. However, after the first session on February 12, 2013, it was concluded that weekly meetings would better serve the unique needs of homeless veterans. The first such weekly meeting will be held on February 28, 2013

The purpose of the meetings is to help determine if there any homeless veterans that are missing out on veteran disability benefits or pension benefits to which they are entitled. These benefits could go a long way toward improving their situation. If they are entitled to benefits, and they have not already filed a claim, then the firm will try to guide them through the process.

The firm will focus its efforts on pension and disability benefits. As a threshold for the firm to be able to assist, both pension and disability benefit eligibility requires that a veteran currently be suffering from a disability. Pension requires an inability to work. Disability benefits do not require that the veteran be unable to work unless the veteran is claiming unemployability as a result of the disability.

Moreover, both disability and pension benefits also require an honorable discharge. If a veteran received anything other than an honorable discharge, the first task is to upgrade the discharge. Only once the discharge is upgraded may the veteran be eligible for pension or disability benefits. For those veterans in this situation, the firm will provide some guidance on how to apply for an upgrade in their discharge.

Keep in mind that these are mere threshold requirements for the firm to be able to discuss the possibility of benefits further with the veteran. Without these, there is little else the firm can do to assist the veteran other than refer the veteran on to other possible resources in the community which they will certainly attempt to do.

If the veteran meets these threshold requirements, Collins & Collins, P.C. will be meeting individually with veterans to try to guide them in the right direction in properly filing their applications. Though the firm will be providing guidance in getting the applications filed with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the firm will not actually be acting as the veteran's attorney or representative.

The goal is to help those veterans that have not yet applied understand how to get the process started on the right foot. The firm will be providing these advisory services on a pro bono basis. To this end, the firm will be bringing a number of commonly used forms that the veterans will be able to fill out on location. In turn, upon request by the veteran, the firm will hand deliver these applications to the Veteran Administration Regional Office in downtown Albuquerque.

It may very well be, that there are veterans with whom the firm meets that already been denied benefits. The firm will be talking to these veterans as well to inform them of their rights to appeal. This assumes that the veteran does not already have an attorney or other representative. If the veteran is represented already, Collins & Collins, P.C. unfortunately must refer them back to their own representatives and will be unable to assist them.

In very limited cases where the veteran has been wrongfully denied benefits, Collins & Collins, P.C. will if the veteran so chooses represent the veteran formally. This would require an agreement between the firm and the veteran at the Department of Veteran Affairs statutorily approved contingency fee rate. Of note, the VA approved fee is significantly lower than the firms standard contingency fees charged in its primary area of practice which is personal injury law.

The first meeting on February 12, 2013 at Noon Day was fairly successful with the firm able to meet with 4 veterans. The firm is confident that awareness among the homeless veteran population will grow and that it will be able to meet with at least this many each week. Over time, Collins & Collins, P.C. is very hopeful that at least a few veterans will find some relief from their unfortunate but hopefully temporary financial situation.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

The Albuquerque Based Law Firm of Collins & Collins, P.C. will be reaching out to Homeless Veterans through Noon Day Ministries in Downtown Albuquerque.

Albuquerque, NM -- (SBWIRE) -- 02/26/2013 -- The homeless problem is pretty daunting nationally. It is equally so locally in Albuquerque. The problem is so large that it sometime seems there is no good place to start to try to help with the problem. This was the challenge that we were facing at Collins & Collins, P.C. when trying to figure out if and where we could make a difference

Getting started can be somewhat overwhelming. Like many, we asked ourselves where we should start with such a grave problem. Should we start with homeless children, homeless families, victims of domestic violence, those suffering from mental illness, those with substance abuse issues, those who suffered loss of employment and are trying to get back into the work force, or any other group within the homeless population? We chose veterans.

So how did we go about choosing veterans? The choice was actually made for us. Our firm has had the privilege of serving a number of veterans with a variety of legal matters. Several of the veterans had criminal issues. This was the starting point where we became aware of some of the unique issues faced by veterans.

We began to learn of the many issues facing veterans primarily from the criminal justice perspective. As it happens, these same issues face many veterans outside the criminal justice system and seem to be particularly problematic for homeless veterans.

Some of the veterans we served had substance or alcohol abuse issues. Others came with PTSD and Traumatic Brain injuries. They most often came to us with charges for DWI or domestic violence. It became clear pretty quickly that these clients were not like our other clients. They were dealing with issues that were far different and far more challenging than most of our criminal defense clients.

It was fortunate for our veteran clients, and for us in trying to help them the best we could, that there was a vast array of caring and passionate supporters for these veterans. We were lucky enough to make contact with these folks who often would show up for the veterans' hearings, provide documentation for the judge where necessary and even give statement to the judge in support of their veterans. Through these clients and these support networks, we learned more and more about the issues facing veterans. We also learned that there was something a law firm could actually do to help.

Through these encounters, we slowly began to learn about Veteran benefits. We learned that many of these same clients are entitled to disability benefits and/or pension benefits related to those same issues that brought them to the criminal justice system. We learned also that those same issues had led many of these heroes to become homeless.

Putting two and two together, we decided to go into the homeless community to reach out to those veterans who were entitled to but not yet receiving financial benefits to which they were entitled. We were lucky enough to make contact with Noon Day Ministries who has generously allowed us to meet with homeless veterans at their Albuquerque facility located at 101 Broadway NE (Central and Broadway).

Noon Day Ministries is remarkable. With only a skeletal staff and the amazing support of many volunteers, they served over 100,000 meals in 2012. Through Noon Day, we hope to reach as many homeless veterans as we can. Most of all, we hope that we can help at least a few get off the streets and back into a home. These heroes deserve at least this and we hope that we can in small measure get them there.

To that end, we will be providing regular updates of our meeting schedule which will be determined based upon need and response from the homeless veteran community.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

There are a number of things to keep in mind when having a holiday party. First and foremost, be responsible. Avoid the drunken bash. Keep and eye on your guests. Do not overserve. And get your insurance up to par.

Albuquerque, NM -- (SBWIRE) -- 12/14/2012 -- The holidays come with much celebration. With celebration, there is quite frequently alcohol. And where there is alcohol, there are often excesses of every kind.

Hosting a holiday party often warms the heart of the hosts and if successful the guests. These get togethers are often long remembered and cherished by all. Then there are those parties that go awry.

Not to be a Grinch, but party hosts should be prepared for the possibility that their parties may come with unexpected consequences. You cannot plan for and avoid every potential hazard. But there are some that not only should plan for but at least in New Mexico, probably have a duty to plan for.

In short, there are numerous potential liability issues associated with booze fueled holiday festivities. The liability to be discussed here is strictly focused on civil liability (i.e. potential personal injury claims). However, there is some potential for criminal liability where minors are involved. This possibility will be left for a separate discussion.

New Mexico, like many states, has dram shop type laws that address the over-service of intoxicated persons. The dram shop laws proper deal with commercial establishments such as bars and restaurants. However, the same principles have been extended to homeowners and other social hosts (collectively "social hosts") albeit at a lessened standard of care.

So the question becomes, where do homeowners have potential liability and what should they do to protect themselves (and their guests)?

Let's start with how you protect yourself financially. This is easy. Obtain insurance coverage and at the highest levels suggested by the risks. This would typically be homeowners insurance or a variation thereon such as renters insurance. It might also include event insurance. Finally, for high wealth individuals, a personal liability umbrella policy (PLUP) might be in order.

The risks was included the risks of injuries created by your activities. Risks assessment would also include a careful examination of what is at stake financially. In other words, if you have high income and assets, then you obviously have more to lose than a someone with neither. Your coverage should reflect both sets of risks.

Now that you have insurance, you still need to behave responsibly unless you want to risk a lawsuit and verdict that exceeds your insurance coverage. You might also want to avoid possible punitive damages which risks are deserving of their own discussion even for the aforesaid low income low asset individuals.

Behaving responsibly means a number of things. First and foremost, do not over-serve guests. This may be easier said than done since it is very difficult if not impossible to monitor everyone at a party. However, there are few things that will provide protection.

One would be avoiding creating an atmosphere for excessive drinking such as for instance serving shots and drinking games. Another would be to be aware of obviously intoxicated persons. If you notice a person is drinking excessively then cut them off. Better yet, if you know, avoid inviting those predisposed for this kind of conduct in the first place.

Next, you should do your best to prevent people from drinking and driving as they leave your party. The first set of precautions will help here. In other words, keep them from getting intoxicated and they cannot drive intoxicated. Failing this, make sure they have a designated driver. If this is not possible then plan for them to stay long enough to sober up which may mean an overnight guests.

Keep in mind that drinking and driving is not the only risks associated with overdrinking. Overdrinking also leads to fights and accidents. The fighting is fairly self-explanatory. Accidents come in countless varieties from burns and cuts in the kitchen to head and other injuries from falls. These too can lead to liability.

This article could go on ad nauseam. Suffice it to say that you should be smart when hosting a party. Don't host a drunken bash. Keep an eye on your guest. And get your homeowners, renters or event insurance up to par. On this last point, keep in mind that you can do everything right and still get sued. Insurance will pay for your attorney to defend a meritless claim. Without it, the legal fees alone could be financially crippling.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm