Ohio Senator introduces a bill in response to the Ohio Supreme Court boneless wings ruling
Ohio state Sen. William DeMora, D-Columbus, speaks at the Statehouse in Columbus, Ohio. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original story.)
An Ohio Democratic Senator recently introduced a bill in response to last summer's Ohio Supreme Court ruling saying that a man who ordered boneless wings should have expected bones in them and denied him a jury trial after he sustained significant injuries.
State Sen. Bill DeMora, D-Columbus, was outraged by the Supreme Court ruling and introduced Senate Bill 38 last month which would look at how the state determines liability when someone is injured by 'negligently prepared food from a restaurant or food supplier,' DeMora said last week in his sponsor testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In 2016, Michael Berkheimer ate boneless wings at a Southwest Ohio restaurant, but felt like he swallowed something wrong. He developed a fever later that night and ended up going to the hospital a couple days later with a 105-degree fever. The doctors discovered a nearly two inch chicken bone in his throat that ripped open the wall of his esophagus.
Berkheimer developed an infection, had to undergo several surgeries, was in two medically induced comas, and had a week-long stay in intensive care.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
He sued the restaurants and their chicken suppliers in 2017, saying 'negligence' led to his injuries. The Butler County Court of Common Pleas and the Twelfth District Court of Appeals sided against Berkheimer and didn't let the case go to trial.
The case went to the Ohio Supreme Court where the majority ruled the lower courts made the right decision. The ruling was four Republicans to three Democrats.
The restaurant wasn't liable 'when the consumer could have reasonably expected and guarded against the presence of the injurious substance in the food,' Ohio Supreme Court Justice Joe Deters wrote in the majority opinion.
This story received national attention and even ended up being a bit on 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.'
'What (Berkheimer) went through was horrific, timeconsuming, and costly,' DeMora said in his testimony.
But the bill doesn't focus on Berkheimer's injuries, but rather how judges were the ones who decided his case.
'That's not just wrong,' DeMora said. 'It's a direct assault on the very foundation of our legal system.'
S.B. 38 is trying to change that.
'It will make sure that future cases like Mr. Berkheimer's are heard by a jury – as our Constitution demands,' DeMora said. 'It will also make sure that when determining liability, we use the reasonable expectations test used by most states.'
Follow Capital Journal Reporter Megan Henry on Bluesky.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Four ways NIOSH's Spokane Research Lab, now facing closure, has improved workers' safety
Jun. 7—Spokane is home to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health's biggest facility in the western United States, where researchers have worked to prevent harm to workers in mining, commercial fishing, wildland firefighting and other dangerous jobs. Now, NIOSH's Spokane Research Laboratory is at risk of closure after the Trump administration notified nearly all its employees in March that their jobs would be eliminated by the beginning of July. Those terminations are on hold after courts in California ruled that President Donald Trump's mass firing of federal workers likely violated the Constitution, but the more than 80 employees in Spokane remain on paid administrative leave and their fate is unclear. Facing pressure from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who leads NIOSH's parent agency, has brought back about 300 of the 900 workers who were terminated — none of them in Spokane. The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to questions from The Spokesman-Review about the rationale for the mass firing and any plans to reinstate more workers. Here are four examples of the research NIOSH employees in Spokane have conducted to improve safety for workers. 1. Protecting oil and gas workers from deadly fumes For years, federal regulations required workers in the oil and gas industry to open hatches on top of huge storage tanks to take samples of the oil inside. In 2013, a doctor at the University of California, San Francisco contacted NIOSH and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, a regulatory agency, about the deaths of two of those workers. Working with the physician and OSHA, NIOSH researchers in Spokane used their database of fatalities in the oil and gas industry and found a total of nine similar deaths that occurred from 2010 to 2014. The deceased workers ranged in age from 20 to 63, and coroners attributed most of the deaths to heart disease, with no autopsy conducted in one case, but the NIOSH data showed a clear pattern. The truck drivers and other workers, who often worked alone, were found "collapsed over open hatch" or "slumped over on catwalk next to tank" — all while doing the same job task, "collecting sample" or "gauging." After NIOSH researchers identified the pattern of deaths, all likely due to workers opening a hatch and being engulfed in a plume of hydrocarbon gases and air that lacked oxygen, they worked with other federal agencies and the oil and gas industry to implement new regulations and safer methods of gauging the tanks' contents. 2. Detecting airborne silica to prevent lung disease in miners At hard-rock mines like Lucky Friday in the Silver Valley east of Coeur d'Alene miners can't get to valuable minerals without blasting, crushing and grinding a lot of crystalline silica, the most common mineral on earth. But when a miner breathes in silica dust, it damages the lungs and causes silicosis, an incurable disease that causes severe breathing problems and can lead to death. Currently, the standard method of measuring airborne silica involves sending a sample to a lab and waiting days or even weeks for a result, said Art Miller, a particle scientist who researched silica detection at the Spokane Research Lab until he retired in 2020. Miller and his colleagues at NIOSH facilities in Spokane and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, have worked for years to develop faster methods of detecting dangerous levels of silica dust. The researchers have developed a tool that produces same-day test results, but a project in Spokane to create a wearable, real-time silica monitor that would immediately alert workers to dangerous levels of dust is now in jeopardy. 3. Making commercial fishing vessels safer The NIOSH facility in Spokane houses the agency's research on maritime safety, covering waters from Alaska's Bering Sea to the Gulf of Mexico, which the Trump administration recently renamed as the Gulf of America. After a 15-year-old boy working on a shrimp boat in the Gulf died in 2012 when his clothing got caught in a winch, the Coast Guard asked NIOSH to look into the prevalence of such entanglements and find a solution. Researchers found 35 severe injuries, eight of them fatal, had occurred on shrimping vessels between 2000 and 2011 when workers got entangled in winches used to haul nets out of the water. NIOSH designed guards to fit several common winch models and made them available to shrimpers. The crab fishing season in the Bering Sea, made famous by the reality TV show "Deadliest Catch," has long been one of the world's most dangerous workplaces. From 1990 to 1999, an average of eight crab fishermen died each season. When NIOSH researchers analyzed the fatalities, they found that most were caused by boats capsizing because they were overladen with crab pots as they raced to maximize their catch in the brief season. Based on those findings, the Coast Guard began enforcing limits on crab pots, and fatalities in the still-dangerous industry fell to an average of one per year in the following 15 years. 4. Keeping miners safe deep underground The Lucky Friday Mine in Mullan, owned by Coeur d'Alene-based Hecla Mining, has the deepest mine shaft in the world at more than 9,500 feet underground. The mine shut down for more than a year and required more than $30 million in upgrades after a rock burst and other accidents killed two miners and injured seven others in 2011. NIOSH's Spokane Mining Research Division has worked with companies to improve safety at Lucky Friday and other hard-rock mines in the western United States for decades, developing techniques and technologies that have been applied by miners around the world. Brad Seymour, a NIOSH mining engineer and union steward in Spokane, started researching ground support methods to prevent deadly collapses in 1986, when the office was part of the now-defunct U.S. Bureau of Mines. Early in his career, he helped to improve cemented backfill techniques — filling underground voids with mill tailings and other material to prevent collapse — at the Cannon Mine in Wenatchee. Those improvements were adopted by other mines, he said, helping fuel a gold mining boom in Nevada in the 1990s and now improving safety and efficiency at North Idaho mines like Lucky Friday and the Galena Complex. Orion Donovan Smith's work is funded in part by members of the Spokane community via the Community Journalism and Civic Engagement Fund. This story can be republished by other organizations for free under a Creative Commons license. For more information on this, please contact our newspaper's managing editor.
Newsweek
17 hours ago
- Newsweek
Can Tackling Addictions Reduce Medicaid Costs?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Discussions around Medicaid costs have become more heated than ever in recent months as President Donald Trump's administration tries to push its budget bill through the legislative ranks. House Republicans have instructed the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to slash $880 billion in spending over the next decade, with Medicaid making up 93 percent of the committee's budget. As a result, the amount of money the federal Medicaid program needs to provide health care services for more than 70 million Americans has been under dispute, with some arguing there is significant waste and misuse of money in the system, while others have warned cuts would leave millions of vulnerable people without access to health care. While lawmakers continue debating the divisive legislation, experts have discussed with Newsweek whether there could be another way of reducing Medicaid costs—tackling substance use disorders. Medicaid enrollees with substance use disorders require significantly higher health costs than those without—around $1,200 per month on average compared to $550, according to KFF. Around 7.2 percent of Medicaid recipients age 12 to 64 have a diagnosed substance use disorder, and treatment is key to addressing overdoses, deaths and other health or social complications, KFF reported. So could tackling substance use disorders in turn reduce costs for the Medicaid program? Here's what experts told Newsweek. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva Why Are Medicaid Costs Higher for Those With Substance Use Disorders? The reason Medicaid enrollees with substance use disorders have higher health costs is because they often also have additional health complications, Dr. Joshua Lynch, professor of emergency and addiction medicine at the University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, New York, told Newsweek. This could be physical health conditions, such as hypertension, high cholesterol and diabetes, or mental health disorders, "which can lead to more complex health care needs," he added. Those with substance use disorders also may "experience more fragmented care and more challenging access to high quality, lower cost care and preventative services," Lynch said. They may also struggle to work, or stay in work, and this may "contribute to increased reliance on higher-cost healthcare services," he added. Many Americans with substance use disorders also go undiagnosed, Brendan Saloner, professor of health policy and management at the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, told Newsweek. He added that those with substance addiction can have a lot of problems, such as the risk of overdose, or contracting blood-borne diseases like HIV or hepatitis C, as well as other issues, so "it's much better to get people into care proactively then to wait for their problems to become a crisis." The higher costs for those with substance use disorders, therefore, could "reflect the devastating physical consequences of substance use itself," Heidi Allen, professor of social work at the Columbia University School of Social Work, New York, told Newsweek, pointing to overdoses, increased vulnerability for chronic illness and exposure to infectious diseases. It's also not just about health complications, John Kelly, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and director of the Recovery Research Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital, told Newsweek. "The nature of these disorders means also that, on average, in the Medicaid population, individuals suffering from substance use disorder tend to have more social instability in terms of secure housing, employment, and criminal justice complications. These all contribute to increased costs," he said. Could Tackling Substance Use Disorders Reduce Medicaid Costs? While tackling substance use disorders may not slash Medicaid costs in the short term, as it would require investment in prevention and treatment, it could have positive economic impacts in the long run. "Prioritizing substance use treatment for enrollees might not reduce Medicaid costs in the short term, since we would expect more Medicaid enrollees to engage with treatment, which itself costs money," Allen said. However, she added that "it could certainly improve the health of enrollees, which might result in Medicaid savings down the road." If patients also have access to high-quality treatment and are able to manage their condition, "they have a lower reliance on high-cost health care such as emergency visits and inpatient hospitalizations," Lynch said. He added that other comorbidities also become more manageable, while housing stability and employment turn more achievable. "All of these will lead to a decrease in overall Medicaid spending," he said. Kelly also said he thought that tackling substance use disorders could reduce costs for Medicaid, adding that "focus on earlier intervention, and better implementation of care coordination will result in reduced use of more expensive acute medical care services, as well as prevention of the contraction of more chronic disease such as alcohol-associated liver diseases, HIV and hepatitis infections." "I am very confident that it would help to prevent some long-term costs to the program and would have a huge impact on other non-health needs like employment and reduced incarceration," Saloner said. But he added that whether it fully pays for itself, or saves money, is a more difficult question to answer. "We have some older studies showing that substance use care can offset lots of costs to society, but purely from the perspective of the Medicaid budget it's hard to say. The quality of life gains make it very cost-effective, whether or not it's cost saving," he said. Carrie Fry, professor in the department of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Tennessee, told Newsweek: "Research shows that addressing substance use disorder with effective, evidence-based treatments reduces Medicaid costs." In order to cut Medicaid costs, Fry said, making it easier for people with substance use disorders "to start and remain on effective treatment" would be an important step in the process. "For opioid use disorder, this means expanding availability of medications for opioid use disorder including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone," she said. She added that only about half of Medicaid enrollees with an opioid use disorder receive evidence-based treatment in a given year. "So, treatment is an important first step to addressing the burden of substance use disorders in Medicaid and can reduce or prevent additional downstream costs," Fry said. She added that reducing the prevalence of substance use disorder via prevention will "require a more comprehensive approach to addressing broader social conditions that lead to increased risk of developing a substance use disorder."
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
Biden's doctor failed to properly assess fitness for office, Obama's doctor says
The rare criticism of one White House doctor by another comes as Republicans have increased scrutiny of O'Connor and other former White House aides. House Republicans subpoenaed O'Connor on Thursday, a day after President Donald Trump ordered White House attorneys to determine whether Biden's inner circle tried to conceal his alleged cognitive decline. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Kuhlman also said the 2024 report merely assessed Biden's health when it should have considered his fitness to serve in one of the most taxing jobs on the planet. Advertisement 'It shouldn't be just health, it should be fitness,' Kuhlman said. 'Fitness is: Do you have that robust mind, body, spirit that you can do this physically, mentally, emotionally demanding job?' O'Connor did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Biden's recent disclosure of metastatic prostate cancer and reporting about his alleged physical and cognitive decline have fueled suspicion - among Democrats as well as Republicans - that the true state of Biden's health toward the end of his term was known only by O'Connor and a few others closest to Biden. Advertisement Journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson sketched a picture of a well-meaning but weakened president in a book they released last month. The book, which draws on interviews with dozens of Democratic insiders after the 2024 election, paints a portrait of a man suffering at times from forgetfulness, incoherence and fatigue. It also says that O'Connor was reluctant to give Biden a cognitive test, though he was assessed by a neurologist for conditions such as Parkinson's disease. Biden gave a sarcastic response last week. 'You can see that I'm mentally incompetent, and I can't walk, and I can beat the hell out of both of them,' he told reporters at a Memorial Day event, apparently referring to Tapper and Thompson. Biden's granddaughter Naomi Biden has called the book 'political fairy smut.' The book isn't the first time Biden's cognitive state has been questioned. Special counsel Robert K. Hur said in February 2024 that Biden had 'limited precision and recall' - including not remembering when his vice-presidential term ended - after Hur conducted two days of interviews with Biden about his handling of classified documents. Kuhlman formerly worked alongside O'Connor in the White House medical unit, a nonpartisan post, and appointed him in 2009 to serve as then-Vice President Biden's personal doctor. Kuhlman was Obama's physician from 2009 to 2013. O'Connor examined Biden - and signed his name to the February 2024 medical report that said the president 'continues to be fit for duty' - four months before a disastrous campaign debate between Trump and Biden prompted Democrats to call for Biden to step down as the nominee. Advertisement Kuhlman, who left the medical unit in 2013, said he tries not to criticize those who have held similar positions. He called O'Connor 'a good doctor' who seemed to do his best to 'give trusted medical advice.' 'I didn't see that he's purposely hiding stuff, but I don't know that,' he said. 'Maybe the investigation will show it.' Kuhlman wrote a 2024 book about his experiences in the White House Medical Unit in which he argued for cognitive testing for older candidates and presidents. O'Connor's six-page report included Biden's lab results and an explanation of various conditions for which he was being treated. It also listed 10 medical specialists, including a neurologist, who also examined Biden. 'President Biden is a healthy, active, robust 81-year-old male, who remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the presidency,' O'Connor wrote. White House doctors have long been under intense public scrutiny, balancing the deeply personal doctor-patient relationship with a responsibility to tell the American public whether the president is fit to serve - and if not, why. Some have gone to great lengths to hide when the president is severely ill - as Grover Cleveland's doctors did when they turned a yacht into an operating room to secretly remove a tumor from the president's mouth in 1893. Presidential physicians also are expected to communicate to Americans personal information about the very person who could fire them. 'Whether it's family who are worried for them or people who work for them and don't want to lose their jobs, no one has a vested interest in hearing the truth about the president's health - except for the American people and the world,' said Barbara Perry, a presidential historian at the University of Virginia. Advertisement It has not always been clear what role the White House doctors see for themselves. Even as they are often close confidants of the president, they must consider the good of the country in their recommendations about what tests and treatments to pursue. O'Connor repeatedly refused last year to administer a cognitive exam to Biden even as aides privately expressed concerns about his mental fitness, according to Tapper and Thompson's book. Trump's former doctors, including Ronny Jackson and Sean Conley, have at times sounded more like cheerleaders for the president than sober judges of his health. His current doctor, Sean Barbabella, mentioned Trump's 'frequent victories in golf events' in the first medical report of his second term. Jackson suggested to the media in 2018 that Trump had 'incredibly good genes' and joked that he might live to 200 years old if his eating habits were more healthful. Jackson, now a Republican congressman from Texas, was demoted by the U.S. Navy after an inspector general report shed light on multiple misdeeds involving alcohol and harassment while he served in the White House medical unit. Conley, who succeeded Jackson, repeatedly downplayed the severity of Trump's symptoms when he was hospitalized with covid-19 in the fall of 2020. Past presidents who didn't want the public to know the truth about their poor health have orchestrated elaborate cover-ups. After Woodrow Wilson suffered a major stroke in 1919, leaving him with a paralyzed left side, his doctor conspired with Wilson's wife to keep his condition hidden from his own Cabinet. Advertisement Cleveland insisted the operation to remove his tumor be secretly performed on a friend's yacht, under the guise that he was on a fishing trip near his summer home on Long Island. The administration denied an initial report about the surgery, and the truth wasn't widely accepted until after Cleveland's death many years later, when one of his doctors publicly confessed. On the other hand, Dwight D. Eisenhower reportedly ordered his press secretary to 'tell them everything' after suffering a heart attack in 1955. His surgeons regularly briefed the public after his heart surgery. But medical transparency is only as strong as the president wants it to be. Like regular Americans, the president is protected by medical privacy laws, so disclosing any health information is ultimately up to him. An additional challenge, former White House doctors and presidential historians say, is that there is no official requirement for how often a president should undergo an exam, what the exam should include and which of the results should be made public. 'There's nothing codified about what to do,' said Kuhlman, who also served on the White House medical unit under George W. Bush. White House doctors traditionally conduct an annual physical exam on the president and release a memo of varying length that includes vital signs, a summary of the physical examination and the results of blood tests. These memos generally conclude with some kind of pronouncement from the doctor that the president is fit to execute the duties of the presidency. Trump's and Biden's doctors have largely followed that pattern, although the reports on Biden's health have been significantly longer and more detailed than the reports on Trump. Advertisement Kuhlman and Lawrence Mohr, who served as physician to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said they were never asked by any president to withhold medical information in their reports. Mohr said he recalls that there was 'never any question' about being candid about the president's health. 'You never lie; never, never say anything that's not true,' Mohr said. 'You put out a clear press release about what's going on, what to expect and you get it out there. If you don't do that, you end up with all sorts of speculation.' Reagan was 77 when he left office and five years later announced he had Alzheimer's disease. He faced similar questions about his fitness to serve. Mohr recollected administering the Mini-Mental State Examination - a test used to assess cognitive function - to the 40th president. Trump's doctors have given him a different cognitive test, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. But cognitive tests are not standard practice. Neither George W. Bush nor Obama took one, Kuhlman said. But they were much younger while in office than Biden. 'I was fortunate to have 50-year-old patients instead of 80-year-old ones,' Kuhlman said.
