The death toll reached 15, with 13 killed instantly and two others dying later from injuries sustained in the crash. The driver and 18 passengers were injured, five of them critically. The scene of the accident was grisly, with at least one of the passengers decapitated and severed limbs among both survivors and deceased.

The bus, en route at about 5:30 a.m from the Mohegan Sun casino in Uncasville, Connecticut to Manhattan’s Chinatown neighborhood, was traveling on Interstate-95, a major highway in the Bronx. According to the bus driver, Ophadell Williams, the tour bus was in the right hand lane, and a tractor-trailer passing in the center lane clipped the bus. In an effort to evade the truck, Williams swerved causing the bus to hit the guardrail, topple over, and skid along for 300 feet. The real devastation occurred when the bus careened into a support post for a highway sign. The pole entered through the front window and, due to the bus’s velocity, sheared through the entire length of the bus, cutting through the seating area along the passenger window line and peeling the whole roof off.

The results were catastrophic. 13 people were killed immediately. Many people were hurled to the front of the bus upon impact. When the bus came to rest, passenger Chung Ninh, 59, found himself hanging upside down, held in by his seat belt. He tried to assist fellow passengers, but the first one he found was a dead woman. The driver told him to “forget this one, help another one.” Ninh and other able passengers were able to escape through a skylight. Another passenger, Jose Hernandez, said people were “screaming for help.” He tried to help people but said there was twisted metal in the way.

Rescue teams arrived quickly and found a scene of carnage. Captain James Ellson, a 20-year veteran of rescues and fires, was among the first on the scene and found “a pile of humans, either still in their seats or on the floor, wrapped in the metal, wrapped in the wreckage. They were in the full length of the bus; from the front to the rear there were bodies.”

The bus’s driver Williams said he may have been clipped by a step sticking off the read end of the tractor-trailer, but passengers have not yet corroborated his story. Passenger testimony has been difficult to attain as the passengers in the front who were most likely to have witnessed the crash are either deceased or critically wounded, and the passengers in the back are most able to give testimony but did not see the accident clearly. Authorities have received reports that the bus was exceeding the posted speed on the Interstate of 55 miles per hour. Results are pending for drug and alcohol tests of the bus driver’s blood.

In an evening news conference on March 12, Major Michael Kopy of the State police said authorities tracked down a trailer on Long Island and a tractor in Westchester County. Both have been seized and taken to a police compound in Farmingdale to determine if they may have made contact with the bus.

Video from a camera aboard the bus has been obtained, which authorities will analyze. There are also surveillance cameras on the stretch of Interstate-95 near the crash, but most are traffic cameras with no recording capability.

The tour bus is operated by World Wide Tours, a company based in Brooklyn. The statement issued by the owners of World Wide Tours expressed sympathy for the victims and their families. The company said they are cooperating with investigators.

According to the federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, World Wide Tours was recently flagged by federal regulators for issues with fatigued drivers. Although its overall safety record was satisfactory, the company’s buses have been involved in two crashes resulting in passenger injuries in the last two years.

All the evidence is being reviewed by authorities to determine who was at fault for the disastrous crash. For now, Major Kopy said the crash is being handled as a criminal investigation.

The grieving family of late sergeant Cindy Wilson received a second devastating emotional blow after learning that they were unable to seek legal damages against the negligent medical team responsible for Cindy’s death. Laboring to deliver her first child, a son, 37-year old Wilson underwent a cesarean section that went horribly wrong. During this surgery, the doctors severed a major uterine artery, which caused massive bleeding leading to Ms. Wilson’s death just 12 hours later. Furthermore, a medical investigation found that the doctors had left two medical sponges inside Ms. Wilson before stitching her up, a ghastly medical mistake that often results in infection and death.

Despite clear evidence that Ms. Wilson’s death was the direct result of gross medical malpractice, her widowed husband, now-motherless child and grieving parents are unable to sue for wrongful death because of a federal legal statute that prevents service members and their families from collecting damages for personal injuries, wrongful death, and loss of consortium from other members of the military. To make matters worse, another federal law mandating confidentiality of medical quality assurance records has prevented Cindy’s grieving family from access to the medical investigation findings pertaining to her death. Further adding insult to injury, the lead obstetrician during Cindy’s c-section continues to practice and received no professional disciplinary action.

Sadly, Ms. Wilson’s case is not the only instance of gross military medical malpractice for which the aggrieved have been able to see compensation. The following are just some recent cases of military medical malpractice that have not had their day in court due to the Feres Doctrine.

• A naval officer died after his cancer was diagnosed as eczema.
• An air force sergeant suffered irreparable brain damage after doctors failed to diagnose his appendicitis.
• A sailor was rendered infertile when military surgeons left five sponges and a plastic device in her stomach during surgery.
• A marine sergeant died of undiagnosed and untreated cancer, despite having several medical exams by military personnel.
• A navy petty officer suffered permanent brain damage after doctors failed to treat him for an uncomplicated case of pneumonia.

In all of these cases, the injured and their grieving family were unable to seek damages due to the Feres Doctrine.

What is the Feres Doctrine?

The Feres Doctrine is a federal statute established during a series of court cases including a landmark Supreme Court case in 1950 (Feres v. United States) involving a member of the armed services who died after an Army doctor left a 30 by 18 inch towel in his body during surgery. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the US and members of its armed services cannot be held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to other military members during active duty.

Originally the federal law was meant to bar medical malpractice lawsuits only in cases of combat-related injuries, but the Feres Doctrine broadened the US government’s protection from liability to all cases of military medical malpractice.

Reactions to the Feres Doctrine

Military families, lawyers, and Congress members have long been opposed to the Feres Doctrine, arguing that the law renders service members second-class citizens. They also point to increased cases of military medical malpractice in the absence of any legal consequences for such negligence. According to Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, these above-mentioned cases illustrate how the Feres Doctrine has contributed to substandard military medical care. He considers the Doctrine one of the most grotesque rules created in the history of this country and says that it has done untold damage to thousands of military personnel and their loved ones.

Supreme Court judges have hotly contested the Feres Doctrine since its inception. In a 1987 Supreme Court decision Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonio Scalia dissented to a reaffirmation of the Doctrine by declaring it wrongly decided and deserving of the widespread almost universal criticism it has received.

Attempted to repeal this unjust law have surfaced routinely in the last 20 years but without success. One reason cited for this failure is the costs associated with upgrading the military medical system to meet basic civilian medical standards. “Congress simply doesn’t want to spend the money,” says Turley. “Soldiers and sailors are a real bargain to kill and injure in the United States.”

Who is Sonia Sotomayor?

Sonia Sotomayor, born in the New York City borough of the Bronx in 1954, has worked tirelessly in the legal profession for over 30 years. As a former New York City District Attorney prosecutor and private practice attorney, Sotomayor joined the US Federal Court system in 1992 when she became the youngest and first Puerto Rican American to become a judge for the US District Court. She later became a judge for the US Court of Appeals and is now under consideration for a Justice position with the US Supreme Court, the highest court in our nation.

Sotomayor Timeline

June 23, 1954       Sonia Sotomayor is born in the Bronx, New York
1962                         Diagnosed with diabetes at age 8
1976                         Graduates from Princeton University summa cum laude
1979                         Receives her JD at Yale and serves as Editor of Yale Law School
Journal
Early                        1980s serves as a prosecutor for Manhattan District Attorney’s office
1983                         Divorced
1984                         Enters private legal practice
1992                         Became the youngest person and the first Puerto Rican
American to be appointed as a United States District Court
judge for the Southern District of New York
1998                        Began serving as a judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
May 2009             President Barack Obama nominates Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, to replace retiring judge David H Souter.

Considered neither an extreme liberal nor a crusader, Sotomayor has earned a reputation as an astute, outspoken, fearless, and sometimes sharp-tongued judge who is unswayed by powerful political interests.

With regards to predicting her views on major current issues, it is unclear where Sotomayor may side on matters such as abortion, gay marriage, and big business. Some abortion rights activists feel Sotomayor may not be a reliable vote to assure that Roe v Wade is upheld at this moment when the nation is deeply divided over abortion and its legality. Lawyers and scholars say they are unable to clearly place Sotomayor as either pro or anti-business.

Primer on the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, the highest judicial body in the US, consists of nine Supreme Court Justices including one Chief Justice. All Justices are nominated by the President, confirmed by a Senate majority, and serve for life. In contemporary times, once a judge has been nominated a Senate Judiciary Committee forms to conduct hearings, question nominees, and determine their suitability. Following their confirmation hearings, the Committee votes on whether the nomination should go to the full Senate with a positive, negative or neutral report. While it is possible for a President to withdrawal his nomination of a candidate if he feels the nominee will not be confirmed, historically the Senate usually confirms a President’s nominee.

Current Supreme Court Justices

The current Supreme Court bench is composed of nine justices:

1. Chief Justice John Roberts (age 54)- nominated by GW Bush
2. Justice John Paul Stevens (89)- nominated by Ford
3. Justice Antonin Scalia (73)- nominated by Reagan
4. Justice Anthony Kennedy (72)- nominated by Reagan
5. Justice Clarence Thomas (60)- nominated by GHW Bush
6. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (76)- nominated by Clinton
7. Justice Stephen Breyer (70)- nominated by Clinton
8. Justice Samuel Alito (59) – nominated by GW Bush
9. Justice David Souter (69) – nominated by GHW Bush

The Sotomayor Nomination

If Sotomayor is confirmed, she will be the first Latina woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court. This fact has Conservative critics in a sticky position as they attempt to weigh the price of aggressive opposition to the first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee at a time when they are trying so desperately to appeal to Hispanic voters.
Furthermore, if confirmed, Sotomayor will be one of two women currently serving on the Supreme Court and the third woman ever two fill this position.