How Does a Jury Evaluate Scarring

I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

One component of damage that we frequently encounter in injury cases is physical scarring.

Scarring, or disfigurement, is always compensable as an element of damage in civil injury cases.

Disfigurement of any type is unfortunate and certainly presents an element of damages to be considered by a jury charged with evaluating the harms and losses suffered through someone else’s negligence.

But, are all scars created equal? The answer is obviously no.

It would be reasonable to treat discoloration differently from a raised keloid-type scar. Discoloration scars can often be minimized with cosmetics. Keloid-type scars usually cannot be cosmetically addressed.

Additionally, scarring in an area of the body not normally visible in public will justify less compensation compared to a prominently visible scar on a public area of the body.

For example, a scar on the face will be treated differently than a scar on a buttocks. Especially if the buttock’s scar would typically be covered by the smallest of bathing suits.

Scars in children, often look particularly bad when the child is small. But as the child grows, the scar may become nearly invisible.

All we can do as attorneys is present evidence to a jury.

We can show the jury a scar. We can ask the jury to place a value on a person’s disfigurement. We can ask them to consider the impact of a scar on a particular individual as compared to the same scar on another individual.

For example, the very same scar visible on the face of a highly paid fashion model, that could be career-ending, might be considered a minor issue on the face of a 50-year-old soldier.

In addition, there is also the consideration of whether a particular scar might be further reduced in visibility by a skilled plastic surgeon.

Injuries that produce surgical scars are considered more severe than injuries that do not produce the same level of disfigurement.

There are also is a psychological component to disfigurement. Some scars might be more traumatizing to some people than to others.

In short, there is no hard and fast rule as to how a jury might value the harm posed by a scar.

Nevertheless, it is the attorney’s job to make sure that the jury has all the necessary information to arrive at a fair and reasonable assessment of an injury that results in scarring.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

Medical Record Audit Trails

I’m Katelyn Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

In this episode, we discuss medical record audit trails.

Before the age of electronic medical records, there was no need to maintain a medical record audit trail.

Years ago we tried a medical negligence case where we ordered a copy of a patient’s hospital chart before we sued the hospital.

The chart was approximately a thousand pages long.

After we sued the hospital on behalf of our client we again requested the patient’s medical chart.

What was produced for us was a chart that was mostly the same, except 15 to 20 key pages had been modified.

These changed pages were critical to explaining the care given to the patient and all of the changes favored the hospital.

Obviously, the changes were made to cover up the medical negligence of the doctors who treated our client.

When we studied the changes in the handwritten pages, it was clear that the pages were copied over from the original chart.

But subtle changes were made and key facts were either eliminated from the new record, or key facts were added to the new record.

All the changes combined painted a very different picture of what happened to the patient during her stay at the defendant’s hospital.

The changes to the chart were essentially lies. What we had was a hospital lying about the treatment given to its patient.

At trial, we admitted both sets of the two charts into the record.

At closing, we set both sets on the table in front of the jury.

We pointed out that key pages had been changed. We asked the jury to look at those changes to key pages.

We then asked the jury a rhetorical question: Why would an above-board and trustworthy hospital need to alter the patient’s chart after being sued for being careless in treating their patient?

Then we asked a second rhetorical question: What if the plaintiff had not had the foresight to get a copy of her medical chart BEFORE filing a lawsuit?

The jury rendered a very favorable verdict for our client.

Without an audit trail, electronic records could be easily altered.

Without an audit trail, there would be no way to pinpoint changes made in a patient’s chart AFTER the treatment is rendered.

When there are changes made to handwritten documents, an attorney will sometimes call a handwriting expert as a witness.

To explain changes made to an electronic medical record, you need an audit trail expert

The audit trail expert can explain who accessed what portion of the electronic chart on what day and at what time. The expert can show exactly what was changed in the chart. The changes can be projected onto a large screen to show a jury precisely what was changed and when it was changed.

An audit trail takes away a medical negligence defendant’s ability to lie and cover their tracks.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

Structured Settlements

I’m Katelyn Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question is prompted by a client who, for a variety of reasons, wanted to settle her case under what is referred to as a structured settlement.

If you are not familiar with the term “structured settlement” it will take a few moments to explain.

It is basically the purchase of a long-term annuity contract. The annuity contract will pay out the settlement over a number of years in the future.

If you are wondering why anyone would want to settle a case and have a portion of the settlement be paid out over time we will give you some examples.

One reason why someone might want to do this is to preserve government benefits so they might continue to qualify for government assistance notwithstanding a settlement of their case.

Suppose an injured person is receiving a government-supplemented insurance benefit which has a qualification that insurance beneficiaries cannot have a checking account with more than a specified number of dollars each month. If they have more in their account than the amount of dollars required for eligibility they will be disqualified for the insurance benefit they desperately need.

The solution to this, especially where the injured party might require lifetime care, is to arrange for a settlement where the payout is spread over the lifetime of the client. This enables the client to get a steady stream of money that they can use to supplement their care without having a disqualifying amount in their checking account.

Here is an example. Suppose a client is a nursing home patient who was injured when nursing home personnel dropped them. Suppose they broke a hip. They may be entitled to a large settlement, but unless that large sum settlement is paid out over time, it might disqualify them from nursing home assistance, which they very much need.

In such a case, a settlement can be structured such that the settlement beneficiary receives only a specified amount per month. The settlement party can even assign substitute beneficiaries to receive any unpaid benefits should they die before the annuity is paid out.

There are many more reasons why an injured person may want to structure the way the payout on a settlement is made, but preserving governmental benefits is a big reason and we’ll leave it there for now.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

High Interest Litigation Loans

I’m Katelyn Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question comes from a caller who is an existing client who called wanting to sign up for a litigation loan.

Every once in a while we have a client that somehow is located by one of these high-interest litigation loan companies. Perhaps these companies scan for police reports, or scan the court dockets for case filings.

However they find our clients, these companies send out loan paperwork directly to the client soliciting them to sign up for a high-interest rate litigation loan.

There really is no such thing as a low-interest litigation loan. These companies make their profits by requiring the payment of high interest over a short 2 – 3 year time window.

Typically the lowest interest rate is 15% per month. No, you heard that correctly, not 15% per year, but 15% per month compounded monthly.

This is a very very high interest rate. Typically a person accepting such a loan will usually owe two to three times what was received on the loan by the time the case goes to trial or settles.

Here is an example. Suppose you receive $1500 under such a loan, you could easily end up owning $5000 by the time the case gets to trial or settles.

These kinds of loans are legal, but they fall into the category of loans designed to take advantage of the victim of an injury.

In most situations, we tell a client that such loan arrangements are inadvisable.

Sometimes we have clients that want to accept such a loan even though we have advised them not to do it.

If they do want to go ahead with such a loan contrary to our advice we always require them to sign papers that confirm we have advised them of all the hazards associated with such loans, and that notwithstanding our advice, they have decided to go forward.

If an attorney fails to have their client sign such a document, the client could get to the settlement point, and wonder where all their money has gone.

When a person is desperate and signs to pay out high interest on a loan they might not be thinking clearly.

Sometimes attorneys may facilitate a client getting a low-interest loan from a relative. Perhaps a grandparent would loan money to pay rent and agree to get repaid at the time of settlement.

Many attorneys will charge a separate fee for filling out loan paperwork for a client. If the attorney was hired to move forward on a case and collect a recovery for the client, filling out loan paperwork serves as a huge distraction to proving a case in court.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

Proving Why a Person Fell

I’m Katelyn Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Several of our episodes deal with people being injured after falling in a store, restaurant, or other building. Or, falling outdoors on a defective sidewalk, or a defective parking lot.

In many cases, the cause of a fall is readily apparent.

Suppose a person falls going down a staircase in an apartment building where the handrail is broken and there is nothing to hang onto. The failure to provide a handrail violates nearly every building code. Establishing that the lack of a handrail contributed to the cause of the fall is not terribly difficult.

Suppose someone falls on broken and cracked concrete on a sidewalk, or a large pothole in a parking lot. Again, it may not take an expert to prove what caused a fall in such a case. But, an expert may be needed to establish the level of reasonable care expected in maintaining a sidewalk, or parking lot.

Some fall cases can be very complicated to prove, however.

You might be wondering just how does one go about proving that a floor surface was unreasonably slippery and proving that the unduly slippery surface caused a person to fall?

In such a case, an expert engineer might have to be called in to scientifically measure the slip resistance of a surface.

How does such an expert do this? The answer is by testing the surface with equipment designed to quantify the slip resistance of a floor.

Scientists refer to a number called the coefficient of friction to describe the slipperiness of walking surfaces. The coefficient of friction is the ratio of the frictional force resisting the motion of two surfaces in contact to the normal force pressing the two surfaces together.

That definition is way too complicated. So let’s make it simple.

Everyone would agree that it is much easier to slide or glide across a wood floor wearing socks than it is wearing snow boots.

Why? In scientific terms, the socks have a lower coefficient of friction and are hence more slippery.

In fall cases not only is the condition of the floor important, but the type of footwear being worn is also important.

Cleaning chemicals can impact the slipperiness of a floor surface.

We once had a case where a person fell in a hotel bathroom. We discovered that the wrong cleaning chemical was used on the tile floor. An expert was able to establish that the floor was 3 times more slippery than normal because the wrong chemical cleaner caused a thin highly slippery sheen to build up on the floor tile.

Experts can prove helpful in other ways in fall cases.

Fall experts are typically extremely knowledgeable about building codes, and the impact of inadequate lighting on a walkway or stairway.

In sum, proving why someone fell might be easy in some cases, or extremely complicated in other cases. But in both cases, injuries can be serious. And keep in mind, building code compliance and maintaining floors in compliance with safety standards are critical in one other respect. – People tend to rely on the fact that all stairways they encounter will be built to the same standards and that all floor surfaces will likewise be maintained so as to not be unduly slippery.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

Loss of Earnings and Benefits

I’m Katelyn Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question comes from a caller concerned about getting full compensation for injuries suffered by the caller in a car crash. The caller decided to retire three years early because she couldn’t take the pain any longer. She wanted to know her legal rights.

In order to answer her question we had to get answers to a few more questions of our own.

What we learned is that her doctor related her symptoms to the crash. But, the doctor did not take her off work. She decided on her own that the pain was too much for her to keep working.

In fact, her doctor recommended that she have surgery to correct the condition caused by the crash. However, the doctor refused to do the surgery himself because the doctor felt other health issues would prevent her from surviving going under the knife.

Also, though the doctor related the injury to the crash, the doctor did not say she should stay off of work, although the doctor said he understood that working would be very painful. Moreover, the doctor said that while working would be painful, it would not make the patient’s condition worse.

So the question is: if your doctor says you are injured as a result of another’s negligence, need surgery but can’t get the surgery, and without the surgery, you’re going to be suffering with pain made worse by working, but working won’t worsen the underlying condition, can you opt on your own to retire early, and ask a court to order the defendant to compensate you for the losses suffered from retiring early?

The answer is it depends. It would be clear-cut if the doctor said working would cause more damage to you. In that case, you definitely could seek compensation for lost wages and benefits and a lower lifetime Social Security payout, as well as increased insurance premiums due to early retirement, loss of continuing contributions to a pension fund due to early retirement, and the like.

The caller’s case is a bit different though. Her doctor confirmed that working would certainly elevate the patient’s pain, but would not make the condition worse.

Under such facts, some courts might say that the patient is not justified in retiring early. Some courts would say that unless a doctor takes you off work, you cannot ask the wrongdoer to compensate you for the money and benefits that you would lose by retiring early.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

Proving Medical Causation

I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question comes from a caller who said that she just discovered that a tumor for which she recently had surgery, appeared on a CT scan that she had several years ago. Though the tumor is clearly visible on the scan, she was never told that she had a tumor when that CT scan was done five years ago. She said that if she had known she had a tumor five years ago she would’ve immediately had surgery. She goes on to say she would’ve avoided having the pain and symptoms she’d been going to doctors about over the last five years. She wanted to know her legal rights.

Let’s assume for the sake of this discussion that the CT scan was incorrectly read and that the 5-year-old CT scan did show a small tumor. Let’s also assume that if the patient knew five years ago that she had a tumor she would have hired a surgeon to remove it five years ago.

Does that mean that the caller has a good case?

We should also assume that since the mistake five years ago was recently uncovered that the statute of limitations of two years would be deemed tolled by a court and that the Court would permit the patient to sue even though two years expired from the date of the medical mistake.

Thus, the issue we are discussing is can the patient win in court simply on her own word that she would’ve had surgery right away five years ago had she known about the tumor. Will a court permit her to stand up and say, “I want five years for the pain suffered while other doctors struggled to diagnose the cause of her pain in the area of the body where the tumor was located?”

How a judge might rule is going to depend on other facts that come to light.

The reason I say that is because the defendant who made the medical mistake, is going to argue that the patient has to have medical proof that their symptoms for the last five years are in hindsight entirely due to the presence of the small but growing tumor that, aside from the fact that it did show up in a CT scan, was so small that it really did not cause significant pain until shortly before her doctors uncovered it and removed it.

How do courts normally rule on this kind of question? In other words, is a court going to say that you can as the patient just simply get up in court and say that you would’ve immediately had surgery five years ago, and take your word alone on that issue? Or, will the court say that you have to have medical testimony to support your assertion and back up your statements?

A court very well may say that medical testimony is required because a medical doctor is the only qualified person to causally connect the pain and symptoms occurring over the past five years to the existence of the tumor. But if so, will a medical doctor be unwilling to make that connection? In fact, the patient had gone to several physicians making complaints over the past five years, but those complaints did not lead to a diagnosis of a tumor. In fact, they were vague complaints that might’ve been associated with a lot of medical issues, even allergies.

Is there a bright line to describe when a court would decide you do need medical testimony, or the court might decide you don’t need medical testimony? No. No bright line. Ten judges might rule 10 different ways.

If the medical issue is so simple that lay people on a jury could easily understand it, then a court may not require a medical opinion.

Let me give you an example.

Suppose the undiagnosed tumor resulted in elbow pain and swelling of the elbow. If those symptoms would point to a tumor, a court might allow the patient to stand on their own testimony. However if the symptoms could be accounted for by overexertion, say too much tennis, or too much golf, and there is evidence that the patient was playing a lot of tennis and playing a lot of golf, then a court would likely require medical testimony.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

What is a Wrongful Death Estate

I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question comes from a caller who wanted to sue over the death of his wife who died in a car crash when another driver ran a red light.

When I mentioned to the caller that a wrongful death estate would need to be opened, he was shocked. The caller responded that he and his wife had living trusts so he didn’t think an estate needed to be opened.

The caller’s confusion is not surprising.

There are essentially two types of estates, one is the type of estate where a person dies, and a court needs to determine what happens with their property. Most people have heard the term probate. Probate usually involves a court examining a will, or deciding who gets property if there is no will and issuing orders regarding property disposition.

The type of estate that needs to be filed to pursue a legal claim for death caused by negligence is referred to as a wrongful death estate. This is a much different type of estate.

When a person dies, they no longer can hire an attorney and file papers in court to pursue the party whose negligence led to their death.

An entity must be created under the law to file lawsuits, hire attorneys, etc. This entity is called a “wrongful death estate.”

In the typical case where the decedent is survived by a spouse, the attorney that the surviving spouse hires will help them open this wrongful death estate and ask the court to name the surviving spouse as the executor of the wrongful death estate.

Once named as executor the surviving spouse and his or her attorney may then file a complaint naming the negligent party as a defendant.

If a settlement is reached, then the court must approve any settlement which the estate may recommend before a settlement can be completed.

The estate doesn’t have free reign to act without the permission of the court in terms of settling. But for other purposes, the estate can act without any court intervention.

Like a wrongful death estate is a guardianship. Let’s suppose the caller’s wife, instead of having been killed in the crash, was placed in a coma and needed round-the-clock care. The surviving spouse could be appointed as a guardian with the legal authority to file a lawsuit, hire an attorney, and take other steps to protect the rights of the injured spouse.

So, while the caller was right to be confused in thinking that he and his deceased wife had done estate planning and could bypass the probate estate laws. In order to pursue a wrongful death claim on behalf of his deceased wife, an estate dealing with just the wrongful death issues would have to be opened in court to enable a complaint to be filed.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

Endorsed by Your Adversary

I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s topic is prompted by a client for whom we recently settled a case.

He reminded me at the conclusion of the case, that years earlier before he came to our office, I took his deposition as an employee of a business defendant that I sued.

He said that we were so thorough in questioning him at his deposition as an employee for the defendant company he worked for at the time, that he knew we would do a good job handling his car crash case.

He is not the first person who hired us, after having encountered our office in the past.

Over the years we have deposed many witnesses in other cases. Many times, we have had people who served on juries and decided the fates of our clients at trial decide to hire us to represent them in a legal matter years later.

I remember one gentleman who called and started out saying “I am not sure if you remember me, but I served as the foreman on the jury in the case where you represented a family hit by a semi-truck about 10 years ago.”

I vaguely remembered the case, but he remembered everything about it. In detail.

I have to say it’s a strong endorsement to have people who have been in an adversarial relationship with you as an attorney representing another client, who find themselves so persuaded that you know what you’re doing that they decide to hire you when they need an attorney.

The only other thing I could say about the subject is when we take the deposition of a defendant in a case or of an employee of the company that is sued as a defendant, we always try to be kind and polite to the witness.

Someone famous once said, “If you treat people with respect, they will treat you with respect.”  Of course, not everyone deserves to be treated with respect. Still treating another person with respect says more about you than it does about them.

I remember one case where a defendant driver was drunk when he hit my client. We had to take his deposition when he was being held in jail.

He had done some awful things. He had multiple drunk driving convictions. But he was sober when we questioned him. He was also truthful.

Though alcohol would turn him into a monster, when he was sober, he was pleasant.

Under questioning, we learned that he had served in the military, and did not start drinking until he came back. He started drinking because several buddies had been killed right before his eyes. He drank to kill his pain.

In any event, I would say that it is good advice, no matter what your profession, and no matter who you encounter in doing your job, to be respectful to those you encounter.

Today’s adversary may be tomorrow’s client.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

Food Preparation in Indiana Restaurants

I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s episode was prompted by the deposition I recently prepared for on a food poisoning case that settled.

The preparation reminded me how demanding we are, and rightly must be, with our restaurant industry. Indiana food safety and health regulations are well set forth and well organized. Failure to follow them at a restaurant will invariably lead to illness caused by a lack of sanitary conditions.

In preparation for this deposition, we contacted the local health department and received all of the complaint and inspection records for five years prior to the incident where our client says he experienced salmonella poisoning after eating at the restaurant.

The inspection records were quite revealing. The local health department noted problems with cockroaches, a sink in the kitchen that was inoperative, a lack of paper towels in the kitchen, employees engaging in food preparation without proper hand sanitation, and a lack of any hairnet worn by food preparers. They also found a lack of proper functioning dish and silverware cleaning equipment in the kitchen, a hole in the refrigerator door, a slimy green substance found in an ice chest, and no functioning temperature probes to be used for preparing chicken, fish, and beef. On one inspection the cooking griddle was filthy. On another occasion, no Certified Food Handler was present as required by Indiana law. The list goes on and on.

The witness I prepared to depose was a food preparer who was hired to prepare food at the table side and put on a show for guests. Obviously, this is not how most food preparation occurs.

But if you’re selling point is to make a show of preparing food at the table side you must still comply with regulations requiring the use of temperature probes. You’re supposed to still make sure the grill is operating at the required temperature. All food items must be properly handled and properly refrigerated before the raw food is brought out from the kitchen to the table side. But in this instance, it appears that none of that was done.

So contracting salmonella poisoning was highly likely under the circumstances.

Why? Because Salmonella infection occurs from the consumption of raw meats and eggs, contaminated dairy foods, such as unpasteurized milk, or fruits and vegetables contaminated by unsanitary food handlers. Food may be contaminated by rodent feces. The contamination may be spread by food preparers who fail to wash their hands, unclean utensils, and unclean cutting boards.

This is why having a Certified Food Handler, present as required under Indiana law is so important. A Certified Food Handler is a person who has a certificate from an accredited Food Protection institution.

What are these highly trained people expected to know? Things like requirements for heating and serving precooked foods and preparing and serving packaged or unpackaged foods that are potentially hazardous foods.

A Certified Food Handler must successfully pass an accredited examination administered by an accredited testing service. The restauranter must also always have this trained food specialist’s certification document and photo identification present at the food establishment. Furthermore, no person should be designated as a Certified Food Handler or in any way represent himself or herself to be a Certified Food Handler unless they hold the certification.

Restaurants of certain square footage are required to have a trained person in charge present at the food establishment during all hours of operation.

In short, under Indiana law, the restaurant has to have someone knowledgeable in all of the food safety requirements to make sure that the lower-level employees are doing their jobs properly and safely handling food.

I hope this episode hasn’t destroyed your appetite. But perhaps it will make you more critical when you go to a restaurant.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”