Central New York Injury Lawyer Blog

My last blog was about ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution), such as mediation and arbitration, which is, to a certain extent, replacing jury trials as a way to resolve personal injury lawsuits in Syracuse, Central New York, and, in fact, just about everywhere else. Here's a recent example of how ADR works from my own case load.

I am scheduled to try a Syracuse fall-from-scaffold lawsuit in about 3 weeks. Meanwhile, the defendant's insurance carrier has invited me to try to settle the case through "mediation" first. After I explained how this works, my client agreed to it, and we will be at the mediation table in about a week. If we don't settle at the mediation, I will have only a few weeks to prepare my trial, which is not enough time. I really need 6 weeks! So I am already preparing my exhibits, my direct examinations, my cross-examinations, etc., in case I need to try this Syracuse construction accident lawsuit.

The case may or may not settle at mediation. Much of that depends on how reasonable the insurance carrier will be. If the case settles in mediation, I won't feel bad about having spent so much time preparing for trial. I always learn by preparing for trial. It makes me a better lawyer.

In preparing to try this case, I have become a kind of "expert" on lumbar (lower back) injuries, which is what my client suffered when he fell from a scaffold at work and landed on his feet. I have even ordered large "blowups" of my client's x-rays and MRI's so his doctors can vividly explain his injuries to the jury. I have also hired a medical illustrator to create illustrations of the surgery my client endured as a result of his accident.

Even if I don't try this case, the medical knowledge I gained in preparing for trial will help me in other cases, since lumbar spine injuries are very common injuries in falls from scaffolds cases, car accident cases, and other types of traumatic injury cases.

My father always said, "there is no such thing as useless knowledge". As usual, he was right.

Syracuse New York personal injury jury trials are fewer and farther between than only a decade ago. The same can be said for all Central New York personal injury jury trials. In fact, the same trend is being noted throughout the entire State, as well as the other 49 States. Read about it for yourself, but clicking here and here. All civil jury trials are down in numbers, everywhere.

Let's be clear; although the number of lawsuits filed has remained steady over the last decade, fewer and fewer of those lawsuits are going to trial. Here's a vivid demonstration of the trend: In 1962, more than 11 percent filed civil lawsuits in federal court went to trial. By last year, however, that percentage had dropped to 1.8.

If almost 98% of personal injury lawsuits are not going to trial, what is happening to them? Many of them are being resolved by "alternative dispute resolution", (known as "ADR"). In some areas, ADR has overtaken trials as the predominant way to resolve personal injury lawsuits as well as other types of civil disputes. ADR consists mainly of "mediation" and "arbitration". "Mediation" is a non-binding settlement procedure where a neutral "mediator", usually a lawyer or a retired judge, tries to bring the parties to a reasonable settlement that is acceptable to both sides. "Arbitration" is an informal hearing where a lawyer or retired judge hears the case, and decides it, but the formal rules of evidence, such as the bar against hearsay, don't usually apply.

What has changed since the 1960's? Why are cases being resolved by ADR rather than jury trial? Here's my take on it; juries were more plaintiff-friendly back in the 1960's. In the 1960's, many New York injury lawyers would rather take their chance at trial than settle out of Court. But with all the negative publicity personal injury lawyers and cases have gotten since then (the "MacDonald's case", etc.), the jury pool is now biased against personal injury victims and their lawyers. More and more Syracuse New York personal injury cases, as well as such cases everywhere else, are tossed out by cynical juries. This makes Central New York accident lawyers, and such lawyers across the nation, more willing to consider ADR.

Also, ADR was hardly even heard of back in the 60's. It really wasn't an option. Now it is a fast-growing method of resolving New York accident cases, as well as other civil cases, principally because, compared to trial by jury, both the costs and the risks are greatly diminished.

The costs are reduced because the parties usually don't have to pay experts to give testimony; their reports can be submitted informally. At trial, the formal rules of evidence would not allow for this. Experts are expensive. For example, I am trying a case next month where the medical doctors I am putting on the stand are charging me a total of about $4,000 each, and since I have 4 of them, that will cost us $16,000. Mediating or arbitrating the case would probably save me, and my client, that money.

The risks are diminished in ADR, at least in mediation, because the injury victim is almost sure to walk away with some money, whereas a jury trial is a roll of the dice; we could win big, we could get a goose egg verdict, or we could get anything in between.

Most of my clients would prefer to take a little less than they feel they are entitled to rather than risk getting a thumbs-down verdict by a jury of strangers who might not understand their case or injury. In the end, resolving a case by trial is a gamble - and an expensive one - that most clients would prefer to avoid.

A good New York trial lawyer has to be prepared to jury-try his cases. But if he is truly representing his clients' interest, he will be open to ADR and consult his client about this option as well.

Wednesday, on Route 5 in Elbridge, a tractor trailer rear-ended a stopped car so hard that the car, a Kia, burst into flames, killing its driver and passenger. The Onondaga County deputy sheriff's office says the tractor trailer left no skid marks at all, which means its driver did not apply the brakes. And what does that mean? That the driver did not even see the stopped car. And what does that mean? One of two things: Either he was sleeping, or he was distracted.

Most likely distracted. I have blogged about this before: distracted driving is become a HUGE problem on our roadways. More and more Central New York car accident lawsuits against distracted drivers are being filed. As a Syracuse car accident lawyer, the volume of car accidents cases I handle where the at-fault driver was distracted because he was using a cell phone, texting, and using some other electronic device has increased dramatically over the years.

Typically, distracted driving causes crossover accidents (the texting or dialing driver slowly drifts across the centerline without noticing) and rear-end collisions (the distracted driver does not notice that the vehicle in front of him has stopped). But distracted drivers also tend to run red lights, blow past stop signs, and run into utility poles or other roadside structures.

Combine distracted driving with tractor trailer driving and what do you get? A bad situation made worse. Tractor trailers are so heavy compared to cars that a collision between the two is no contest; the car's driver and passengers are more often than not killed (as they were in this accident) or seriously injured. That's why commercial trucks and drivers are subject to so many State and Federal safety regulations. By the way, these regulations come in handy in preparing a New York commercial truck accident lawsuit.

Don't get distracted while you drive. If you are the victim of New York disctracted driving accident, call or email me for free information on what to do about it.

Being a New York personal injury lawyer has its perks! A client took me out to dinner the other night. It was a fine meal at a great Geneva New York restaurant, Port's Café. The restaurant is only about a mile and a half from where my client's tragedy happened 3 summers ago --- his wife was hit and killed by a tractor trailer as she crossed routes 5 and 20 on foot, in a crosswalk, in the City of Geneva.

The dinner was a kind of celebration. We had settled his Geneva New York wrongful death case after almost three years of intense litigation, which included the filing of two lawsuits, and the taking of many depositions. And although no amount of money could ever replace the loving wife he lost, he had finally found peace. He felt that at least a measure of justice had been done. We had made them pay! To him, the money meant they had finally accepted responsibility for the accident after years of denial.

Because the wrongful death settlement was for a substantial sum of money, and my client does not need the money at this time (he has a good job and no children to support), I suggested he should consider a "structured settlement". A "structured settlement" is an insurance or financial agreement in which the plaintiff does not take the entire settlement from the insurance carrier in "a lump sum payment" right away, but instead forgoes immediate payment of at least some of the money, which he will receive later in "periodic payments" (usually monthly). A structured settlement is usually created through the purchase of an "annuity", which guaranties future periodic payments at a fixed amount over a fixed period of time, with interest added in so that you end up with more money.

Example: If you "structure" $500,000 to be paid out over a 10 year period, with monthly payments starting in the year 2020 and extending through 2030, you will end up getting paid far more than $500,000, because the money will have earned interest. You might end up with $800,000 or more, depending on the interest rate of the structure.

And you won't pay a dime of income tax on the money that is earned from the structure until you actual receive the payments. If the client took that same $500,000 as a lump sum, and invested it, he would in most cases have to pay income tax on the money earned from his investments as they are earned. Not so with structured settlements.

When we help a client find the right "structured settlement" for his or her financial needs, we always carefully research structures offered by various insurance carriers and financial institutions to get the client the very best return on his or her money, i.e., the best interest rate, with a secure triple "A" rated institution.

My client was very happy with how I handled his case, and his settlement. That's why he was taking me out to dinner. He even got a gift for my wife!

Yes -- being a New York personal injury and medical malpractice lawyer has its perks --- but the best perk of all is a happy client!

I have blogged about New York texting while driving car crash cases more than once. You can read my prior posts here and here. But this video --- oh my god --- if you can watch it more than once, you did better than I did. As painful as it is to watch, we should REQUIRE all drivers - especially inexperienced ones -- to watch it repeatedly! I have saved the video so I can show it to my oldest son -- Sebastian -- when he starts driving (only three years from now!).

I blogged just the other day about spine injuries and "pre-existing" or "degenerative" spinal conditions and how they can negatively impact New York personal injury and accident settlements and trials. My partner, David Kalabanka, a great Central New York personal injury lawyer, read the post and sent me the following email, which I think makes a great post itself. (By the way, David used to work as an insurance company defense lawyer in Syracuse. His job was to beat us in court! We litigated several Syracuse New York accident cases against him, and he defended them with such skill that we decided to bring him into our firm to work with us instead of against us. He came aboard about 8 years ago and never looked back. But I digress!) Here's David's email to me:

You should tell your readers that sometimes the injured accident victim has radicular symptoms. What are radicular symptoms? An injury may cause nerve root or a spinal cord compression or irritation. The irritation/compression follows the nerve that innervates another part of the body and cause pain there. The back is complex--and injury to a certain area of the back will cause pain in one or both feet The most commonly known back injury that causes pain elsewhere is sciatica where an injury to the back causes pain in the buttocks or the back part of the leg or calf. That is why it is so important for thorough testing, not just one time examination or review because an injury may not be what it initially appears to be. A foot pain could actually be originating at a certain level of the back and it may take the medical providers time to determine the actual source of the pain. An injury to the neck may cause pain in the elbow, wrist or hands or certain fingers depending upon where the injury in the neck is located.

Thanks, David, for your very astute email. You made today's blog post a breeze!

My hometown newspaper, the Geneva Finger Lakes Times, reports today that a Florida man working for a subcontractor on the Wal-Mart "Super Center" expansion in the Town of Geneva, New York, fell from a scaffold, suffered shoulder and wrist injuries, and was then Merrcy Flight-flown to Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester. The worker had been working at the ceiling level when he and the scaffold both fell over. OSHA is investigating.

No matter what OSHA decides, though, I can tell you with almost absolute certainty, from my years of handling New York falling scaffold injury cases, that the injured worker has a "slam dunk" New York worksite accident case against the owner of the building where he fell, Wal-Mart, as well as against whoever the general contractor on the job was. This is because of a special New York law, called the "scaffold law" (Labor Law 240[1]), specifically designed to help victims of unsecure scaffolds and ladders get full compensation for their injuries from both the owner of the building and the general contractor on the job. You can read my prior posts on this topic by clicking here and here.

Not much to write about here, just watch the video below:

The Syracuse and Central New York accident law firm of Michaels & Smolak represent lots of people with spine injuries. That's not surprising; spine (neck and back) injuries are very common in car crashes, falls from scaffolds or ladders, slip and falls, and other accidents. But in the world of New York personal injury claims, spine injury cases pose special problems in court. Let me explain why.

Our injured clients often have never in their life had any back or neck pain, but ever since the accident they have had excruciating pain in the neck (cervical spine), or mid back (thoracic spine), or lower back (lumbar spine), sometimes with "radiculopathy" (radiating pain) down into the legs or arms. The pain is sometimes so severe it prevents them from working in anything but sedentary jobs, or from working at all.

But even though our clients never had any problems with their back or neck before the accident, after they undergo an MRI or CT Scan, the radiologist will sometimes say that their spine was already compromised before the accident. The radiologist will see evidence, in the MRI or CAT scan, of something known as "degenerative" spinal changes or disease. It might be a herniated disc (a protrusion or budge in the intervertebral disc that can compress nerves around the spine) or.a spinal stenosis (a narrowing of the spinal canal causing swelling of the tissue around the spine, which can compress the nerves around the spine).

Even though these "degenerative" conditions, which are caused by the natural aging process, were present before the accident, they were causing no pain or symptoms of any kind. That is why medical professionals refer to them as "preexisting asymptomatic degenerative disease".

Now here's the problem: Even though the accident caused the symptoms, and even though the client would probably never have developed the symptoms but for the accident, and even though the symptoms may now require extensive surgery (to relieve the pain), such as a fusion of the discs, or a "discectomy" (removal of a portion of the problem disc), the insurance company lawyers will argue that the accident did not cause the injury. Rather, they will argue, the injury was already there, and therefore, they are not responsible for compensating the accident victim.

And some juries buy that! That's why, when, as a New York personal injury lawyer, I read my clients' medical records, and I see the words "pre-existing" or "degenerative", I cringe. This is not good for my client's case. I know the insurance company will take those words and run with them. They will often try to low ball the settlement offer based on their argument that the injury was already there before the accident.

But it wasn't. What was there BEFORE the accident was merely a "condition", and a completely benign one (no pain!). What was there AFTER the accident was a painful disability, caused by the physical trauma of the accident.

We believe our clients are entitled to full compensation for the symptoms that the accident caused, regardless of whether underlying asymptomatic "degenerative changes" were already there. And many, but not all, juries agree with us. But in the end, it is the client's decision whether to risk a trial, where a jury may decide to discount his or her injury because the underlying condition was "pre-existing", or to settle, sometimes for less than they deserve, with the insurance carrier.

And we always support our clients, no matter what they decide.

At my favorite Bike Shop (the Geneva Bicycle Center), I recently learned of a dog-on-bicyclist attack near Geneva, New York. Apparently, the dog charged out at the cyclist and caused her to fall from her bike and fracture her pelvis. That's a painful injury that will require lots of time to heal.

So here's my bog topic of the day: Can the injured cyclist hold the dog owner liable for her injuries? The answer, unfortunately, is only "maybe"! The basic rule in New York where a dog charges out into the roadway and causes a cyclist to fall is that the dog owner is legally liable only if he or she knew or should have known that the dog had a tendency to chase after or obstruct traffic. Take a look at the case of Alia v. Fiorina and you will see how a dog owner can beat a cyclist's case by testifying that the dog never chased down cars or bikes before.

So if you are the seriously injured victim of a dog-on-cyclist attack, how do you find out whether this was the first time the dog ever chased down a car or cyclist, or whether the dog had a history of doing so? Just ask the dog owner, right? Wrong!

If there's one thing I have learned from suing dog owners is that they are like parents; they feel their cute little Fido can do no wrong. Typical dog owner responses to his or her dog biting someone, or charging out at a cyclist, go like this: "Butch would never bite anyone - he must have been provoked". "Fido would never attack a cyclist --- he was just being playful and the cyclist must have over-reacted".

The way to find out the truth about the dog is to hire a skilled investigator to get statements from the neighbors, UPS driver, postal worker, and anyone else who frequents the house and the street or roadway where the dog lives. That's what the New York bicycle accident lawyers at Michaels & Smolak do when they are investigating a dog that caused a Central New York bicycle accident.

If you can hold the dog owner liable, the owner's homeowner's insurance will most likely provide coverage for the injuries, including payment of medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering. And if you are seriously injured, the extra money will come in handy.

If you are attacked by a dog while riding your bike, see a knowledgeable New York bicycle accident lawyer who knows how to properly investigate your claim.

O.K., I have a confession to make. I am a law breaker! Yesterday, for example, I blew through at least 5 stop signs. Why?

Because I was on a bicycle. Good excuse? Not legally. And as a New York Bicycle accident lawyer , I usually recommend that cyclists strictly adhere to the New York vehicle and traffic law. But come on! Is a cop really going to pull me over for rolling through a stop sign when I am on a bike!? Of course not. And am I endangering others (as a motorist does) when I roll through a stop sign without stopping? Of course not. So who am I endangering, if anyone? Only me. And actually, I don't' think I am endangering even myself! Let me explain.

The street I live on, Maxwell Ave, in Geneva, New York, is four blocks long. Each intersection is controlled by four-way stop signs. The City speed limit is 30 miles per hour. So when I take off for a ride down Maxwell, I don't stop at these stop signs (unless cars are coming). Instead, I slow down a bit, and look to my left and right (twice!) and just keep going. It's safe! Cars are going slowly, you can see them from far away, and they have to stop no matter which direction they are coming from, so there is plenty of time to react to them.

Why don't I just obey the law and stop? In a word, "momentum"! We Cyclist never want to give up that momentum we have worked so hard to gain. But to fully comply with the New York stop-sign laws, we would have to apply our brakes, pull at least one clip out of the pedal, and put a foot on the pavement. And lose all that momentum!

Traffic laws were made for cars. In a car-free biking world, stop signs would not even exist. Cyclists can, and do, slow down, look both ways, and proceed through intersections without endangering each other.

Idaho has it right. Its stop-sign law, first made law in 1982, and then updated in 2005, allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. If a biker looks, and no cars are coming, he or she is allowed slow down and roll through the stop sign. He or she is allowed to keep his or her hard-earned momentum!

Red lights are a different story. Stop! But stop signs, at least four-way ones, are different.

Unfortunately, New York (and the other 48 states) have not followed Idaho's lead, although San Francisco, and a few States, are considering doing so .

Fortunately, police rarely ticket cyclists who safely roll through stop signs, at least not in upstate New York.

I don't advocate careless, dangerous cycling. I see too many serious bicyclist injuries in bicycle-car collisions in my job as a New York personal injury lawyer. I am a strong advocate of safe biking practices. But let's be real. Almost no cyclists I know come to full stops at all stop signs. Let's make the law reflect reality in upstate New York.

Let's say a guy with a completely limp arm walks into my office. The arm just hangs there, lifeless. The guy will never be able to use that arm again. What happened? Let's say his sleeve got caught in a machine, which drew in his arm, and that his arm was stuck in the machine for many hours while emergency response teams tried to extricate him. My client appears blameless. He was just doing his job the way he always did it, and the way his employer instructed him to do it. Why did the machine suck his arm in? Was it defectively designed? Was it improperly maintained? Why wasn't there a kill switch he could reach? Were the warnings and instructions on it sufficiently clear? Was my client simply not trained right on how to use it?

These facts are similar to several cases I have handled, including one I just recently took in. And I can't answer those questions I just posed, at least not yet. New York workplace injury lawyers like me need to rely on engineers to help us answer these questions. The main question, though, is whether the machine was "defective". By "defective" I mean "unreasonably dangerous", which is the standard for proving a New York product liability lawsuit. My client has a case only if the machine is "defective", and the engineer's main job is to determine whether it is defective.

I have already consulted with such an engineer. We are going to carefully examine the machine together. My expert engineer will then be able to tell me whether, in his opinion, the machine was defective. He will research the relevant standards for designing and building such machines during the time period when this machine was built, and also will research the standard warnings and instructions that should be placed on this kind of machine.

Since my client is poor and can't afford to pay the engineer, I have agreed to "front" the money for it. And it's expensive! But it's also the only way to find out if the client has a case. I sure hope he does have a case, because his workers' compensation payments (60% of his regular wages) don't pay all his bills, and he's got kids to feed.

If there is a defective machine case, it will be against the designer and builder of the machine. He can't sue his employer because workers' compensation law bars him from doing that.

I feel really bad for this client. He is a nice guy, with a bad injury, and has a tough economic situation. One of my worst jobs is to tell a seriously injured and blameless client "you have no case". I am hoping I don't have to tell him that.

Insurance companies love to snoop. They want to dig up all the dirt they can on you. They think that if they know everything about you, they will eventually unearth something they can use to torpedo your case.

For example, both federal and New York State law give you a right to medical privacy. Just because you are injured in an accident caused by someone else's negligence, and you sue them, doesn't mean you give up that right. But many insurance companies act as if this gives them a right to find out everything about your medical history. Whether my client is the victim of New York medical malpractice, a slip-and-fall case, a car accident, or other type of New York personal injury case, the insurance company lawyer will almost invariably ask me for "unrestricted" medical authorization, which, when signed by my client, will give the insurance company lawyer the right to access any and all medical records regarding any and all treatment my client may have gotten from any medical provider from the beginning of the world to the end of the world!

But New York personal injury and medical malpractice law doesn't give them a right to such broad authorizations. They can't snoop! They have a right only to the medical records that are relevant to the parts of the body you are claiming were injured. For example, if you are suing for a broken arm, they have a right to see all medical records, both pre-and post-accident, for treatment for that arm. They can't find out about your C-section, or your hemorrhoids, or about that depression you were treated for years ago!

A couple of years ago, in a case known as Mayer v. Cusyck, a trial judge gave me a bad ruling. He ordered me to supply the insurance company lawyer with unrestricted medical authorizations. I refused, appealed the Order, won, and the defense attorney ended up getting only those records relevant to the part of the body we were claiming was injured.

Every time a defense attorney asks me for "unrestricted" medical authorizations, I write them back and ask them to read Mayer v. Cusyck. But even when they read it, they don't always give up. I just finished battling this issue out in a case. The defense attorney made a motion to force me to turn over unrestricted medical authorizations. At first the judge appeared to agree with the defense attorney, but then I asked the him to read Mayer v. Cusyck. He did, he "got it", and then did the right thing: He gave the defense attorney ONLY the records relevant to the part of the body my client injured (her mouth and teeth).

It always surprises me how many New York personal injury lawyers allow their clients to sign unrestricted medical authorizations. They don't seem to care, or know, about their clients' right to privacy. They should care, and they should know! And so should you. If your New York personal injury lawyer asks you to sign unrestricted medical authorizations, have him or her read this blog post. Then have them call me if they want some legal briefs on this issue.

The Syracuse Post Standard reported the other day that an SUV struck a Syracuse man "on purpose" after an argument on Westcott Street Tuesday morning. Fortunately, the injuries do not appear serious; the victim suffered only cuts to his arm and leg and was taken to Upstate University Hospital.

Here's my blog topic for today: Will a New York State car accident insurance policy cover the man's medical expenses or anything else for that matter? Answer: No! Why not? Because this is not a New York motor vehicle "accident" case. It is a New York motor vehicle ASSAULT case. An accident is a mistake. This was no mistake. It was deliberate. No liability or car insurance on God's earth covers for motor vehicle assaults. The reason is simple: Insurance companies don't want people buying insurance policies so they can go out and deliberately bowl people over, and force the insurance company to pay!

Even if the victim owns his own car, his own SUM (supplemental uninsured motorist) coverage won't cover his injuries here, again because it was an "assault", not an "accident". To summarize: He can forget about auto insurance coverage of any kind!

So how will this poor guy get his medical bills paid? Hopefully, he has private health insurance, but if not, he will have to pay himself, or if he can't, he will have to apply for Medicaid. If he is of a certain age, or if he is already disabled, perhaps Medicare will pick up the tab.

This reminds me of a New York car-strikes-pedestrian case I tried in front of a Cayuga County jury several years ago. My client was a "meter man" in Auburn, New York As he was writing a car up for an expired parking meter, the car's owner showed up, got angry about it, and deliberately backed up into my client while he was copying down the license plate number. My client ended up with a knee injury. I was afraid the guy's auto insurer would disclaim coverage based on "assault" or "intentional act", but fortunately, the angry man claimed it was an accident (yeah, right . . . ), and told his insurance carrier so (because he wanted insurance coverage). My client lucked out on that one, because if the driver had admitted he had backed up to "get even" with my client, insurance coverage would have been denied.

Doesn't look like this car assault victim in Syracuse will be so lucky.

Yesterday the New York Times reported that, while drunken-driving deaths are dropping, car-accident deaths caused by drivers who have taken legally prescribed narcotics, such as painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medications, and other potent drugs, are increasing. Unlike with alcohol, no firm studies or guidelines exist determining what blood level of these drugs impairs driving. Yet the drugs, in many cases, clearly cause driving to deteriorate. They can impair motor skills, slow reaction time, and undermine judgment. For example, anti-anxiety drugs can make a driver less alert, and slower to react. Stimulants, on the other hand, can lead to risk-taking and diminished judgment. Drivers "on drugs" (albeit legal ones) often have many of the symptoms of drunk drivers --- bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, or erratic driving.

So here's my blog topic of the day: What happens, in a New York car accident lawsuit, if the defendant driver who you claim is at fault for the car accident, was "on drugs" (albeit legally prescribed ones) at the time of the collision? Can the fact that he or she took prescription drugs before the crash be used in Court to make out your case?

Answer: Yes, of course! Most prescription drugs that can affect driving have clear indications on them that they should not be ingested before driving or using machinery. And besides, common sense dictates the same. The motorist who struck your car should have known better, and had a duty to either refrain from using the drugs or refrain from driving. So it is no excuse that the drugs taken by the driver, who, say, swerved into your lane, were "legal".

In Court, your New York auto accident lawyer may need to hire an expert pharmacologist to explain to the jury the affect the drugs likely had on the driver. But probably not --- in most cases it will be clear that the drugged motorist is responsible for the collision because he or she crossed into your lane, blew the stop sign, failed to yield --- or whatever. Only in cases where the driver's fault is more subtle --- for example, delayed reaction time --- will such expert testimony be needed.

One more thing --- read your prescriptions before driving! If they are likely to affect your driving, they should tell you how long to wait after ingesting the drug before driving. Thanks for being safe!