Comments on: Jon Corzine: A look as his injuries

By: John J. Coupal

John J. Coupal — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 01:18:00 +0000

Sure, Gov. Corzine can pay all his medical bills and the citation. I wonder if ther state trooper now will issue the citation.

Not mentioned is the loss to the people of New Jersey of the services of their elected governor for what appears to be several months.

Ideas do have consequences.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 03:24:00 +0000

“That he, as governor, has flagrantly flaunted this law suggests that he has the attitude that he is above the law of his state.”

He can afford his hospital bills, even out of pocket, unlike most of the general populace. A good question is whether your health insurance should exclude injuries sustained in an accident when a law is being broken. He can also afford the citation. Have you ever wondered if people who can afford the $20 million to go to the space station have to wear a seat belt?

By: John J. Coupal

John J. Coupal — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 01:32:00 +0000

Perhaps Governor Corzine is too important a person to wear a seat belt.

Kind of weird that his driver was a state policeman.

By: Gasman

Gasman — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 01:20:00 +0000

We don’t have to debate whether seatbelts would have been of benefit in this situation. It is unequivocal that they are beneficial overall. After all, we don’t know what kind of accident we will have until we have it (that’s whey they are called accidents).
Indeed, seatbelts are so beneficial (on average) that Mr. Corzine’s state has a law mandating their use. That he, as governor, has flagrantly flaunted this law suggests that he has the attitude that he is above the law of his state. If he survives his injuries he should be issued a citation for failure to wear his seatbelt.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:15:00 +0000

I just LOVE them big words some allopath’s use!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:34:00 +0000

Well, I think Don Imus should be the focus of this discussion. After all, had it not been for his comments, Mr. Corzine would not have been enroute to event concerning Mr. Imus. How’s that for another opinion?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:41:00 +0000

Would it be too much to ask to wait until a competent reconstruction is done to determine the mechanics of the collision prior to the onset of clinical causation speculation regarding whether or not the use of the primary restraint system would have mitigated the injuries at issue?

Not having seen any actual information of use, beyond lay reporting, it is speculative to discuss whether or not the primary restraint system would have precluded or substantially mitigated the injuries at issue. Firstly, one would have to ensure that the injuries arose as a result of a primarily frontal type of collision, which they appear to have given the bilateral nature of the rib fractures, the sternal fracture, the head injury and the femoral fracture (left leg leading with compression and bending secondary to impacting the dash). If the relevant component of the impact was a frontal collision (there appear to be multiple impacts here) then one must determine if the supplemental restraint system (SRS - airbag) deployed. If so, then one must determine if the injuries are due to contact with the SRS as it was deploying or due to contact with the now underlying dash and windshield secondary to insufficient restraint by the SRS. Finally, one must determine if the level of force as a result of the "secondary collision" (occupant with vehicle interior) would have been lowered sufficiently to mitigate the occurrence of the injuries at issue. One would suspect, given that a fractured lower vertebrae is present, that at least one of the aspects of the collision involved a substantive degree of superoinferiorly aligned compressive force (note - no disc heniation as the vertebrae fracture prior to the occurrence of posterior annular tearing, bulging or herniation of the nucleus pulposus).

Being a treater is irrelevant to having actual knowledge regarding the detailed (and differing) field of endeavor of reconstructing the accident and then determining if the forces applied to the occupant in question would or would not have mitigated the occurrence of the injuries were the primary restraint system utilized. For example,

Unless we are dealing with a rollover collision here, the last sentence of the original post (what and odd myth) is true but irrelevant to the subject case.

~Criminallopath~