Q: How soon after I am injured do I have to file a lawsuit?

A: Every state has certain time limits, called “statutes of limitations,” which govern the amount of time you have to file a personal injury lawsuit. In some states, you may have as little as one year to file a lawsuit arising out of an automobile accident. If you miss the deadline for filing your case, you may lose your legal right to damages for your injury. Consequently, it is important to talk with a lawyer as soon as you suffer or discover an injury.

For more information regarding personal injury visit us here or contact us today at 800-218-6178



Everybody blames President Obama for “Obama care”, when really, congress passed the legislation. If you want to be mad, be mad at Congress. When members of Congress says they are going to repeal Obama care, they are talking about repealing the law they passed. When they complain about the medical device tax and talking about repealing it, they passed it in the first place.

The hype about the medical device tax from the medical device manufacturers is that they will have to lay off employees and shutter their doors. The truth, however, is that they will not have to do either. They will increase device costs, and that will not affect patients one bit.

Skeptical that the device manufacturers won’t follow through on their threats? Consider the February 21, 2013 article by Arezu Sarvestani in the Mass Device Website. The site describes itself as the place for “News and information for the medical device industry and the companies that drive it.” So, if news and information is posted there about the medical device industry, it is reliable.

Sarvestani says in his article that “more than 40% of the medical device makers surveyed say they would raise prices to deal with some or all of the impact or the new 2.3% sales tax compared with only 11% who said they would reduce their staff”. Better yet, he reports that only 1% said they would exit the US market entirely.

The device manufactures go their politics of fear play out of the playbook of one of their biggest fans and supporters, President George W. Bush. They do not enjoy that support with the Obama administration as the later is trying to find real solutions for the economic disaster it inherited.



QUESTION: Can’t the judge or the opposing attorney make sure the jurors are of more than one race? I’m not saying they made a mistake, but when you have civil rights involved can’t somebody do something about the racial mix of the jurors? Now we have everybody up in arms over the jury – but it is after the fact.

ANSWER: The simple answer is actually no. The problem is that the process of œpicking or selecting a jury (called voir dire) is in reality œde-selecting a jury. In other words, instead of picking the jurors that each side of the case want on a case, they actually strike or eliminate those that they do not want. Those potential jurors that are stricken have shown or indicated through their responses to questions in the jury selection process that they may have a bias towards or against one side of the case. In a criminal case like this one, the prosecution will strike those potential jurors who are less likely to find the defendant guilty, and the defense will strike those potential jurors who are more likely to find the defendant guilty. No strikes can be made based in whole or in part on the race of the potential juror, period.

The fact that this particular jury had no African Americans on it in no way means it was rigged or fixed, as that simply is not possible and does not happen in Harris County, Texas. It was an all white jury because of the people that showed up for jury duty, the random assignment of them to the court where that case was being tried, the random order given to the potential jurors that were in the group of jurors sent to that court for the jury selection process, and the bias that them may have shown towards one side or the other in this particular case. You see, every person called to jury duty is qualified to be a juror; not every person, however, is qualified to sit on a particular case because of their potential biases.

Lastly, every criminal defendant is entitled to a trial by jury before a jury of his peers. That means peers from his community. It does not mean persons of his same age, race, sex, social status, education, wealth, or religion.

The jury here rendered its verdict yesterday based on the evidence that it heard and saw in the courtroom, including the videotape that we all have seen many times. However, unless we had sat through the entire trial, heard and saw every piece of evidence, and observed the jury’s deliberations, we cannot know or appreciate how the jury reached its verdict. We can talk about it and second guess their verdict, but you can rest assured that nothing was or could have been done in this trial to rig or fix the jury so the officer would be found not guilty.

1 2