Strollerderby : lawsuits

Anti-Abortion Nurse Works to Increase Abortions

Miriam Axel-Lute — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:30:00 GMT

A New Mexico woman has filed an action in federal court claiming that when she asked nurse practitioner Sylvia Olona to shorten the string on her IUD, Olona instead pulled it out (a painful procedure), and then told her it that was a good thing because "I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don't know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them."

So the way she's against abortion is to screw up people's birth control, making it more likely they need an abortion? Swift one there.

(Current medical findings show, by the way, that IUDs prevent pregnancy primarily by creating an environment hostile to sperm and impeding their movement, not by preventing implantation of fertilized eggs. Not that the previous understanding would have excused Olona's behavior, but it's useful to know.)

Olona, of course, is claiming it was an accident, and that the IUD must not have been in right, but get this: She admitted these "accidents" happen to her a lot. "Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose because I am against them, but it's not true, they accidentally come out when I tug."

That sounds to me about as believable as "I accidently climbed on the counter and ate all the cookies." And a hell of a lot creepier.

Is physical violation, direct contradiction of patients' wishes, and ideological lectures what Rio Rancho Medical Center means by "a healing environment that takes care of the body, mind, and soul of patients and their families"? And if not, why does this woman still have a job?

Photo by Liz Henry.

More by this author:

Mother Sues OB Who Said She "Deserved Pain"—And Gave It to Her

Miriam Axel-Lute — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 22:00:00 GMT

Catherine Skol, former Chicago cop and mother of five, is suing her OB for abusive treatment during the birth of her fifth, nine months ago. If you've heard of the case, and the arguments that she's "just suing over rudeness" and should quit it because she's going to make malpractice rates go up, I suggest you go here, and read the details of the allegations.

I don't suggest you read it if you are pregnant and about to head into a hospital delivery however.

According to the suit, defendent Scott Pierce, who was filling in for the Catherine Skol's primary OB, was so incensed that she hadn't called him before heading to the hospital (an instruction her main OB had never given her) that he decided she "deserved" pain, refused an epidural, put her in intentionally painful positions, insisted she push before she was sufficiently dilated, kept telling her she was going to hemorrhage, wouldn't give her enough anesthesia before stitching her up and told her husband to "hold her down" instead, and talked loudly and crudely on a cell phone about an abortion in the room. There's more. It's truly astounding, in a nauseating kind of way.

(Confidential to "Linka" who called Skol a wimp for complaining about not getting her pain meds: I'm no fan of routine epidurals and had my kid with none, but I would never claim to know out of context when one was appropriate. And I'd like to see you get stitches for a severe laceration on your vulva without anesthesia, not mention all that other crap.)

As much as I've heard plenty of horror stories about OBs and their attitudes, I have to say that this is a category all its own, and sounds to me like the sort of extremely aggressive behavior that arises when people are on something illegal or are having, shall we say, certain brain chemical imbalances. Not that there aren't people out there who are just that awful, but they don't generally keep a job like doctor very long.

In fact, his behavior bothers me less than the commenters who say that because she and the baby are physically healthy, she should shut up and deal. Aside from being cruel, the behavior described was dangerous. If it's anything like she described, he should have his license revoked. People sue all the time for doctors failing to prevent problems they couldn't have prevented—that's one of the reasons our c-section rate (and malpractice insurance) is so high. Here's a case where the doctor was actually in the wrong rather than just getting the blame for a tragedy. This is what lawsuits are for.

Photo by Bloomsberries.

Related Posts:

Mom Says Hospital Fouled Childbirth—Twice

More by this author:

Dennis Quaid and Family Receive Settlement from Hospital

SunnyChanel — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 05:29:00 GMT

Dennis Quaid and his wife had quite a scare a little over a year ago. After their twins were born they were given a dangerous overdose of Heparin, the blood thinner that was administered to the newborns. Lucky, the twins recovered undamaged. Needless to say, the Quaids sued. They went after the maker of the Heparin blaming bottles that were poorly labeled. Although they sued the pharmaceutical company, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, the hospital where the babies were born took responsibility. Yesterday, the Quaids reached a settlement with the hospital at the tune of $750,000. The hospital isn’t actually admitting wrongdoing and the Quaids can still “pursue claims for the children”.

Sadly, there are a scary amount of hospital errors in dealing with newborns and infants. One issue is the difference in quantities to give and adult vs. babies, others are just plain old mistakes, human error striking again. Most families don’t have the resources to follow up with a lawsuit in cases like this. The Quaids were lucky enough to demand some consequences, something that needed to be addressed since there were several patients there who were also given an overdose.

Do you think that the hospital settled the case due to its’ high profile nature?

Via AP - photo via Celebrity Baby Blog

Mattel Pays Up – Karma for Tainted Toys

SunnyChanel — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:15:00 GMT

The big boys will have to pay out the big bucks. Toy behemoth Mattel, Inc was ordered to pay $12 million bucks to be dispersed between 39 states. This was a settlement over the lead-tainted toys that were shipped to the states from China.
Mattel and Fisher-Price (which they own) recalled a TON of toys last year, more than 21 million. There was worry that the toys were finished off with lead paint. Also recalled were toys that had itsy bitsy magnets due to the fear that kids could swallow them.

Moving forward Mattel agreed to “lower the acceptable level of lead in toys shipped to the states to 90 parts per million down from 600 parts per million, which is currently the federal standard.” Who knew was even an “acceptable level of lead” in kids toys?

It does sound like justice has been served and that not only did they have a financial consequence to their lack of oversight but that in the future there will be much more awareness to safety issues with our children’s toys.

Were any of your child’s toys part of the recall? Does this kind of toy scare make you just want to go totally green toywise?

Also check out:

Barbie Beats Bratz in Battle of the Dolls

Via AP

Grown Kids Try Forcing Dad To Divorce Second Wife In Court

Brett Singer — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:00:00 GMT

The death of a parent can be tough on the kids. So can second marriages. But usually when we talk about things being "tough on the kids", those kids are, you know. Kids.

This case in Dallas, Texas is a little bit different.

The dad, Claude Thomas, kept his marriage to Susana Martinez Ramirez a secret for a while. Like a couple of years. Why did he do that? Maybe because he thought his children would be concerned about the difference in their ages: Thomas is now 87, Ramirez is 45.

But hey, if he's happy, what's the problem? As usual, it comes down to money. According to Thomas' children from his first marriage (there are no children from the second marriage mentioned, and they would be too young to sue if there were), "their father's estate was valued at as much as $1.5 million. It's now estimated at $165,000, according to court documents."

It's possible that the elder Mr. Thomas is not "capable of making his own decisions." The article says that he, "early signs of dementia, but he appears to know what's happening around him. He's said in court that he wants no guardian – he's happy with his wife and her spending habits. And he has disputed testimony that portrays his wife as a villain."

The details are soap opera worthy. Ms. Ramirez "pushed the tea cart" at a local restaurant, and became close with Claude Thomas and his now-deceased first wife, Geneva Thomas. Some are claiming that the first Mrs. Thomas asked Ms. Ramirez to take her place when she died; the children say that's not true. To make matters even more complicated, Thomas works with his kids at a family business he started.

I'm conflicted about this one. Whose money is it, anyway? If the old man wants to let his young wife spend it all, do his children have the right to stop him? Is an inheritance a right? If Thomas is found to be mentally incapacitated, that's different, at least legally (I think). If not, I think the new wife can do whatever she wants to. The family business part makes this legally more complex (again – I think). But the main issue of inheritance and what happens to it when there's a second marriage is something we can expect to see more of, according to Terry Hammond, executive director of the National Guardianship Association. "It's a case indicative of where we are as a society…accumulated financial wealth is a target. And the exploitation and love, or the appearance of love, is one of the first ways to an elderly person's heart." I'm sure that's true. But is it always the case? Is this particular situation Harold and Maude, Woody Allen and Soon Yi (I know, ew, but I don't think she's after his money), Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones? Or is it Anna Nicole Smith and James Howard Marshall II, Paul McCartney and Heather Mills?

Source: Dallas Morning News

Image: funatiq

Do You Take Your Baby Bar Hopping?

Smokers No Longer Allowed Foster Children

Incredibly Good Homemade Halloween Costumes

About Ann Nixon Cooper

109 Year Old Daughter Of Slave Votes For Obama

The Candy That Time Forgot

The Obamas Are a Great First Family

Woman Swings Crowbar At Trick Or Treaters

Are Crocs and Kids A Dangerous Mix?

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:30:00 GMT

It was bound to happen eventually. All popular products must eventually meet their downfall in the form of consumer safety lawsuits. And so it is that the footwear company Crocs faces at least two suits for injuries involving their soft-soled slip-ons, children, and escalators.

Clark Meyer is suing the company for $2 million after his four-year-old son was injured on an Atlanta airport escalator while wearing Crocs. According to the suit, the boy’s foot was “severely and permanently” injured. And the parents of a three-year-old who broke three of her toes on an escalator while wearing Crocs are also suing the company.

The Crocs company has promised to insert safety labels into their shoes, but maintains that Crocs are no more likely to injure children on escalators than other types of footwear. Indeed, at least two children wearing flip flops were hurt on Atlanta Airport escalators this past summer, in addition to the Crocs injury.

It does seem to me that these injuries are not exclusively Crocs' fault. Given that there about 7,500 serious escalator-related injuries a year, that children under five are likely to be involved in these accidents, and that Crocs are very popular right now, it does seem that the Crocs company is simply a convenient, and potentially lucrative, scapegoat for a larger safety issue.

But having no personal experience with Crocs, I can't really judge the lawsuits. Do parents of Croc-toting kids find the shoes to be more dangerous than other kinds of footwear?

Photo: New York Times

Couples Sues After Failed Vasectomy

Barbie to Bratz: Pay Up B*tch

SunnyChanel — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:50:00 GMT

The headline of the Los Angeles Times business section read “Mattel Wins Skimpy Damages in Bratz Doll Case”. How much is skimpy? Well I guess in plastic doll circles, 100 million dollars is considered skimpy. That’s some math I can’t even begin to comprehend. But Mattel had asked for 1.8 billon so they ended up with only about 5.5% of what they really wanted and felt that they deserved.

Why was Mattel looking for some payback in the first place? Well in a nutshell, if you haven’t been following the "war of the dolls", Bratz’s Daddy, and former Barbie designer Carter Bryant, developed the line while under an exclusive contract with toy giant Mattel. But Cater played the field and ended up having the toy company MGA develop the dolls even though Mattel owned his ass (and all his ideas). MGA’s chief officer, who was found to have “secretly aided the designer in breaking his exclusivity” also got a bitch slap from the jury.

But the story doesn’t end there. Mattel will “seek an injunction as soon as next month to stop MGA from making more Bratz dolls.” Oh those dolls, why can’t they all just play nice.

For more information about the trial check out the more informed and eloquent musing on the situation by our own Jen Chaney here:

The Latest on Barbie v. Bratz

In Barbie v. Bratz, Barbie Wins

In The Courtroom: Barbie V. Bratz

Warner Bros. sues over Hari Puttar film

Brett Singer — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:00:00 GMT

A Bollywood film producer has madea movie called. "Hari Puttar - A Comedy of Terrors." Warner Bros. thinks "Hari Puttar" sounds too much like their cash cow, "Harry Potter", so they've sued, going so far as to seek a preliminary injunction to prevent the movie from opening on September 12.

CNN spoke to one of the producers, Munish Purii, who denies any link to J.K. Rowling's boy wizard. "There is absolutely nothing to link 'Hari Puttar' with 'Harry Potter."' Apparently, "Hari is a common name in India and 'puttar' is Punabji for son."

The plot of "Putar" actually sounds much more like "Home Alone."

Hari Prasad Dhoonda…or ‘Hari Puttar’, as he is fondly called, is a bright 10 year old who has recently moved from India to the UK with his parents…His father, Prof. Dhoonda is assigned to work on a secret project with the Defense Forces at a remote location in the UK…Within days of their arrival in London, Hari's aunt and uncle DK visit the Dhoonda residence with their own as well DK's boss' children. Suddenly, the house is filled with the effervescence of no less than ten kids. At this point, everything goes for a spin for ‘Hari Puttar’. Not only is he thrown out of his room to accommodate the girls, he is also ragged and ridiculed by all the other kids for being too naïve. ‘Hari Puttar’ suddenly feels unwanted, undermined and unappreciated. To top it, even as DK arranges a vacation for the entire family, one night before they take off, Hari's mother sends him off to the attic bedroom as a punishment for no big fault of his. As luck would have it, the next morning, the whole family leaves in a tearing hurry, forgetting that they have left something integral behind - Namely Hari and his little cousin Tuk Tuk…

That's straight from glamsham.com; apologies for the occasional broken English.

So apart from the title, you have an annoying Aunt and Uncle (shades of Vernon and Petunia Dursley) and a kid being thrown in the attic as punishment for something that wasn't his fault (that one is a bit of a stretch.) You do not, however, have a boy wizard or anything like that. But there is that name, and its not parody, which in theory makes it OK (I'm not a lawyer but I did appear on The People's Court once, so that makes me an expert… NOT.)

Some of the comments on glamsham.com are hysterical. A sampling:

While I agree with everyone else about the similarities between this movie and Home Alone, I'd rather watch something like that than something that involves witchcraft and teaches children how to actually perform spells. I'm not sure what was in the minds of the creators of Harry Potter, but all I see is corruption aimed toward the minds of our youth!

Ah yes. The old "J.K. Rowling is a Satanist who only wants to send our children to Hell." Good times, good times.

Source: CNN
Image: glamsham.com

Read more:

Creepiest spam message ever: we have your kids

Do kids do better on tests if they get paid?

Mr. Rogers Talking Keychain

J.K. Rowling Takes Copyright Lessons from Professor Umbridge

Why the puppy games are better than the Olympics

8 year old blues guitarist not allowed to play in bars

Nastia Luikin's mom watches from the stands (video)

It all started when Mary needed a laxative

5 ways to get revenge on your kids

Oy vey, Miley showed her tuchas again

Old Jonas Brothers CD priceless

Like father like son

Brett Singer — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:00:00 GMT

This is just funny.

Andrew Giuliani, son of Rudy and ex-wife Donna Hanover, is suing Duke University because they kicked him off the golf team.

He wants monetary damages, to be reinstated to the team, and "the right to use Duke’s golf center for the rest of his life" because that's what he was promised when Duke "recruited" him to play golf.

Why did they kick Andy off the team? Well, for one thing, he wasn't that good, at least not according to info in the New York Times: they say that he was "in the bottom half of the 14-person team." He also, allegedly, threw an apple at a teammate, smashed a golf club on the ground, and "played harder than some of the other boys wanted to play" during a friendly football game. Andrew doesn't deny any of this, according to the Times, but he still feels he was treated unfairly. He also plans to pursue a professional golf career. Luckily, he has rich parents.

Andrew's father, former Mayor and failed Republican Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani, is not involved, and at the mere mention of his name, mom Donna Hanover stopped the interview with the Times. Daddy's personal accomplishments include announcing his divorce from Donna to the press before he told her. (Yes, he was great after 9/11. But he was Mayor for eight years before that. I live here. Trust me, there's a reason they called him "Generalissimo Giuliani.")

His former coaches spoke out in Golf Week about the lawsuit. They think, shockingly, that he's wrong.

As proof that his coaches are nimrods, specifically head O.D. Vincent, Andy G offers up this photo (posted above, with Andrew at right.) That is, any coach that would allow his golf team to have their picture taken in their undies must be a crappy coach. If that's not a sound legal argument, I'm not a member of the bar. Oh wait…

image: Gothamist

Sad footnote to sad story

When Granite Attacks

Is it fair to take pictures of Britney's kids?

Congress Moves To Ban Phthalates, Despite Bush Opposition

They Say: Practice Really Does Make Perfect (hear that, Andrew?)

Should Parents Be Naked Around their Kids?

Baby survives tornado

Political Nanny: No Gifts from Mom and Dad for the Obama Girls (maybe Andy got one gift too many)

When The Little Mermaid Attacks

Brett Singer — Sun, 18 May 2008 13:00:00 GMT

An actor in the Broadway production of "A Little Mermaid" has asked for a court order to "preserve a 'certain show prop sailing ship'" from the show, according to the New York Times. Why? He was injured on stage and might be suing the Mouse House, so that piece of Disney stage magic could be evidence.

So what happened? Actor Adrian Bailey "fell through a trap door on the sailing ship and landed on the stage 30 to 40 feet below." Yow. His injuries? "Fractured wrists, a broken back, a shattered pelvis, a fractured sternum, several fractured ribs and a fractured foot."

It sounds like a freak accident, but a really, really bad one. Mr. Bailey has had four surgeries already.

Broadway musicals have become extremely complex technically. When "Lion King" first opened, a number of actors had back and neck problems stemming from the large, heavy, and, I must admit, very cool looking costumes. The union, Actors Equity, worked things out with Disney (I think on-staff massage therapists were involved) so that performance-related injuries were kept to a minimum. (Note: this is mostly conjecture, but it's conjecture based on what I recall happening at the time.)

Whenever I hear about something like this, I wonder if maybe the technical aspects of Broadway have started to overshadow the shows themselves. "Mermaid," despite lavish sets and costumes, received some pretty bad reviews. Ben Brantley of the Times said that the show "burdens its performers with ungainly guess-what-I-am costumes and a distracting set awash in pastels gone sour and unidentifiable giant tchotchkes that suggest a Luau Lounge whipped up by an acid-head heiress in the 1960s." Sometimes big is good – "Lion King" is a great example. But sometimes big is just… big. And while I realize this is probably just a freak accident, maybe it's time to re-consider this whole "more more more!" philosophy of Broadway shows.

image: NYTimes.com

Oh, you have kids? Get out.

Brett Singer — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:00:00 GMT

Parents Jamie Katz and Lisa Nocera have filed a lawsuit against New York City real estate firm Brown Harris Stevens, claiming that brokers did things such as refusing to show them an apartment because, "the owners would not rent to people with children because there was an outdoor space," and declining to show them another one because of "lead paint." The Fair Justice Housing Center sent in some spies, I mean, "couples posing as prospective renters with and without children," and they received similar treatment, according to the article in MetroNY. (OK, I do mean spies, only they don't have cool gadgets and stuff.)

Now, if there is real discrimination going on, that's a bad thing of course. But based on the limited information in the article, it doesn't sound that cut and dry. At worst, the people misbehaving would appear to be the landlords. Note that I have absolutely no idea what the specifics of the law are. But telling someone that a landlord doesn't want children in an apartment because it contains lead paint might actually be a good thing, right?

image: designofsignage.com

Bullying Makes The Front Page

Brett Singer — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:29:00 GMT

The New York Times put Dan Barry's Monday column on the front page, which would indicate that someone at the paper of record thinks that bullying is a big deal. This particular story is pretty horrible: apparently Billy Wolfe of Fayetteville, Arkansas has been getting regular beatdowns for the past three years, sometimes so bad that he required medical attention.

Although I agree with this blogger that Barry's article doesn't try to show two sides of the story, it's clear that Billy is a target for repeated abuse. The article opens with a description of two students driving up to where Billy is waiting for the school bus, hitting him, and filming the incident with a cellphone camcorder. Ugly, ugly stuff.

What's most disturbing is the reported reactions from school officials. After Billy had to have his cheek sewn up by a dentist after being hit so hard in wood shop that he was briefly unconscious, one official said that, "it looked like Billy got what he deserved" and declined to call the police. Another school official says "Billy and the boy who punched him at the bus stop had exchanged words and shoves a few days earlier."

Somewhat like the "but he called me fat" defense, this doesn't exactly hold water. Do these "school officials" think that knocking someone unconscious is the appropriate response to a verbal fight, or even a physical one? Am I just an East Coast wussy who doesn't think it's acceptable for students to fight until they draw blood?

Billy's parents have filed a lawsuit against the students. One is named (Ian Teeters) and the others are "John Does." There was also some cyberbullying going on; a Facebook page was set up specifically to taunt Billy. This could be significant since cyberbullying is against state law. While I sympathize with the parents, I do think that suing his fellow students isn't likely to make Billy less of a target.

Lots of blogging about this of course, and Jess and Josh Talk About Stuff pointed me to this article from London's Daily Mail. The title, Coping with the bullies 'is part of growing up', says child expert, is enough to make your head explode, but the actual details are less wacko. If it is indeed true that "a child in Kent was arrested for throwing a slice of cucumber from a tuna sandwich at a classmate," then yes, that was a bit much. Unfortunately, it's too easy for some folks to classify any and all fighting as "boys will be boys." The Macho Response has a slightly different take. The blogger adds a little bit of text to the Times article: "So one day Billy walked into wood shop, picked up a two-by-four..." That's one option.

Maybe the bullies are just playing too many videogames.

image: New York Times

Game Over! This Guy Locks Up Asshole Of The Century Award

Amy S.F. Lutz — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:04:00 GMT

Remember the geezer who sued the eight-year-old boy after a minor skiing accident? Well, compared to Tomas Delgado of Spain, that ornery Pennsylvanian is a complete amateur.

Delgado is suing the family of seventeen-year-old Enaitz Iriondo for damage done to his Audi A8 - damage done when Delgado's car smashed at 100 mph into Iriondo's bicycle. Iriondo was killed instantly.

Although Delgado was traveling at almost twice the 55 mph speed limit, a court split the blame for the accident between both parties, as Iriondo was wearing neither reflective clothing nor a helmet. Delgado's insurance company coughed up less then $50,000 for Iriondo's parents, and, I'm assuming, no part of the almost $30,000 in repairs and rental costs Delgado had to pay to get his car back on the road. So it makes sense for him to go after the family, seeing as they have fifty grand burning a hole in their pockets and everything.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When, oh when, will the pathetic greed, the absolute lack of compassion, the stunning mean-spiritedness of some of the people on this planet cease to surprise me?

Canadian Meth Addict Sues Dealer - And Wins

Amy S.F. Lutz — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:04:00 GMT

How many times have we heard this story? A "friend" supplies a vulnerable young person with drugs until she's addicted. He makes money hand over fist from her compulsion, until an overdose sends her into a coma. Sad, but all too common these days.

Only this story has a twist: the addict recovered from her coma, and sued her dealer's sorry ass.

Sandra Bergen, now 23, accused childhood acquaintance Clinton Davey of selling her crystal meth - which he knew was highly addictive - not only to make money but to cause her "physical and mental suffering."

Davey tried to argue that Bergen had taken the drugs of her own volition, but because he wouldn't name his supplier, the Saskatchewan judge disallowed the defense, and Bergen won the case. Although an award has not yet been determined, she is asking for $50,000.

I don't know if there are differences between the Canadian and American justice systems that would prevent this from working here, but I would love to see the broken-down victims of drug addiction walking into court and stripping their dealers of their tricked-out SUVs, their bling - maybe their stock portfolios, for all I know about what drug dealers do with their money. That's justice, 21st-century style.

A-Hole Alert: Guy Sues 8-Year-Old Over Ski Accident

Kelly Mills — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:41:00 GMT

David J. Pfahler is taking Scott Swimm to court because Pfahler says Swimm was skiing recklessly when the two collided and Pfahler says he tore a shoulder tendon. Now, Pfahler is 60 years old, and at the time of the accident, Swimm was 7. Swimm's dad says it wasn't even a bad crash, but that hasn't stopped Pfahler (say that 5 times fast) from suing to the tune of $75,000 for "physical therapy, vacation time, nursing and medical services provided by Pfahler's wife, and other expenses." Nursing services from his wife? Dude, why not also add the fact that she cooked and cleaned and performed carnal acts when he couldn't use that arm so good as professional chef-ing, housekeeping, and, um, escort services? Don't hold back on that kid, for god's sake.

But why am I not surprised Pfahler would sue? Because he works for Reader's Digest. That's why he has no qualms about going legal hard on a 48-pound kid skiing less than ten miles per hour (according to mom). But I do understand why Pfahler (I can't say that enough) would be upset. I mean, it's not like people routinely get injured skiing or anything, so this must have felt like such a freak occurence, an unheard of event. So I'll just say to him: Happy Holidays, dickhead.